What should be done about illegal immigration?

Global migration woes
By Victor Davis Hanson
June 2, 2007



Thousands of aliens crossing our 2,000-mile border from an impoverished Mexico reflect a much larger global one-way traffic problem.
In Germany, Turkish workers -- both legal and illegal -- are desperate to find either permanent residence or citizenship. "Londonstan" is slang for a new London of thousands of unassimilated Pakistani nationals.
France saw riots in 2005 because many children of North African immigrants are unemployed -- and unhappy. Albanians flock to Greece to do farm work, and are regularly deported for doing so illegally. The list could go on.
So why do millions of these border-crossers head to Europe, the United States or elsewhere in the West? Easy. Stable democracies and free markets ensure economic growth, rising standards of living and, thus, lots of jobs, while these countries' birthrates and native populations fall. In contrast, immigrants usually flee mostly failed states that cannot offer their people any real hope of prosperity and security.
As people in the West live longer and enjoy longer retirements, service and health-care industries strive to meet their ever-increasing needs. Meanwhile, younger adults often rely on others to clean their homes, change their infants' diapers and take care of their elderly parents.
As a rule in the West, the more calluses on your hand, the less money you make. So Americans and Europeans do their best to get a desk job. But an immigrant may feel washing clothes or busing tables is still better than doing the same thing back in Oaxaca or Ankara. A few immigrants do flee persecution or prosecution, but the vast majority just seek jobs -- but for low wages that Americans or Europeans won't accept.
Still, given the social costs of illegal immigration, this is not a "win-win" situation of hooking up our available jobs with their available workers. Instead, it too often turns into a sort of cultural apartheid, where both unassimilated foreign workers and Western citizens are resentful of each other.
Employers may console themselves that they pay better than what the immigrants earned back at home. This might be true, but the wages are never enough to allow such newcomers to achieve parity with their hosts.
Naturally, immigrants soon get angry. And rather than show thanks for a ticket out of the slums of Mexico City or Tunis, blatant hypocrisy can follow: The once thankful, now exhausted alien may wave the flag of the country he would never return to while shunning the host culture he would never leave.
In the second generation -- as we see from riots in France or gangs in Los Angeles -- things can get even worse.
The moment illegal immigrants arrive, a sort of race begins: Can these newcomers become legal, speak the host language and get educated before they age, get hurt or lose their job? If so, they assimilate and their children are held up as models of diversity. If not, the end of the story can be welfare or jail.
Hypocrisy abounds on all sides. Free-marketers claim they must have cheap workers to stay competitive. Yet they also count on public subsidies to take care of their former employees when old, sick or in trouble.
Governments in countries such as Mexico and Morocco usually care far more about their emigrants once they are long gone. Then these poor are no longer volatile proof of their own failures, but victims of some wealthy foreign government's indifference. And these pawns usually send cash home.
The lower middle classes complain most about massive immigration, but then they have to compete with aliens for jobs, often live among them and don't use their services. The wealthier, who hire immigrants for low wages and see them only at work, often think mass immigration, even if illegal, is wonderful.
The lasting solution is not the status quo -- or even walls, fines, deportation, amnesty or guest-worker programs. Instead, failed societies in Latin America, Africa and much of the Middle East must encourage family planning and get smarter about using their plentiful natural wealth to keep more of their own people home.
The remedy for the richer West?
It is past time to remember that paying our own poorer laborers more, doing some occasional physical work and obeying the laws -- the immigration ones especially -- are not icky or a bummer. Rather, this is the more ethical and, in the long run, cheaper approach.
There is a final irony. The more Western elites ignore their own laws, allow unassimilated ethnic ghettos and profit from an exploitive labor market, the more their own nations will begin to resemble the places immigrants fled from.

Victor Davis Hanson is a nationally syndicated columnist and a classicist and historian at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and author of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War."

True, AU, but the original statement by Thomas referred to precisely those rights conferred by the US Constitution to "we the people" - so you and I have no disagreement.

The "criminals" are distinct from "the accused", Messrs Thomas and Brown-Munoz.

The first of the alleged "rights" you list, Mr Brown-Munoz, isn't exactly applicable to criminals - though of course you wouldn't know that, since illegal aliens qualify under both categories automatically.

If all else fails, the border States can take a leaf from Delaware >


http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=2975

> and claim to have taken shooting lessons from VP Cheney - mines not required

Can I interrupt the petty bickering to actually discuss the issue?

IAs I understand the bill,those illegals wanting to become citizens will have to pay a $5000 fine,among other things.
Now,someone here illegally that doesnt want to become a citizen wont have to pay that.

So,what incentive is there for these illegals to become citizens?

Since they all become "legal" once Bush signs the bill,why go the extra step?
They will get all the benefits of being "legal",like welfare,medicare,food stamps,and all the other benefits of our "safety net",but they wont have to pay the $5000 fine or face ony of the other consequences of trying to become a citizen.

So,why should they become citizens?

