Documenting the Undocumented

Trying to figure out what to think about the president's proposed guest worker program? The Urban Institute has a handy compilation of data on undocumented immigrants. (Kudos, by the way, to whomever invented the phrase "undocumented immigrants", the chief function of which appears to be pissing off cryptoracists—call them "illegals" dammit!—who will now send me angry emails explaining that they're not cryptoracists…)

Comments

[Zathras]

It may be, Julian, because they object to the idea that only those laws we approve of have to be obeyed. You certainly would not take that view of, say, laws protecting speech or forbidding discrimination against people whose last name ended with "z." With laws that do not have some benefit for you personally, evidently, the matter is different.

[Harvard@Cal]

Ummm, is not defining something as illegal essentially a moral judgement? Exactly what are the ultimate purposes of laws but to set norms and standards, informed by some moral judgements, as to what is allowed and not allowed? And how is "Speeders = Illegal Drivers" some kind of rebuttal? I would suggest that speeder is in itself a specfic judgement.

Child molester = Unallowed child manipulator
Murderer = freelance population reducer
Thief = non-authorized reallocation expert

Undocumented immigrants? Which documents are missing? And why? Oh, because they decided to enter the country "undocumentedlly". Ahh, but let's not use the "I" word, shall we? Let's gussy it all up with semantic gingerbread. What next, "It's not a tax, it's a fee".

[dan]

How about "foreign trespassers" or "criminal entrants"
Would that make you happy? Lack of "documentation" is not the problem, illegal entry is.

I live near the border and know that the illegal crossers are not of one race and my objection to their being here has nothing to do with race or color or even their country of origin.

I object to their illegally crossing the border into the US.

Enforce the law or change the law. But quit pissing on my head and telling me its only lemonade.

[Rich]

Hey, the Tax vs. Fee semantic crap is being foisted upon Marylanders by its new No-New-Taxes Republican governer, Robert Ehrlich the former Congressman (person?). I thought that was a nice touch for that party, since they of course NEVER want to raise taxes. So we just call 'em user fees...

[Thorley Winston]

Hey, the Tax vs. Fee semantic crap is being foisted upon Marylanders by its new No-New-Taxes Republican governer, Robert Ehrlich the former Congressman (person?). I thought that was a nice touch for that party, since they of course NEVER want to raise taxes. So we just call 'em user fees...

Really and what is wrong with that? A ?user fee? is when you charge someone for the cost of a particular government service (e.g. paying tuition to attend a State university) that they use whereas a tax in when you force someone to pay for a particular government service that they may not sue. Insofar as Governor Ehrlich shifts the burden to the people who actually demand and use government services rather than the general public, free marketers ought to applaud his actions. (1)

TW

(1) Assuming of course he is actually raising ?user fees? and the funding is going for that particular service rather than general revenue.

[Bill]

So, am I a self-hating crypto-racist? Illegal European immigrants piss me off, and I'm of Swedish-English-German decent. My wife is German, and she came here LEGALLY! An aside: I'd have little problem with "open borders" immigration if there were no social services. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, cost me money, damn it!

[Thorley Winston]

RC Dean wrote:

Do tell, though - what is racist about describing someone who is breaking the law as "illegal?"

There is nothing racist about it and Julian Sanchez knows it. However since his position on the issue is so weak and patently idiotic, he has had to resort to crying ?racism? in the hopes of silencing debate.

Funny, I seem to recall when Reason writers used to decry such tactics, now it appears that they have to engage in them to cover up their own inadequacies.

[Russ D]

"I object to their illegally crossing the border into the US."

I assume you don't object to their legally crossing the border.

But I figure you're full of crap. What you really object to is not how they cross the border, but what they do once they're inside. If they just hang out with friends, mop floors, and go to Jack-In-The-Box, you're still indignant because they don't have certain papers?

[Bill]

Thorley,

You are so right. I think Sanchez is one of these--warning, oxymoron coming--Left Libertarians!

[thoreau]

I can understand people who think there's too much immigration because it strains natural resources, public services, or whatever. I might not agree, but I understand.

And I can understand people who think there's too much immigration from a national security standpoint. I might not share all of their views (although I have some sympathies), but I most certainly see their point.

What I don't get is the people who say "I have absolutely no problem with Joe Immigrant coming here, living his life, working a job under terms voluntarily consented to by him and his boss, hanging out with friends, and whatnot. My only grievance is that he didn't get government permission before coming here."

Sure, I agree that the law is the law, and I don't like selective enforcement. But when I see a bad law that isn't enforced, my quarrel is usually with the state: Either enforce the law to be consistent, or repeal it. But I don't get mad at the people who are doing something that I don't think should be illegal.

So, to the people who supposedly have no qualms about Joe Immigrant getting a job and living his life (i.e. people in the third category that I described, not the first two categories), why are you mad at Joe Immigrant? You claim not to care if people come here, but you are upset that they do it without government permission. Why do you want them to get government permission in the first place?

Now, if you have a national security concern or an economic concern then say that. You then have a reason (however valid or invalid) for not wanting Joe Immigrant here. But don't say "I really don't care if he's here, I just think he should have government permission." If you really have zero qualms about his presence, why do you want the government involved?

