New immigration bill

[Túrin Turambar]

in this case, much of what makes one "legal" or "illegal" is a matter of inherited chance. Some people are born in this richest of countries. Lucky! But they should not pat themselves on the back for being "legal" inhabitants. They were lucky, and it had nothing to do with them.

Others are not born here. If they want to come, it's for the same reasons the lucky people want to stay (often rephrased as "patriotism"). If they show what under other circumstances we would admire as self-sacrifice, gumption, and dedication to supporting their family, and come here to work, we call them "illegal" because they were not born here and didn't enter the bureaucratic maze.

I guess I just don't want moral judgements made about people based on the luck of the natal draw -- based on conditions they can't really control.

That’s life, though. Some people in our own countries are born into wealth, and some into poverty. The poor have no right to break into the rich people’s houses and enjoy their wealth, even though it was only by bad luck that they didn’t have rich parents themselves.

[Túrin Turambar]

Just trying to keep this discussion alive –

There’s another and more important point with regards to the whole ‘luck’ thing. By allowing people to jump the fence and enter the U.S., you reward those ‘lucky’ enough to be born close to the U.S. border. There are hundreds of millions of poor in Africa and South Asia who I’m sure would like to get out of poverty just as much as the poor of Mexico, but don’t have a first world country next door with a porous border. That is a good reason, based on fairness, to have an immigration policy and enforce it.

[Jnyusa]

There are hundreds of millions of poor in Africa and South Asia who I’m sure would like to get out of poverty just as much as the poor of Mexico, but don’t have a first world country next door with a porous border.

Excellent reminder, Lord M.

Jn

[Teremia]

I can't subscribe to the "immigration as housebreaking" analogy. Immigrants aren't thieves. As far as I understand, the economic picture of illegal immigration is more complicated than that. And working hard to make a better life for one's family is, under other circumstances, considered a virtue.

What I mostly want to say about "luck" is that those of us who were lucky in our places of birth (or whose families were lucky at crucial points in the past) should not feel morally superior to those people who have not been so lucky.

The new immigration bill will not lead to huge influxes of the truly poor of Africa or South Asia. Inasmuch as it favors education and training over family ties, would-be immigrants will come from the more advantaged sections of their respective societies.

[Lurker]

I can't subscribe to the "immigration as housebreaking" analogy. Immigrants aren't thieves. As far as I understand, the economic picture of illegal immigration is more complicated than that. And working hard to make a better life for one's family is, under other circumstances, considered a virtue.

Yes, immigrants aren't thieves, I agree. But in any society do we reward or take pity on people who break the law just to make a better life for one's family. They didn't necessarily "stole" something but they did break the law by entering the country illegally. The companies who are employing them are the ones reaping the rewards not the hard working illegals who would work for $3.00/hr. or less, in hazardous conditions, no insurance, no pension. I worked with immigrants in Canada and they would often tell me that life in their poor country is definitely better than it is in the first world, less stress, less pressure, the only reason they are here is because the "value of the dollar" is worth more than the peso.

There are multinational and US companies down in Mexico as well, they can work there. The problem is the salary and benefits handed out by US manufacturers in Mexico is nothing compared to the ones that they hand out to unionized workers in the US. Often manufacturers would say it's because that is the "average salary" in Mexico, I agree, but is it enough to feed a family.

Luck has nothing to do with this IMHO. In any country, first world or third world, there are rich and poor people. And still, there are people who look for greener pastures outside of their home countries esp. if they are bombarded with images of the first world as a land of milk and honey in every TV set and movie shown. When these people leave their home countries, their families, relatives, friends expect them to struck it "rich" in say the US (because of the exchange rate) but what they don't know is the heads of the family who sends them money and chocolates every month are slaving themselves in hazardous conditions with little pay. These people don't have the "face" to go back to say Tijuana and tell their friends and relatives they didn't expect it to be that difficult, they would of course tell them how wonderful the US is.

[yovargas]

Yes, immigrants aren't thieves, I agree. But in any society do we reward or take pity on people who break the law just to make a better life for one's family. They didn't necessarily "stole" something but they did break the law by entering the country illegally.

There is no connection in my mind between legality and morality.
I absolutely take pity on most of these people.

[Lurker]

Yes, I do take pity on most of these people, don't get me wrong.

