What is really ironic about this is that the split is over the immigration debate and that is not even one of "my issues." I always deferred to Polipundit on the issue due to his background and passion on the subject. Lately most of my posts have not even dealt with immigration, but the ones that have were more about how I thought the tone and tenor of the debate had gotten out of hand, rather than the actual policy positions.I haven't been reading PoliPundit or, really, any of the debate about immigration in the blogosphere. If I had been, I probably would only write about "tone and tenor of the debate." I consider immigration a complex policy problem, and I steer clear of ideologues spouting on the topic. I hear the President gave a speech on the subject last night and that he sounded moderate. Good. He's fending off the ideologues -- I hope.
But I'm interested in this dispute between Byrd and Polipundit and the problem of group blogs. Group blogs, like marriages, can break down, and when they do, they can dissolve quietly and present an unreadable face to the world, or they can let the ugliness show. When that happens on a very prominent blog, we're all going to look. So let's look.
Polipundit has this response:
So far, I’ve allowed the guest bloggers here to write pretty much what they pleased about all issues, including illegal immigration.Wow! What a lame defense! I'm the publisher, so let me speculate on what a publisher I hate would do, and justify myself by saying I'm only doing that. How unappealing! The commenters over there are letting him have it.
But on the illegal immigration issue, I now find myself having to contend with at least three out of four guest bloggers who will reflexively try to poke holes in any argument I make.
Suppose three out of four columnists at the Old York Times were pro-Republican. You can bet publisher “Pinch” Sulzberger would do something about that right quick.
Suppose a Bush administration official came out openly against amnesty. The Bushies would show him the door.
Similarly, the writers at PoliPundit.com need to respect the editorial position of PoliPundit.com on the most important issue to this blog, as the “publisher” sees it - illegal immigration.
Why is immigration suddenly making everyone crazy? The problem has been with us forever.
Posts
57 comments:
The problem has been with us for decades, but some blogs and talk-radio have been pushing it and fanning flames for a few months now. The May 1 "march" (which had more to do with A.N.S.W.E.R than Mexican immigrants) got them into a full-throated howl and lots of people are now flying on an autopilot of hate and reflexive, reactionary hyperventilation. It's been awful to watch. The breakdown at Polipundit mirrors the breakdown of the right. The hard-liners on immigration have entered Kos territory. I'm reading a lot fewer blogs, these days.
O/T, Chris Daughtry was on Regis yesterday, accompanied himself on guitar (very ably) and killed! I am so much more interested in AI right now than politics. I can't believe I just wrote that.
Ann, I share your puzzlement over the immigration imbroglio. Maybe it's 'cause we're not near the border. But Wisconsin's farm economy is most definitely helped by workers from Mexico and central America. Some are probably here illegally, too -- but they are helping.
I know you're not arguing that the guy who runs Polipundit doesn't have the right to decide which views are associated with the blog he runs and pays for, right? ;)
This is perhaps off-topic, but I really wish people would be careful to distinguish between immigration and illegal immigration, as your post does not. The furore lately has nothing do to with immigration; it is a filthy and exceedingly cheap smear to suggest - even by implication - that the vast majority of those who are voicing concern about illegal immigration are in fact xenophobes opposed to immigration. There are, obviously, that tiny minority who really are anti-immigration in general, but just as it would be an obvious non-sequitur to presume that just because someone does not want to abolish the death penalty, they therefore want to go back to hanging, drawing and quartering for every single felony, it is also a non-sequitur to say that those opposed to illegal immigration are opposed to immigration.
I have heard of Lorie Byrd but had never heard of Polipundit so take that you Abe Sulzberger wannabe. Kinda odd to want to be an "Abe" don't you think?
But I digress re immigration. As a Pennsylvanian, I am not on the front lines of the issue so to speak. It must be much different in AZ, TX, NM, CA, etc.
All I can say is if we are going to have a lot of illegal immigrants, Mexicans are in many ways like most Americans: hard working, family-oriented and religious.
BUT I am tired of our law-crazy lawmakers who pick and choose which laws they will enforce. If a nuke gets in and erases Chicago, will we then start holding our Congress responsible (I'll bring the rope) They simply refuse to listen to the masses.
I am also at a loss over the intense reaction over the immigration issue. I think Bush's plan is very pragmatic. It takes into account human behavior and desires. It reminds me of welfare reform, which was a pragmatic solution. School Vouchers is also a pragmatic solution. Usually it is those on the left that reject pragmitism.
At this point, many coservatives are so sour that they won't even listen to the arguments anymore (i.e. Polipundit). They hate Bush because of this one issue. The call him a liberal, despite his judicial nominations, tax cuts, etc...
Bush will finish his term in the 30% range largly because of this issue. However, if he leads us to a pragmatic solution, he will be thanked for his leadership in the long term.