First of all Mysterman: I can't believe you don't understand the main incentive immigrants have to become citizens. If you were an "illegal", wouldn't you want to become a legal citizen?

But there is a legal incentive as well; under this bill, you only have a limited time to make your decision.

In order to get any benefit (that is to get a visa which will allow you to work and keep you from being deported) you need to register and get a Z visa. The registration is the part that makes this work, you get put into a database with your address, employer and any other data.

Getting everyone here to be registered so we know who is in the country is one of the main benefits of this bill.

The Z visa lasts for a limited amount of time (I think 6 years) after which time if you don't show desire to become a permanent resident or citizen, the visa runs out. This is far better than the current system because we know exactly who is here.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002145.php


So WE know exactly who is here?! I say Mr Brown-Munoz should start with an inventory of his illegal friends - digressions, one and all, giving the Bush Administration time to attack Iran. Gen. Petraeus, who at no time has had under his command more ready fighting men than Leonidas did at Thermopylae, knows that better than anybody. It's an ironic twist of history that instead of trying to keep the Persian armies out of the West we're now trying to protect them from the West, but Sparta had no SUVs.

You misunderstand the bill. It is far from a done deal, btw, but in it's current form there is a $1,000 fine to obtain legal status, and you add to that a $4,000 and a lot of the hoops you've asked for to become a citizen (like learning English, clean record, and I think it said 8 years of constant productivity without being the burden you fear.) In the event a bill is passed that allows this type of process for all; then and pretty much only then, you could seriously go after the businesses that hire those that have no legal status. $1,000 Vs. Life in the shadows with increasingly little opportunity for work is pretty much a no-brainer.

Where the bill gets into serious trouble is the self-defeating ambitions of cutting off the flow, or too strenuously limiting the legal flow of new people. Only by providing a legal means for the desperate to immigrate can you hope to seriously impact the flow of illegal immigration. For as long as there remains too little opportunity to do so legally; we will continue to endure the flow of illegal immigration. While the more extreme factions of the anti-immigration mindsets would be happy to punish any and all who come illegally along with those employers who assist them; the moral majority will likely never endorse a plan that too severely punishes a man for desperate attempts to improve his lot in life.

If it is security or 'Law and Order' that drives one's concern on the topic; the most logical path resides in easing the restrictions on legal immigration to a point where only the bad people wouldn't find it in their own best interest to immigrate legally. This simple principle is what betrays the ulterior motive in the vast majority of the anti-immigration mindset. Put simply; Law and Order is best served by easing restrictions, so those claim Law and Order, while opposing legal paths are betraying their own hypocrisy and frequently their bigotry as well.

Now before anyone starts crying they aren't bigots; let me also point out that there are legitimate reasons to wish to limit the population. Of course the laws of supply and demand suggest that fewer applicants mean higher wages for the jobs that exist. I find this argument VERY short-sighted as well as selfish myself, but it is nonetheless legitimate. The Devil is in the details. By mandating the elimination of all illegal alien workers, without providing a palatable alternative, not only do you deliver a crushing blow to industry; but you simultaneously eliminate all incentive for undocumented workers to come out of the shadows. This allows the truly bad people to blend in with many millions of otherwise decent people, who are left with little choice but to continue living in shadows.

The bottom line is; the solution to competition for employment is at odds with the security problem of too many undocumented people. Those forwarding a desire to address both problems simultaneously betray a fundamental lack of understanding of the dynamics of the situation... (though none are more absurd than those who believe Reagan's Amnesty program is a significant factor in a desperate man's desire to improve his lot in life by coming to the States). In most cases; it is all too clear that the supposed rationales behind opposing legalization are, in reality, after-thought-excuses to defend a position that preceded them.

I had the impression that the fine and Z card were not a condition of citizenship but a requirement to be allowed to remain in the US as a legal alien. Perhaps similar to holding a green card.
Regarding citizenship for someone who has entered the US illegally, that in my opinion should never be allowed. No path for citizenship ever.

You are close. $1,000 for worker status; an additional $4,000 and a bunch of hoops to begin the process toward citizenship.

Z- Visa= Temporarily legal for work:$1,000. Opposing this portion of the bill is akin to opposing finding out who 12 to 20 million undocumented people are. It is a truly absurd thing to oppose, if National Security is your concern.

Bill
To begin with I am not opposed to legal immigration. The quotas should be based upon the requirements of US industry.. Nor do I have any objection to those already here if the meet the requirements and conditions to remain in the US. That because it would be impossible to do otherwise. What I would object to vehemently is a path to citizenship for the illegal. In my opinion that is a slap in the face to everyone who waited there turn and played by the rules. They should never be allowed the privilege of the vote. . As far as guest worker program see little success in that regard.