[Dan]

the phrase "undocumented immigrants", the chief function of which appears to be pissing off cryptoracists

Cool! Next, we can call thieves "undocumented property owners", and rapists "unofficial lovers".

[B.P.]

Person breaking into Joe's home = uninvited guest

And Dan, I think a rapist would be a "unilateral lover"

[joe]

The difference, gentlemen, is that raping people, stealing the stuff, and breaking into their homes is harmful and wrong, law or no law. Moving to another town so you can give your kids a better life is neither harmful nor wrong.

The insistance that the word "illegal" be uses is based on the above fact: since there is no moral curse inherent in the concept of immigration, those who dislike immigration want the term used to describe it to sound scary.

[Dan]

Yeah, "unilateral lover" is even better. She's not a rape victim -- she's his unilateral girlfriend!

Speeders = Illegal Drivers
Most sidewalk vendors = Illegal Retailers
undocumented is just as accurate as illegal, but without the implied moral judgement.

Go ahead and call drivers and retailers "illegal" if you want. Unlike some of the little brains in this thread, I promist not to imply that you're a racist for doing it.

If you immigrate illegally, you're an illegal immigrant. An undocumented immigrant is an immigrant with no documentation on him, which may or may not make him an illegal immigrant depending on the circumstances.

It's silly to claim that there is an inherent moral weight to the term "illegal". There's nothing immoral about violating the law; as you yourself note, there are plenty of illegal things that we all do without considering ourselves immoral. But pretending you're not doing something illegal when you sneak across the border, or hawk watches on the sidewalk, or drive 85 in a 55 zone, is laughably stupid.

[Dan]

The difference, gentlemen, is that raping people, stealing the stuff, and breaking into their homes is harmful and wrong, law or no law. Moving to another town so you can give your kids a better life is neither harmful nor wrong.

That will be a valid point when I start calling the people sneaking across the border "immoral immigrants", "evil immigrants", or "harmful immigrants".

Until then, the point that rape and thievery are immoral and sneaking across the border isn't is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

I think I see the problem here. Perhaps you feel that morality is determined by the State?

[xray]

Thoreau: good post.

To all of you unreconstructed nitpickers who want to continue using the word illegals: go ahead, it's a free country (for you anyway). But please stop with the rapist/thief analogies, it just makes you look denser than I'm sure you are.

[xray]

Dan: Thank you for defending the statist position. Someone here has to remind us how we are all better off trusting politicians to tell us what words to use and what activities to engage in while at the same time protecting our economy from janitors and burger flippers.

[Lonewacko]

"There is nothing racist about it and Julian Sanchez knows it. However since his position on the issue is so weak and patently idiotic, he has had to resort to crying ?racism? in the hopes of silencing debate. Funny, I seem to recall when Reason writers used to decry such tactics, now it appears that they have to engage in them to cover up their own inadequacies."

I think Julian has gone off the deep end. "Undocumented person" is clearly newspeak. I would hope that reason would be a step above Hesiod or Atrios, and would favor naming things by their real names.

"Illegal alien" is the phrase used in the United States Code. See, for instance TITLE 8/CHAPTER 12/SUBCHAPTER II/Part IX/Sec. 1365. - Reimbursement of States for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and certain Cuban nationals.

On today's reading list:

3 Illegal Immigration Myths

"The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers"

"In San Diego County, only one owner, whose company hired workers for major hotels, has been prosecuted since 2000, and he was given probation. No business has been fined."

Americans oppose increase in immigration

Real Cost of Bush's Immigration Plan Staggering

Six Reasons Amnesty Is a Bad Idea (the author lives and works in Mexico)

An example of how not calling things by their real names distorts stories. (I haven't received a reply from AZCentral or Supervisor Wilcox.)

[Jason Ligon]

"The insistance that the word "illegal" be uses is based on the above fact: since there is no moral curse inherent in the concept of immigration, those who dislike immigration want the term used to describe it to sound scary."

When an undocumented worker comes to the US and does not pay taxes, and potentially collects social services and uses public education, there is an element of 'taking their stuff'. In the absence of a welfare state, I would pretty much agree with joe.

[Jason Ligon]

I note that wacko has strong feelings about this issue ...

[bigslacker]

Joe, I disagree that "undocumented" is just as accurate as "illegal,". A speeder is not "undocumented", but rather "illegal". "Undocumented" would indicate the person is doing something he could otherwise do, but merely has not completed some set of documentation. For example, if you are over sixteen, have completed drivers education, have insurance when required, and have not commited any crimes that would prevent one from obtaining a drivers license...then you could stretch it a bit and say you are an "undocumented" driver (though we really know what you are doing is illegal). A semi driver who is "undocumented" is likely undocumented because they have not proven themselves to be able to live up to our set of laws for operating a large vehicle. Merely "undocumented" or outright "illegal". (I'm a bit wishywashy on that. I defer to George Ryan and the family of the people who were killed by the improperly documented semi driver) "Undocumented" workers are not those who could otherwise be legal workers. Were that the case they would just fill in the appropriate forms and become "documented". They have not obeyed immigration laws, while "legals" have obeyed these laws. Their illegal activity causes country X (U.S.) to adjust the numbers of legal immigrants it can/will accept. (not a victimless crime, legals pay) "Illegals" have not had to take language courses or pass a constitution test. When "they" get here they forge documents and lie on almost every official and unofficial form they have to fill out.