In fact, here in Canada we have deported at least 1000 Portuguese a week last year (from Toronto) who have made this country as their home, became outstanding citizens, they even started businesses here, yes, we should have rewarded them by handing out their landing papers but no, we deported them because they have "broken the law". Like I said it is not as if they are stealing to feed their family, the law they broke was "overstaying", they didn't necessarily jump over the fence to get here but yet we sent them back. No matter how the press here criticized the goverment or how they bombarded us with images of families crying at the airport or stories of families being divided because of this, the goverment stood their ground. How about the boat loads of Chinese who docked at Vancouver harbour a few years ago who were applying for refugee status because they are going to be persecuted if they go back to China? Did the goverment made the right decision to send those people back when they know what the consequences are? (How about those Cubans you sent back?) Do we break our good "relationship" with certain countries just so we can take pity on their plight. We can't be bleeding hearts about this issue, there are a lot of people who wants to enter our countries legally, what about them? Do we tell them, we apologize you can't enter the country anymore because the quota has been filled (since we handed out working papers to those who have overstayed) we can't do that? Do we allow companies to exploit illegals to gain monetary rewards or cheat the goverment? We can't.

Life's though, there is nothing we can do about it.

[Jnyusa]

The new immigration bill will not lead to huge influxes of the truly poor of Africa or South Asia.

Also correct.

Your first post, Teremia, reminded me of the quote from Anatole France: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread.

We'd like a measure of fairness that goes beyond strict equality, imo.

In any country, first world or third world, there are rich and poor people.

Within the US it matters to us how a person becomes wealthy. We would like it to be because of hard work, and hard work is not how one gets ahead in post-colonial countries.

Jn

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Why is Mexico a country with poor citizens whereas Canada isn't? I don't see widespread concern about Canadian immigration. The core of the problem is not immigration but the proximity of extreme rich and poor nations. Does it actually suit a segment of society to have a poor labour force available? If so it seems hard to blame the poor when policies might actually be constructed that keep them in that position.

[Primula Baggins]

Does it actually suit a segment of society to have a poor labour force available?

Bingo.

It also suits an at least partially overlapping segment of our society to have as many brown people as possible locked out from ever becoming voting citizens.

[Lurker]

In any country, first world or third world, there are rich and poor people.

Within the US it matters to us how a person becomes wealthy. We would like it to be because of hard work, and hard work is not how one gets ahead in post-colonial countries.

Jn

I agree we do value hardwork here, that doesn't mean that in post-colonial countries hard work is not how one gets ahead. You are proceeding from bad faith, carried about by wrong perceptions projected by the media about these countries. Hard work does get you ahead anywhere, but it should be coupled with luck, intellectual skills, educational background, enterprenuerial skills, savings, being in the right place at the right time and whom you know. IMHO, hard work doesn't necessarily mean you'll get ahead in life. We like it to be that way, but unfortunately it doesn't necessarily work in the real world all the time.

[Jnyusa]

You are proceeding from bad faith, carried about by wrong perceptions projected by the media about these countries.

Um ... no. I am proceeding from my experience in those countries.

Jn

[Lurker]

You are proceeding from bad faith, carried about by wrong perceptions projected by the media about these countries.

Um ... no. I am proceeding from my experience in those countries.

Jn

Me, too. I guess it depends on the third countries we've been to.
That's why I hate sweeping generalizations.

[Jnyusa]

That's why I hate sweeping generalizations.

That's a noble sentiment, and a fashionable one too. But I will dare to make a sweeping generalization about something that is universal in my experience, namely that in countries where 5% of the people own 80% of the property and the other 95% of the people have to share what's left, those 95% are not sitting on their duffs all day being stupid and lazy but working their fingers to the bone just to put bread in their mouths. They are not thwarted by their laziness but by other factors that all just persons should decry.

Poor countries are not simply countries full of lazy people, nor are the wealthy in those countries working harder than anyone else.

I would like to avoid the supposition that hard work and sound strategy should not be taken into account when considering what sort of immigration laws we want. Nel's example is particularly instructive. But a willingness to do hard work is not what differentiates a Mexican from a Canadian immigrant, nor is it what differentiates a Mexican who immigrates illegally from one who either stays in Mexico or comes here legally. My experience is that all the poor in Mexico are working hard. Those who immigrate, legally or illegally, do so because no matter how hard they work they will never have opportunities in Mexico, whereas their perception of the US is that hard work will count for more here.

Jn

[halplm]

Does it actually suit a segment of society to have a poor labour force available?