You want all the laws enforced to the letter all the time?
As a thought experiment, picture one day where that actually happens. Seriously make the effort. Every illegal immigrant is deported. Everyone who possesses marijuana gets arrested. Everyone who speeds gets a ticket. Everyone who ever cheated on his taxes gets indicted. You think you are embracing order when you say enforce all the laws, but I predict utter chaos.
Well, not really, because it's only a thought experiment. In the real world, it can't be done. At the very least you'd have to change a lot of laws into rules you're actually willing to enforce (and pay for enforcing) to the hilt.
I think that we need to begin by passing the House bill, we need to proceed by finding a practical way to deport illegals, and then I think we need to examine ways to make it easier to immigrate.
It's analagous to the drug trade (which is also directly related to border security): people do not grow drugs because it's fun, they grow them because it's profitable. You don't have to make the border impermeable to reduce the influx of drugs, you just have to make it less permeable, such that it costs more and more to import drugs. Same here. You can't solve the immigration problem just by building a big fence, but what you can do is to make it easier for people to immigrate legally and harder to immigrate illegally, which will greatly change the calculus in favor of documented immigration.
If someone robs a bank, makes off with a million dollars, and proceeds to live a good, law-abiding and eve philanthropic lifestyle, we would not refer to them as a bank robber, but in all other ways a law-abiding citizen, and forgive their crime because of their subsequent conduct; we would find them, charge them, and punish them. Why, then, would we consider it to be an acceptable term, "illegal immigrant but in other ways law abiding citizens"?
Why is immigration suddenly making everyone crazy? The problem has been with us forever.
I think it is cyclic. We had immigration 'reform' in 1965, 1986, and twenty years later we see it again. Isn't twenty years considered a generation? The hardliners all seem to think that if we just build a fence to keep all these foreigners out everything will be hunky dory. What do they think is going to happen if Mexico can't export some of its surplus labor; that they will work to elect an Objectivist government that will be a model of free market capitalism? If they think we have border security problems now just wait till Mexico, the second biggest exporter of Oil to the U.S., has a Marxist oriented government.
Having spent most of my life (48 years) in NM and Texas, there is very little new to this issue and Ann is right, its very complex. Any one with a simple solution has no clue what's going on.
One difference over the years, when I was young, many Hispanics in NM, whose families had been here for a very long time, did not naturally blend with Mexicans (illegal or otherwise). To the extent they both spoke Spanish, it was as different as what an Aussie and a Southerner speak.
Now there is a trend to unite as a group, I assume driven by those trying to make political hay out of it. But the guy crossing over to make some money and all the benefits and problems associated, is nothing new.
Why is immigration suddenly making everyone crazy? The problem has been with us forever.
Because Bush decided he wanted to do something about it, and then chose to propose doing something most of his base thinks is gobsmackingly idiotic. And they are consequently ticked off.
This is perhaps off-topic, but I really wish people would be careful to distinguish between immigration and illegal immigration, as your post does not.
This cannot be repeated enough. Immigration doesn't threaten sovereignty. Illegal immigration does. Which is why it pisses people off, especially those who waited in line properly to get in, and now find themselves lumped together with the scofflaw subjects of a foreign power.
Strictly speaking, though, illegal immigration from Mexico is an issue we should be settling with the Mexican government -- it's not really an internal matter, any more than it's an internal matter when other countries send millions of their people into a neighbouring nation, in contravention of that nation's laws. Usually, in other countries, the solution has been extradition, although we've slept on our rights so long that's no longer a feasible solution.
Unfortunately, no one seems to be willing to demand that the Mexican government meet the most basic obligations of a sovereign state and prevent its people from violating the territorial sovereignty of its neighbours.
MadisonMan... it definitely may be geography. I live in So. Cal. and when immigrants start to clog the (already clogged) freeways, pack the ERs for taxpayer paid visits for colds and flus, and live (literally) 2, 3, and 4 families to a house.... California is ground zero. That's not even counting the angs in Santa Ana and LA from El Salvador, Honduras in addition to the already existing street gangs and prison gangs. It's over load. No cheap vegetable (which is brought from Chile, Mexico, etc. under NAFTA anyway) is worth the huge tax burden. I'm paying for my kids healthcare and for the healthcare of folks who pay not dime one into the system. I don't blame them I blame the home builders, middle classe folks too lazt to mow their own damn lawns, and the companies large and small that subsidize a system that is often little better than slavery.
AJ Lynch said...
"I am tired of our law-crazy lawmakers who pick and choose which laws they will enforce. If a nuke gets in and erases Chicago, will we then start holding our Congress responsible (I'll bring the rope) They simply refuse to listen to the masses."
I think you need to go back to American government 101, my friend. Which branch of government MAKES the laws, and which branch of government ENFORCES the laws?