..and they really do take "our" jobs. The argument that they only take jobs other people don't want is bullshit. Plenty of legals, including legal immigrants, would like to have jobs doing assembly line work, or janitorial services, gardening (er, sorry, "lawn care"), driving, home cleaning, etc. If you are a working professional it may seem a logical no-brainer to you that nobody would want that job, but step outside your professional circle of friends and/or the city/suburbia and you'll see plenty of folks working those jobs - even at minimum wage. Sure, they would like to make more than that, but there is a large supply of "illegals" willing to do it for less than wages most legal Americans would find acceptable.

I've now decided I am no longer white or european or caucasian, I'm a Legal-American. (If anyone else calls me that, they are racist...)

[xray]

Strong feelings and multiple links!

[Jason Ligon]

The irony of the immigrant debate is that the same people who insist that the minimum wage is unharmful also insist that we need immigrants to do the jobs that no one wants to do.

What people really mean is that we need immigrants to do jobs that we have made illegal by way of the minimum wage and expensive labor regs.

[sj]

very strong feelings and multiple links!!!!!!!!

[Melinda]

Thanks Julian. I came here specifically looking for info on immigration, as I also have Bush's proposal on the brain. This must mean all hispanics think alike.
😉

[SM]

Bill wrote -
"Immigrants, both legal and illegal, cost me money, damn it!"

Can you please explain how legal immigrants cost you any more money than you cost them ?

[Allen Phelps]

Good post thoreau.

Along those lines, do the people who complain about the people being here illegally feel the same way about illegal drug users? Or a bar owner who continues to let his patrons smoke in an area in which it is banned. Or people that were breaking sodomy laws (before Lawrence). Are all the laws currently on the books just and are people who break them always morally wrong?

Personally my take on immigration is let the people come in if they want to work. There are some concerns as far as their impact on social programs like social security, medicare, education. Then again, there are concerns about those programs without looking at immigrants impact.

[R. Hendricks]

Does a nation have the right to determine who gets to come into the country?

If the answer is yes, than "illegal" is the appropriate word.

[Ann Onymous]

SM:

It's really simple: I cost Bill money because I'm sitting on 3 patents (in biotech field - and dammit, if I can't profit from them, nobody will [Who is John Galt?]) instead of providing for his retirement (not counting on SS to last until I retire, so shuddup about me being after social services and what not). Reason: I'm trying to play by the rules, and can't start my own business until my green card comes through (about 3 years, even though 1st preference visa numbers are available immediately). Ironic, ain't it?

...the only thing that's more ironic is pervasive cluelessness about how immigration system works on this board. Lonewacko, I'm talking to you!

[thoreau]

I think we can all agree that the word "illegal immigrant" is an accurate term to describe somebody who immigrated illegally. Of course, in addition to being factual accurate, the term has certain connotations. Depending on one's feelings about immigration, one might either like or dislike the connotations, but the legal accuracy of the term is beyond dispute.

I'll repeat my question again: For those who say "I don't care if people come here, I just want them to get permission", if you truly have no problem with somebody being here provided that they get government permission, then why do you want the government involved in the first place? Or, if you have some sort of economic or national security concern, then why not say that? I can understand concerns about economics, resources, security, etc., but I can't understand wanting permission for the sake of permission.

Don't get me wrong: As long as a law is on the books I believe it should be enforced. I don't like the idea of letting the executive branch pick and choose which laws to follow). But if I don't like a law, I'll put my energy into arguing for its repeal, not arguing for its consistent application.

So, what is your objection to illegal immigration? Is it about upholding the law for the sake of the law, or do you believe the law is proteting some sort of economic or security interest?

[SM]

Ann Onymous,

That you for making my point. But i'm still interested in learning which urban myth Bill is labouring under.

Bill ?

[Ann Onymous]

SM, my pleasure. You and Thoreau seem to be consistently hitting the nail on the head.

[Jason Ligon]

Ann,

To be fair, the argument concerning social services remains untouched. The fact of the matter is that citizens are documented by way of the social security administration, and are forced to pay for services on pain of imprisonment. If you aren't contributing to that pool of tax revenue, you are increasing costs on me.

If you are contributing to that pool of revenue, welcome!

All of this would go away with the elimination of the welfare state, and some rational way to pay for roads.

[Ann Onymous]

Jason,

Valid point. So, as long as a migrant pays his share, you have no objection? Assuming that illegals are on cash-only basis, sounds like an argument for legalisation to me, no?

[Ann Onymous]

Oh, and while I'm at it:

a. "Foreign scum" does pay taxes, including Social Security which they - for the most part - don't collect. Sorry to burst someone's bubble, but that's the law.

b. I ain't no lawyer, but I'd guess that maybe 10% - tops - of those legalized under the proposed "amnesty" might be ultimately able to obtain green cards. Just eyeballing the visa numbers in EB-3...