Bingo.

It also suits an at least partially overlapping segment of our society to have as many brown people as possible locked out from ever becoming voting citizens.

This statement really really disturbs me. Not only does it imply that the incredibly large group of illegal immigrants deserve the right to vote in a country they are not even a citizen in... but it also implies that some group wants them not to vote based on the ir skin color.

I would guess... that whatever group you are insinuating would want them not to vote, would want that because they are a massive groiup that is completely uneducated and will base their vote soley on who they think got them the most for thier slave labor at the local farm.

This is in addition, of course, to the exact opposite of the original statement... that there's a group with a vested interest in as many illegal immigrants as possible getting to vote.

[Primula Baggins]

There are groups on both sides of that issue, Hal, as you know. I don't deny that both sides have agendas related to the voter rolls.

But I also wasn't saying illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote while they aren't citizens. I was saying there are some people who do not want illegal immigrants to have any way of ever becoming citizens and voting. Politics aside, a permanent underclass of scared cheap labor with no political power is a great asset to some business plans.

[halplm]

yes it is. And until we start arresting and jailing the people that WRITE those business plans... nothing will change, now matter what status the illegals have.

[yovargas]

The bill, which has been pushed as attempts to come up with a compromise between left and right, has apparently proved too controversial. The bill was originally scheduled for vote today but it has been pushed back a couple weeks for more debates. Debates which look likely to kill this thing from what I'm reading.

[nerdanel]

I would guess... that whatever group you are insinuating would want them not to vote, would want that because they are a massive groiup that is completely uneducated and will base their vote soley on who they think got them the most for thier slave labor at the local farm.

Whoa, I think that's way too broad of a generalization - a massive oversimplification.

First, in my experience, the entire group is NOT completely uneducated. For instance, the Supreme Court ruled some time ago that minor children of illegal immigrants are legally entitled to an education at taxpayer expense, even if the children are also illegals. So, as that demographic continues to come of age, they ARE in fact educated, at least potentially through 12th grade (which is as much, or more, than many legal American citizens.)

Second, those illegal immigrants who came as adults often choose to do so for financial reasons. Some have had at least some education in their home country. I'm not saying that there are lots of Ph.Ds picking fruit - but you said "completely uneducated," which I'm not sure is accurate.

Third, not all illegal immigrants are border-crossers who work as day laborers. I don't know statistics - odds are no one knows completely accurate statistics. But, I have encountered over the past few years a fair number of Asian illegal immigrants who have chosen (for familiar reasons - added opportunity, a poor/violent situation at home, etc.) to remain here illegally after a student or travel visa has expired. Some of them are HIGHLY educated - but of course they are taking major risks re: their future by choosing not to comply with our immigration laws.

So it seems to me to be a convenient (and frankly, somewhat dehumanizing) overgeneralization to say that illegal immigrants, as a group, would exercise a putative ability to vote only to support those who "got them the most for their slave labor at the local farm." When I, for one, read that sentence of yours, I picture simple automatons who have no capacity to comprehend or care about any issue more complex than how much money they receive for unskilled labor. And when I picture that, it's a lot easier not to perceive humanity or feel compassion for these people and their needs, hopes, and dreams.

To say that illegal immigrants might consider other things than "money for slave labor" in deciding their vote is not, of course, to say that they are entitled to vote so long as they remain illegal. I am not saying you are wrong to oppose granting the franchise to non-citizens; even many liberals would side with you on that. But I have to disagree with the reasoning that you gave.

(By the way: I don't think that conservatives in the illegal immigration debate consciously think, "Jeez, let's keep brown people from voting - the more who can't vote, the better!" But, I have to question (non-rhetorically) whether the illegal immigration debate would look and feel different if we were dealing with a demographic of English-speaking white people who were entering the country illegally. I don't know the answer but I suspect that it is, "Yes, to some extent.")

ETA I'm aware that this post sounds somewhat to the left, whereas my previous posts in this thread sounded pretty strongly to the right of this issue. That is just how I am on this topic - I genuinely don't know where I stand. The last time I discussed it with a right-leaning friend, I sounded like Sméagol/Gollum, arguing BOTH sides of the debate against myself for about twenty minutes until I realized what I was doing. It's an incredibly difficult issue and I find myself simultaneously agreeing with everyone.

[yovargas]

My main concern, pretty much my only concern, is: what would alleviate the most suffering? What do you think the answer to that is?