That is considerably more reasonable than many of the complainants on this thread. At least you realize the futility in rounding up 12 to 20 million people for the purpose of deportation. As a compromise; I think your idea is feasible if you remove the Quota portion of your ideal. I believe the majority of illegal immigrants would gladly trade the right to vote (if that's all you're asking for), in exchange for the right to work and reside in this country legally... providing:

Their children continue to be automatic citizens at birth. They can earn the right to retire here. What would you say to a minimum of 20 years good behavior, productivity (paying taxes, SS, etc), and learning sufficient English to pass a reasonable proficiency test, to earn such a right?

Would you be willing to compromise with Z1 Status as an alternative for those who would now be entering illegally anyway (providing they pass muster), and a point system that affords them the ability to earn citizen Status in the future (not unlike the retirement requirements described above)?

I think I could get my own head around such a compromise, though I don't much care for the idea of creating a permanent "second class". Most important from my perspective is simply providing a "legal" alternative to illegal border crossing, without asking the desperate people on the other side a fence to cross their fingers in hopes of winning the lottery. I see that as inhumane as well as unrealistic.

Prior to the passage of any legislation regarding the disposition of illegals presently in nation by what ever means necessary the sieve called our southern border must be sealed. If it is not and the illegals keep coming the entire exercise is one of futility.
As to quotas as a sovereign nation the US government has the prerogative as to who and how many may enter this nation and it should remain so.

In addition the needs of this nation not family ties should be a major determinate for entry. As for children being born in the US being citizens. Yes, but only to those born to those who have been made legal via this legislation.
As to future illegals. The legislation should include a requirement that future illegals as they are apprehended be immediately deported.
In addition the employ of an illegal should be considered a felony.


As to future illegals. THe legislation should inclued requirement that future illegals as they are aprehended be immediately deported.
In addition the employ of illegals should be considered a felony.

We (USA) have quite a history when it comes to immigrants; The first general restriction was implemented when Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 which used racial criteria to limit citizenship to free white people. The U.S.A repeatedly rejected Jewish refugees and accomodated only some 250,000 Jewish refugees from 1939 to 1945. The Page law associated with the Asian Exclusion Act defined all chinese women as prostitutes and thus ineligle for immigration or citizenship in the USA with the intent of limiting asians (CHINESE) of reproducing and thus eliminating all chinese from the USA.

Despite the fact that the U.S. government' role in the Salvadoran conflict was unique in sustaining the prolongation of the civil conflict, the government and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) extended little sympathy to the people affected by the war. In the 1980s, the INS granted only 2% of political asylum applications, claiming that democracy existed in El Salvador and that reports of U.S. and government-sponsored "death squads" were overblown. As a response to the U.S. government's failure to address the situation of Salvadoran refugees in the U.S., American activists established a loose network to aid refugees. Operating in clear violation of U.S. immigration laws, these activists took refugees into their houses, aided their travel, hid them and helped them find work. This became known as the "crazy movement".

The struggles of women and African Americans point out the fact that citizenship does not automatically ensure voting rights. The road to citizenship for native people was even longer than for the African Americans and women. All Native Americans did not become citizens until 1924, and it would be even longer before all Native Americans gained the right to vote.

In 1830, President Jackson convinced the U.S. Congress to pass the Indian Removal Act that appropriated funds for relocation -- by force if necessary -- of Native Americans. Federal officials were sent to negotiate removal treaties with the southern tribes, many of whom reluctantly signed.

However, the Cherokees in the state of Georgia, fought their removal in the federal Supreme Court. They thought they had won when Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokees were a "domestic dependent nation" that could not be forced by the state of Georgia to give up its land against its will. Unfortunately, President Jackson and the state of Georgia ignored the decision and moved the Native Americans to Indian Territory in Oklahoma.

A federal law guaranteed their (native americans) religious freedom in 1978. In 2006 New Mexico rescinded the Asian Land act which prohibited chinese the right to property ownership.

anyone who thinks it's "against the law" for illegals to come the united states without prior invitation , might want to have a look at the link to "historyworld" - link below .
large groups of peoples have moved around this earth for thousands of years and i doubt that it can ever be stopped - perhaps it can be slowed down on occasion .
i look at it like a pressure-cooker , unless there is a release valve , the cooker will simply explode at a certain point - far better to have policies in place that will accomodate the movement of peoples - perhaps even consider help them live better lives in whatever place they live now .

i don't think just putting a heavy lid on and ignoring the build up of pressure will do any good .

btw i don't think the united states is in a unique position having a heavy influx of peoples - it's taking place all over the world , all the time .
nothing unusual about it at all .
hbg


HISTORY OF MOVEMENT OF PEOPLES

Now THERE's a solution... We got Texas and California, we could just extend the US into Mexico. Why wouldn't that work?

That should be the ideal. Aspiring towards anything but a 1 world mentality is aspiring to take steps in reverse. Push for open immigration policies, and soon a majority of Mexicans may agree with you. :wink:

Somehow I don't think our movement south into their country would be as welcome as you seem to think, Bill.

Think merger, not hostile takeover.

I was thinking merger... quiet take-over.

I'm not a hostile person, Bill.

(Okay, in all honesty I was thinking free tequila. No worms.)