[Jason Ligon]

Ann:

Yup. 100% of my objection to illegal immigration is that it allows the migrant the ability to POTENTIALLY extort from taxpayers. Schools and medical care are among the biggest of my concerns, but SSI is also in there.

I also am a bit of a cynic in that if there is a known way to get something for nothing, a goodly number of people will do it regardless of nationality.

Legalize everyone who is working here now (barring the very few national security concerns), but do so in the context of reforming the welfare state so that future illegals get nothing. Net result, make it easy to become legal, but deny services to those who won't bother.

[Jason Ligon]

Ann,

Just curious, how does one pay taxes without a valid taxpayer ID?

[Ann Onymous]

Jason,

In case you didn't know, a prerequisite for immigration is that "alien is not likely to become a public charge" (quote as accurate as I could muster from my memory, those interested may look up actual CFR chapter). Reasonable requirement, not necessarily reasonably implemented. How about - for simplicity, and as a character test - barring prospective immigrants from receiving public benefits in perpetuity? Make that "and their children, too". I'd say, sign me up for that today. Of course it would be fair to exempt them from corresponding portion of taxes, but that's a whole different ball of wax...

Do I have a feeling it has been proposed? Can't believe nobody thunk that up before...

[Ann]

Jason -

Beats me.

[joe]

"100% of my objection to illegal immigration is that it allows the migrant the ability to POTENTIALLY extort from taxpayers."

"Legalize everyone who is working here now (barring the very few national security concerns), but do so in the context of reforming the welfare state so that future illegals get nothing. Net result, make it easy to become legal, but deny services to those who won't bother."

OK Jason. If 100% of your concern is with immigrants getting services without paying, and you agree that current "illegals" should get amnesty so they'll start paying...

Then whey do you want future immigrants to be "illegals" too? Why aren't you advocating for making them "legals," so they'll pay their taxes?

Or do you believe that "illegals" are people who could get a green card at will, but are too lazy to fill out the form? (Maybe they're libertoids, who don't want the Man asking their race. Tee hee.)

[Ann]

OK, I need to qualify the above post. Talking about legal temp folks, there are SSN cards marked "not valid for work" (and presumably for benefits, although I have no idea about that), and there is ITIN, both of which can be used for tax purposes. "Beats me" comment referred to illegals.

[Thorley Winston]

A speeder is not "undocumented", but rather "illegal".

A better example of an ?illegal driver? would be someone who drives on taxpayer-funded roads (as opposed to privately owned roads) without a license or after their license was revoked.

[Thorley Winston]

OK Jason. If 100% of your concern is with immigrants getting services without paying, and you agree that current "illegals" should get amnesty so they'll start paying...

The problem with this of course (besides the erroneous assumption that this is 100% of Jason or anyone else?s concern) is that it assumes that (a) the revenue from the former illegal aliens is equal to or greater than the cost of the services they consume (unlikely) and (b) it ignores the fact that by removing the disincentives to break the law, amnesties encourage more people to immigrate illegally thereby increasing the original problems.

[Dan]

Dan: Thank you for defending the statist position. Someone here has to remind us how we are all better off trusting politicians to tell us what words to use and what activities to engage in while at the same time protecting our economy from janitors and burger flippers.

Learn to read, dipshit. English fluency doesn't make me a statist.

Calling people who immigrate illegally "illegal immigrants" makes me a fluent English speaker who's in touch with reality. I'm a libertarian; I believe in virtually unrestricted immigration. That doesn't prevent me from noticing the glaringly obvious fact that immigration is not, currently, unrestricted.

I believe firmly that it should be legal to fly to Columbia, buy fifty kilos of cocaine, fly back to America and sell it to drug users. When someone refers to drug dealers as "criminals", "smugglers", and "illegal drug dealers", do I whine, bitch, moan, scream, and call them racists? NO, because they ARE criminals, smugglers, and illegal drug dealers.

Just because you think something should be legal doesn't mean you should pretend that it already is! Grow a brain, people.

[SM]

Jason -
"Just curious, how does one pay taxes without a valid taxpayer ID?"

Ann has already answered this but to clarify -
A legal temp-worker or permanent resident is no differently placed in terms of paying taxes than a citizen in the same tax bracket. They need to have both SSN's and ITIN's and have to pay any and every damn tax a similarly situated citizen would. They are however not eligible for all the services a citizen would be.

As for how an illegal without a Tax Id would pay taxes, that's the kind of thing Lonewacko would know lot's about. Lonewacko ?

[Thorley Winston]

Question for Lone Wacko (or anyone else who might be up this topic):

Do you or anyone else know of any studies or information on the problems of illegal immigration as it pertains to public health? I have heard some opponents argue that we are now having to get vaccinated for diseases (certain forms of hepatitis IIRC but don?t quote me on that) because of the influx of illegal aliens from Mexico and other countries with lower health standards which have brought these diseases in with them.

