Posted on 05/23/2006 8:25:20 AM PDT by Gordongekko909
The immigration bill before Congress has some of the most serious consequences for the future of this country. Yet it is not being discussed seriously by most politicians or most of the media. Instead, it is being discussed in a series of glib talking points that insult our intelligence.
Some of the most momentous consequences -- a major increase in the number of immigrants admitted legally -- are not even being discussed at all by those who wrote the Senate bill, though Senator Jeff Sessions has uncovered those provisions in the bill and brought them out into the light of day.
How many times have we heard that illegal aliens are taking "jobs that Americans won't do"? Just what specifically are those jobs?
Even in occupations where illegals are concentrated, such as agriculture, cleaning, construction, and food preparation, the great majority of the work is still being done by people who are not illegal aliens.
The highest concentration of illegals is in agriculture, where they are 24 percent of the people employed. That means three-quarters of the people are not illegal aliens. But when will the glib phrase-mongers stop telling us that the illegals are simply taking "jobs that Americans won't do"?
Another insult to our intelligence is that amnesty is not amnesty if you call it something else. The fact that illegals will have to fulfill certain requirements to become American citizens is supposed to mean that this is not amnesty.
But let's do what the spinmeisters hope we will never do -- stop and think. Amnesty is overlooking ("forgetting," as in amnesia) the violation of the law committed by those who have crossed our borders illegally.
The fact that there are requirements for getting American citizenship is a separate issue entirely. Illegal aliens who do not choose to seek American citizenship are under no more jeopardy than before. They have de facto amnesty.
Yet another insult to our intelligence is saying that, since we cannot find and deport 12 million people, the only choice left is to find some way to make them legal.
There is probably no category of law-breakers -- from counterfeiters to burglars or from jay-walkers to murderers -- who can all be found and arrested. But no one suggests that we must therefore make what they have done legal.
Such an argument would suggest that there is nothing in between 100 percent effective law enforcement and zero percent effective law enforcement.
The reverse twist on this argument is that suddenly taking 12 million people out of the labor force would disrupt the economy. No one has ever said -- or probably even dreamed -- that we could suddenly find all 12 million illegal immigrants at once and send them all home immediately. This is another straw man argument.
The real question is what we do with whatever illegal aliens we do find. Right now, there are various communities around the country where local officials have a policy of forbidding the police from reporting illegal immigrants to federal authorities.
Why are people who are so gung ho for punishing employers so utterly silent about needing to punish government officials who openly and deliberately violate federal laws?
Employers, after all, are not in the business of law enforcement.
If some guy who runs a hardware store or a dry cleaning business hires someone who shows some forged documents, why should the employer be fined for not being able to tell the difference, when government officials who can tell the difference are not doing anything -- or are even actively obstructing federal laws?
Putting unarmed national guardsmen on the border is another cosmetic move, a placebo instead of real medicine. The excuse is that it is not possible to train more than 1,500 border patrol agents a year. Meanwhile, we have trained well over 200,000 Iraqi security forces while guerilla warfare raged around them.
You can put a million people on the border and it will mean nothing if those who are caught are simply turned loose and sent back to try again tomorrow -- or perhaps later the same day.
I'm as amazed as you that this factor has not been front and center in this whole debate. The welfare services is the MAIN magnet for many people coming here and will continue to be especially in light of the fact there are so many bogus ID mills out there a lot of folks are probably getting welfare under multiple names.
Also, employers know that if welfare $ are removed from the equation and taxpayers are no longer supplementing the living expenses for these workers that wages will have to go up so that they can survive. Right now, besides evading numerous payroll taxes these employers know they don't have to pay a livable wage.
A very interesting thread.
Not everyone is. Tancredo was floating an idea over a year ago to sue municipalities for damages caused by 'known' Illegals. Those that have come into contact with government officials that later cause physical harm or loss of property.
They must think that the fence around the White House was built to keep the President IN, eh? ;-)
Could not agree with you more....I'm also a CA conservative, and our legislature is a mess, and will never change. The demographics of CA have left conservatives out. Soon, the US Congress will start to resemble the CA legislature more and more, and then it's game, set match...permanennt liberal power...it's a sad truth, but that's where we are heading...
False reasoning. The implication is that Americans would be paid more, and that pay would come in place of some other subsidy that was in place-unemployment, welfare, etc. We already have those costs for Americans.
Your point, BTW, is an excellent argument for limiting low skill immigrants.
The article states that 24% of ag. jobs are filled by illegals. And you imply that if the illegals vanished, then employers would be forced to raise wages to attract Americans to do the work. Perhaps you're right. But we've all heard the stories about jobs in urban areas disappearing because low skilled unemployed were unwilling to work for the wages that employers were capable of paying. We once had theater ushers, sweepers, bag boys, etc. No more.
That's an excellent example of what I mean. Wages for some jobs would rise, if the jobs provided economic value. We still have bag boys because women, who do the majority of shopping, will shop where car service is available. It's also cheaper to pay a bag boy to bag groceries than a union checker.
Theater ushers are now little more than bouncers. The entire movie industry has changed. 10 screen theaters can now use one projectionist and one concession stand. Movie theaters are much less labor intensive than they used to be.
By sweepers, I assume you mean street sweepers. They have machines that do that now. I suspect those were make work positions during the depression anyway.
Re agriculture...there was recently a surplus of immigrant labor in California fields. Growers have changed their planting and harvesting practices, combined that with some genetic engineering, and have largely mechanized raisin production. Costs, as with any other price, send a signal. If your costs are too high, you find a different way to do things or you die.
Illegal immigrants are "low cost" means of production; by that I mean that many of the costs are offloaded onto the public. Chinese workers are a still lower cost means of production.
By far, however, the lowest cost producer is a machine.
I agree that minimum wage is an anachronism that should be abolished. My point was that at the current level it isn't distorting the market to a large degree.
Sorry, with at least 20 Judicial Nominees ahead, we cannot lose the Senate.
Those are steps we currently require, right? And if the amount of the "fine" is as low as I've seen, that's not punishment...it's a processing fee.
((ping))
bttt
Where is Bill Frist on this issue? Does the guy lead on anything?
He's the absolute worst leader of the Senate in years. Makes Trent Lott look like George Washington.
Go back to private practice, Frist. Great doctor, horrible leader.
As far as the Bush congratulations thread, I think we could have done a lot worse. If W has one strength, IMO, it's his Christianity; if he has one weakness his Christianity should be less of the "let's all get along" variety and more of the "kick their @sses out of the temple" type.
At some point in the near future, Americans will have to go through the same 5 stages of grief (ie denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance) that Californians experienced in the 90s.
You my FRiend appear to be on step #4. When you've cleared that last hurdle, you'll be good to go. I find it very interesting to observe others' various stages and coping mechanisms.
When a majority Americans finally get to #5, then we'll all be like the ruling class in Mexico that cynically exploits its lower-classes with absolutely no reservations about either the ethical or moral aspects. Finally, as the last generations of Americans who even possess memories of how it once was die off, the transformation will be complete.
You knock it off with the attacks and conduct yourself with some civility or you get a vacation. Got it?
Hi EV... Still fighting the good fight, I see. :)
Very well put.
Thank you, Dr. Sowell, for bringing this point to light!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.