Any actual facts on this would be helpful in weighing the issue.

Also and what about the national security concerns and concerns about crimes that even libertarians would not favor legalizing? This seems to have been glossed over in favor of focusing on the drain illegal aliens cause on locally funded hospitals, schools, and law enforcement (not only for not paying taxes but for special needs) but is one of the issues which the proponents of open borders (which is a patently insane idea IMO) never seem to address. How does one keep out terrorists and criminals without restricting who may/not enter the country? Especially when a terrorist or criminal could simply escape over the border into a country which may not be willing or able to extradite them?

[Thorley Winston]

OFF TOPIC POST

Dan wrote:

I believe firmly that it should be legal to fly to Columbia, buy fifty kilos of cocaine, fly back to America and sell it to drug users.

What if the drug user is a child?

[Dan]

by removing the disincentives to break the law, amnesties encourage more people to immigrate illegally thereby increasing the original problems.

At the moment, there really isn't any disincentive to breaking the immigration laws. Worst-case scenario is that you end up back on square one, minus the cost of sneaking across, or being smuggled across, the border. It's pretty obvious that that cost must be pretty low, in relation to the benefit, or there wouldn't be ten million illegals here. So I doubt the amnesty program will cause a flood of new illegal immigration. I think we're probably at capacity for cheap labor already. We have "only" ten million illegals in the country only because the job market doesn't need 11,000,000.

In the long run, the smart policy is probably a mix of open and easy work visa programs combined with much harsher penalties for violating the new, laxer, laws. You stop illegal immigration the same way you stop any other illegal activity: by making benefit for breaking the law much smaller than the penalty for getting caught.

I've had many coworkers who were immigrants; a common complaint from them is that it's easier to work here if you break the law than it is to go through all the red tape it takes to work here legally. That's a major problem; it should be easy to work here legally, and hard to work here illegally.

[Dan]

How does one keep out terrorists and criminals without restricting who may/not enter the country?

Libertarians of the "anyone should be able to freely go anywhere, damnit!" school are generally ignorable. They live in a world where the only bad guys work for their own government.

The saner majority generally take a view that the bar for immigration should just be set very low. In other words, you screen to filter out people who like detonating Americans, not people who pick grapes and flip burgers.

Right now, people who wish to enter the country for malicious reasons can make use of a massive support network that has grown to support people entering the country for innocuous-but-illegal reasons: drug smugglers, illegal immigrants, etc. Legalizing most of the innocuous folks would cripple this industry, making it harder for the "bad guys" to find a way in.

In answer to your question about selling drugs to kids -- I'd consider it wrong, but I don't think, legally speaking, it should be a merchant's responsibility to screen his customers.

[Lonewacko]

"very strong feelings and multiple links!!!!!!!!"

Wasn't it just last year reason was laughing about the renaming of "master/slave" into something that wasn't so "offensive?" What's next for the great reason magazine? Julian, declaring that as a Blogger of Color, anyone who disagrees with him is a crypto-racist?

Here are some more links:

Reclaiming the political lexicon (from Samizdata; maybe reason could learn something from them)

Wikipedia on PC

Jonah G. on PC

searching for the origins of "PC"

[Xrlq]

Joe: there is no equivalance between the terms. "Illegal" does not impose any moral judgment; it merely makes a factually accurate statement that a law is being broken. "Undocumented" falsely suggests that the aliens are here legally, they just don't have the right documents to prove it.

Julian: WTF is a "cryptoracist?" Someone who hates people who insist on speaking in code?

[Mona]

For those who oppose relaxing immigration laws, I wonder if you believe in the right to travel? The SCOTUS ruled decades ago that this is a fundamental right, with the result that, say, New York may not disallow a person from Mississippi from taking up residency in NY. It may not do so even indirectly, as for instance by passing unduly long residency requirments as conditions for state-sponsored entitlements.

So, as an American, you may move to any of the 50 states you like -- whether they want you or not -- as per our constitutional law.

Now, human rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, are universal; they ought to be respected by all governments. That being the case, why would you make an exception for an individual's right to travel and take up residence in any country s/he likes, assuming you agree the right to travel is a human right?

[Lonewacko]

"That being the case, why would you make an exception for an individual's right to travel and take up residence in any country s/he likes, assuming you agree the right to travel is a human right?"

I have to admit, I'm stumped. I simply see no difference between moving between California and New York and between, say, Yemen and the United States. Let the Yemenis come! (This is part of my test for working at the UN, right?)

[Dan]

Mona,

"Rights" does not mean "human rights". For example, I have a right to live in my house, because I'm paying for it, have a contract that says I can, and haven't violated that contract. This does not mean there is a Natural Human Right to Live In Dan's House. It doesn't even imply it.

The SCOTUS recognizes a Constitutional right, not a natural human right, for American citizens to move freely about the country. So there's no need to make an exception.

[Mona]

Danh writes: "'Rights' does not mean 'human rights'."

Well, The Supremes claim it is grounded in "personal liberty," which sure sounds like human rights talk to me. (They also find the right to flow as a consequence of our Federal scheme, in addition to the right to travel being a matter or *personal liberty.) Moreover, they declared that the due process clause of the 5th Amendment vouchsafes our right to travel outside of the U.S. Due process is a quintessential human rights notion.

Dan continues: "For example, I have a right to live in my house, because I'm paying for it, have a contract that says I can, and haven't violated that contract. This does not mean there is a Natural Human Right to Live In Dan's House. It doesn't even imply it."

Of course not, but you have a right to own property per se, which is a human right that precedes your ability to have rights in your particualr home. The right to own property is fundamental, as is, according to the Supremes, the right to travel.

"The SCOTUS recognizes a Constitutional right, not a natural human right, for American citizens to move freely about the country."

The rights protected in the BOR are natural human rights, at least as per the natural law theorists who gave them to us.

[SM]

Lonewacko wrote -
"Julian, declaring that as a Blogger of Color, anyone who disagrees with him is a crypto-racist?"

Julian is a blogger of colour ?!
Oh, I get it - Julian's last name is SANCHEZ !!!
Caramba ! Good catch, LW.

[Jason Ligon]

Going back a bit, now posting from home base, joe asks:

"OK Jason. If 100% of your concern is with immigrants getting services without paying, and you agree that current "illegals" should get amnesty so they'll start paying...

Then whey do you want future immigrants to be "illegals" too? Why aren't you advocating for making them "legals," so they'll pay their taxes?"

I assume that there are valid security reasons to prohibit some people from being legally processed as immigrants. I also assume that if amnesty is granted, a strong disincentive to follow the law will be created (as Thorley mentioned). If someone can give me a way to relax standards for legal immigration from all countries (I would eliminate the Latino bias in policy as well), then allow all illegals currently here amnesty but without creating a large potential for the exploitation of a welfare state, I'm all for it.

[MJ]

"The insistance that the word "illegal" be uses is based on the above fact: since there is no moral curse inherent in the concept of immigration, those who dislike immigration want the term used to describe it to sound scary" - joe

Or maybe the insistance comes from a desire to maintain honesty in what we are talking about. "Undocumented" seems to suggest that the immigrant's status is mere happenstance, an oversight or an accident, rather than a deliberate and premeditated violation of our nation's laws. Also, it serves to make an important distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. Being against illegal immigration does not mean one is against legal immigrants. Suggesting that it does is a weak and mendacious argument.

Do we want people in this country whose first action here is to disrespect our laws? Does that not suggest the likelihood of their breaking laws that almost all of us here agree should not be violated?

[Andrew Lynch]

MJ,

Finally, someone tells it like it is. Thanks.

[R. C. Dean]

Way to pitch your Orwellian newspeak as anti-racism, you crypto-obscurantist. 😉

Do tell, though - what is racist about describing someone who is breaking the law as "illegal?"

[joe]

Speeders = Illegal Drivers

Most sidewalk vendors = Illegal Retailers

Face it, RC, "undocumented" is just as accurate as "illegal," but without the implied moral judgement. Undocumented is neutral, but illegal most certainly is not. And if you can't demonstrate the legitimacy of that moral stance through argument, you shouldn't get to steal the base through a rhetorical trick.

[Julian Sanchez]

RC-
Nothing; I'm fine with the phrase "illegal immigrant", and I'm fine with "undocumented worker." But I'm entertained by people who become apoplectic with rage when anyone uses the latter term.

[Dan]

The Supremes claim it is grounded in personal liberty

... because the Constitution protects that.

they declared that the due process clause of the 5th Amendment vouchsafes our right to travel outside of the U.S. Due process is a quintessential human rights notion

You keep making this bizarre leap: "X" is a Constitutional Right, "X" is also widely considered a Human Right, ergo Americans can do "X" because it's a Human Right.

No. Americans can do "X" because it's a Constitutional Right. What people think "Human Rights" are is completely irrelevant.

Case in point: it is widely considered to be a Human Right to do whatever you want to to your own body. Try that one next time you get arrested for smoking weed; see how far it gets you. Or try carrying a semiautomatic handgun around in England; when they arrest you, you can explain that since you have a US Constitutional Right to do it, and therefore since both US and English law is based in respect for human rights, it's legal to carry a semiautomatic handgun in England too.

The rights protected in the BOR are natural human rights, at least as per the natural law theorists who gave them to us.

I'm well aware that you consider them natural human rights. What you don't appear to understand is that it doesn't matter if they are or not; we have them because they're in the Constitution, not because they're natural human rights. There are millions of "rights" that various people think they're entitled to; none of them matter. It's the ones in the Constitution that matter.

[thoreau]

Do we want people in this country whose first action here is to disrespect our laws? Does that not suggest the likelihood of their breaking laws that almost all of us here agree should not be violated?

I don't know, I kind of like somebody who decides "Screw this red tape! I'm getting a job, and if the government doesn't like it then too bad for them!"

[Lonewacko]

"you probably save more on cheap lettuce picked by an uneducated immigrant than spend on providing social services for him"

Labor costs are 10% of the cost of a head of lettuce.

As for the overall cost, read this report:

Based on estimates developed by the National Academy of Sciences for immigrants by age and education at arrival, the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a negative $55,200...

As for the crime side of things:

...In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens...

One-third or so of CA's prison population are illegal aliens. (IIRC, 20% of that is drugs, 20% is murder, and the rest is other violent crimes)

And, from Foreign Affairs:

...California Farmer reported in 1963 that if the flow of braceros stopped, tomato growers and canners "agree the State will never [again be able to plant] the 100,000 to 175,000 acres planted when there was a guaranteed supplemental labor force in the form of the braceros..." Reality, however, never confirmed these dire predictions. In 1960 some 45,000 farm workers (mostly braceros) had harvested 2.2 million tons of processing tomatoes. By 1999, it took only 5,000 workers to operate machinery that harvested some 12 million tons. Thanks to these efficiency gains from mechanization, the real price of processing tomatoes declined 54 percent while per capita consumption rose 23 percent...

What would happen if, instead of promoting the Bush/Fox Amnesty, Bush had said that he was going to fill a quota of putting 50 executives of illegal-alien-hiring companies into federal prison? Oh my. I think that might change things.

[Dan]

Mona,

I'm tired of discussing this, so I'll summarize one last time. Yes, I know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are founded in natural law theory. Yadda, yadda, yadda. And natural law theory is founded in Christianity; that doesn't make the Pope the President.

What matters isn't natural human rights; it's Constitutional rights. If the Constitution doesn't grant or protect a right, you do not have that right in this country. The Constitution neither grants nor protects a right for foreigners to enter the United States; QED.

if they think individual/personal/constitutional rights are or should be universal.

The Founders most assuredly did not think Constitutional rights were or should be universal, and neither do I. That would imply that England, or any other nation, would be able to send large numbers of armed men into the United States without us being able to say or do anything about it, legally. If you think they wrote THAT into the Constitution, you're crazy. 🙂

[Bill]

Sorry I didn't respond earlier, but I was busy. Legal immigrants cost natural-born citizens money because they bring their aged family members with them. They promise to support them, but often these older family members end up using social services that they never payed into. Many legal and illegal immigrants have many children; many more than the average citizen. The public schooling of these children cost big bucks; about 10 thousand per year each.
In California, the prisons are rapidly filling with illegal aliens that have committed violent crimes. This too costs money. I could go on and on, but I hope you get the general idea.

I stated that if there were no social services available, I'd probably be an open borders guy. Hell, I live in San Francisco and have known and liked many immigrants. I'm not anti-immigrant. I'm just opposed to the current immigration policies of our country, as well as the tax-us-to-death social policies.

Finally, I believe that educated and hard-working immigrants are good for this country. They add more than they take from the government. But many immigrants are poorly educated; these are a liability.

[OldFan]

This debate is hilarious, because most folks have missed the entire point: President Bush is not only not dumb, he may be the shrewdest political operator since Ike.

Why? He has brilliantly re-cast the issue from one of
A) "illegal aliens" who must be hunted down, subjected to the full weight of the law and then deported to
B)"undocumented persons" who simply have to be provided with documents.

The point that all the blathering has obscured is that "Option A" is simply TOO HARD TO DO! Everybody who actually STUDIES the problem rapidly concludes that a 3,500 km border cannot be effectively sealed. The rough rule of thumb in the Army is "one platoon per klick of front", so estimate 3,5000 X 40 men/platoon X three shifts [you were thinking 24/7, weren't you?] X the dreaded tooth-to-tail ratio of 6-to-1 and you get around 2.5 million troops on the Rio Grande! Factoid: an Infantry Division of 16,000 troops has 180 rifle squads with 10 men/squad, so it puts 1800 boots on the gound! [in Iraq, we are using artillery, engineers, MPs, cooks and clerks as infantry to get about five times that many.] All other "get tough" options flounder on the same rock of not enough resources.

GWB has cleverly latched onto "OPTION B" because it is marginally doable [as opposed to "politically palatable"]. As long as we we provide positive & negative incentives to all players [the illegals, their employers and the 'coyotes' are NOT currently interested in changing the rules of the game] we have a CHANCE of accomplishing something.

Beats what we have now, IMHO.

By shifting the debate from "what do our sacred principles of [add favorite sacred principle here] DEMAND that we do?" to "what might we do to clean up this mess?" our President may actually make some headway in escaping this quagmire. He will be subjected to shrill ctiticism from all sides - but he has apparently been innoculated against that.

Note: the xenophobic antipathy of portions of our society toward immigrants [I are one, BTW] is most definitely NOT racist. Irish, Poles, and Scandahoovians were roundly despised in some quarters [H.P. Lovecraft was quite bonkers on the subject - who would have thought it?]. Any assertions on that score are just the sound of the "race card" hitting the table. I am fully innoculated against that as well.

[Lonewacko]

OldFan: I don't think the border needs that many people, just lots of high-tech. See this:

"Tom Tancredo: Long before Bill O'Reilly said it, I proposed that we militarize the border and that we use drones, sensors, cameras, radar & every other technological advantage we have in this country to actually control our borders... The marines did a little (exercise) just North of Idaho. One Hundred marines with three drones and two radar stations controlled 100 miles of the most rugged border you ever saw in your life. While I was there, just one week-end while I was there, they intercepted four people coming across on ATVs carrying four hundred pounds of drugs, we got a light plane trying to come in under the radar, and so it can happen. We can control our borders, we just choose not too."

Also, "A) "illegal aliens" who must be hunted down, subjected to the full weight of the law and then deported to" is a strawman argument used by, for instance, this guy.

Sure, we could do it. Put 'em on cattle cars and all.

However, let's try this mind exercise. If Bush announced that he had a quota of putting 50 executives that hire illegal aliens in federal prison, and he started doing just that, how long do think the problem would last?

[joe]

Bill, they are more likely to bring their kids, and they always bring their own hardworking selves. Those little taco munching brats are going to pay your social security, so I suggest we send them to really good schools, so they'll have really high incomes. Meanwhile, Papa and Mama are out there doing productive work in the fields, kitchens, and software companies, paying taxes and, more importantly, making corporations more profitable so that THEY are paying more taxes.

Native born Americans are reproducing at less than a replacement rate. Do you think that's good for our fiscal situation?

[Ann Onymous]

Bill,

Damn those old geezers!

But seriously, not only prospective sponsors have to promise to support their parents, they have to show the means to do so. Again, reasonable requirement, but if some people (you seem to extrapolate from a fraction of the community to the whole community, without real justification for it: often? How often? Gimme stats.) take advantage of poor implementation or loopholes, whose problem is it? And whose job - as a citizen - it is to watch that laws actually make sense and are properly implemented?

Children: again, extrapolation without justification - and don't let me bring up welfare moms.

Prisons: I want to see, you know, actual numbers. Well..?

As for education level: "On average, the proportion of immigrants with post-graduate degrees is greater than the proportion of people with postgraduate degrees in the native population (Simon, 1995)", quoted from http://www.idra.org/Newslttr/1996/May/Abel.htm Oh, naturally, I bet they are interested in lumping legals and illegals together (I have a hunch that the distribution is in fact bimodal, further skewing it towards legal folks), but, hey, you probably save more on cheap lettuce picked by an uneducated immigrant than spend on providing social services for him (not claiming to have any figures here).

Oh, and you seem to be oblivious to the fact that I cost you money because I'm stuck in red tape and have to sit on those patents instead of providing for your retirement - why aren't you arguing for streamlining immigration process for EB-1's?

While we're at it, can you please indicate what specific policies you oppose? It's easy to say "system sucks", but articulating WHY is the touchstone.

[Mona]

Dan errs: "You keep making this bizarre leap: "X" is a Constitutional Right, "X" is also widely considered a Human Right, ergo Americans can do "X" because it's a Human Right."

I do not mean theis rhetoicalloy or obnoxiously, but have to ask, do you really not know that the rights protected in the BOR flow from a species of natural law theory? That is not MY belief, as I am a non-theist and do not accept that we are "endowed" by a Creator with anything.

But many conservatives and libertarians DO believe in the metaphysics underlying the Declaration and the Constitution, and my inquiry is aimed at them. If one believes a bundle rights inheres in each human being, and if one believes that the personal liberty of unrestricted movement in common areas is among these and none of the govt's business, then I am curious as to how such a person could favor significant immigration restrictions. That is, if they think individual/personal/constitutional rights are or should be universal.

[Mona]

Dan writes: What matters isn't natural human rights; it's Constitutional rights. If the Constitution doesn't grant or protect a right, you do not have that right in this country."

Ok. You do not believe in human rights and simply like/acknowledge that you have a few rights since some folks in 1791 gave them to you in a document. My inquiry was not directed at you, as you do not believe in universally applicable rights.

[Jason]

Read this and tell me you're not worried. Of course, I'm sure the propagandists here will just say it's racist, and not a serious problem. But that is why you are propagandists. It's all good.

[Lonewacko]

"Of course, I'm sure the propagandists here will just say it's racist, and not a serious problem."

MacArthur Park is about 10 miles east of reason headquarters. The areas where the real elites live is even further away. So, it's not a serious problem to those who come up with brilliant ideas like YAA (Yet Another Amnesty).

Also check out Correcting the Record About President Bush's Immigration Proposal. It's about a 7 on the "blistering critique" scale.

[Lou Albano]

When an undocumented worker uses someone else's ssn to work, this is often not a victimless crime. If the undocumented worker fails to file income taxes, then the IRS will often come after the real number holder for the remaining taxes. Secondly, if a undocumented worker uses the ssn of a disabled adult or an individual receiving SSI or welfare, their benefits/assistance can be suspended or terminated until they prove that they didn't do the work.

[Lou Albano]

When an undocumented worker uses someone else's ssn to work, this is often not a victimless crime. If the undocumented worker fails to file income taxes, then the IRS will often come after the real number holder for the remaining taxes. Secondly, if a undocumented worker uses the ssn of a disabled adult or an individual receiving SSI or welfare, their benefits/assistance can be suspended or terminated until they prove that they didn't do the work.