Hint: it isn't Congress that is choosing which laws to enforce.
Ann Althouse said...
"You want all the laws enforced to the letter all the time?"
What was it General Grant said? "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution"?
"Why is immigration suddenly making everyone crazy? The problem has been with us forever."
It's all about fear. On this topic, that's the way it has been since, oh, shortly after the Founding. It's hard to keep a complete catalog of all of the fears in play, and none of them is entirely irrational. The main generators of fear today are terrorism -- since 9/11 that's associated with foreigners; nativism -- a cultural constant in American history, even as the "culture" has changed over time (QED!); and Malthusianism -- with all these low skill foreigners arriving, we're going to run out of space/jobs/welfare benefits/you name it.
While fear is generating all the heat, it is obviously true that (a) the US needs to maintain control of its borders, (b) incentives and consequences as perceived by would-be immigrants (legal and illegal) are at least as important in doing that as are fences and National Guard units, (c) in a nation of immigrants, we will always be conflicted about these issues, and (d) grand, sweeping solutions will always crater when faced with the hardship to particular individuals or families faced with deportation after having lived and worked hard and honestly in the US for years. Like it or not, generosity in these matters is as American as apple pie.
Like Ann, I didn't watch the President's speech last night. But I gather he tried to balance those realities, in a decent and sensible way respectful of American traditions. Despite all his troubles, Bush is the gift that keeps on giving. (OK, quoxxo, have fun with that one.)
Anne asked "Why is immigration suddenly making everyone crazy? The problem has been with us forever."
I think it's because hundreds of thousands of illegals and their supporters have been taking to the streets to insist that we legalize them, and it gives many of us a feeling of real existential threat. The "one time" amnesty of 1986 has led to a situation where these millions of new illegals are demanding accomodation; we fear the consequences if these millions are amnestied and millions more follow them. Many people have also had first-hand negative experiences with increasingly aggressive illegals, mainly in parts of the country where their numbers have grown large enough that they feel comfortable displaying their feelings of Mexican nationalism and contempt for "gringos".
Simon: "...I really wish people would be careful to distinguish between immigration and illegal immigration, as your post does not. The furore lately has nothing do to with immigration; it is a filthy and exceedingly cheap smear to suggest - even by implication - that the vast majority of those who are voicing concern about illegal immigration are in fact xenophobes opposed to immigration."
If "illegal immigration" has nothing to do with "immigration," why is the word "immigration" in the phrase? Is it like "Grape Nuts"?
And what's your flow of thought here? Saying "immigration" without the adjective "illegal" is filthily smearing people as xenophobes? By implication only, but still "filthy and exceedingly cheap"?
I'm interested in this hysteria and political strategizing as a rich example of how the human being behaves.
As far as the actual problem of whatever you want to call it: It's complicated, and not susceptible to ideological solution. I'll just repeat the point I made back here:
There are many problems that, for me, provoke only this thought: If it were my job to solve this problem, I would work on it, and, in this process working on it, anything I have to say about it now would be something I wouldn't waste my time on.
SteveR said...
"[T]here is very little new to this issue and Ann is right, its very complex. Any one with a simple solution has no clue what's going on."
Not only are you correct, but no conservative should disagree with you. As Burke wrote:
"In the gross and complicated mass of human passions and concerns the primitive rights of men undergo such a variety of refractions and reflections that it becomes absurd to talk of them as if they continued in the simplicity of their original direction. The nature of man is intricate; the objects of society are of the greatest possible complexity; and, therefore, no simple disposition or direction of power can be suitable either to man's nature or to the quality of his affairs. When I hear the simplicity of contrivance aimed at and boasted of in any new political constitutions, I am at no loss to decide that the artificers are grossly ignorant of their trade or totally negligent of their duty. The simple governments are fundamentally defective, to say no worse of them."
Consider: many illegal immigrants have had children here. A child born in the United States is an American citizen, unless and until we amend the Constitution; should we deport the parents and make the children wards of the state? But isn't part of the argument for deportation the unfair drain on state resources represented by illegal immigrants using state services? Catch 22.
Ann:
"If 'illegal immigration' has nothing to do with 'immigration,' why is the word 'immigration' in the phrase? Is it like 'Grape Nuts'?"
No, it's like "illegal drugs." Cocaine and coffee are both drugs, and they're both products of Columbia, but nobody who says they're opposed to the trade in illegal drugs from Columbia means to include coffee in that statement, and nobody who hears someone declare that they are opposed to the flow of illegal drugs thinks that person means coffee.
Immigration and illegal immigration are closely-related but separate issues; I fail to see how it is doublethink to have liberal views on the former and conservative views on the latter.
And there are even worse reactions out there. Captain's Quarters notes the worst I've seen.
Guys, immigration has been with us forever but not at this level. I am up early this morning because my Hispanic neighbor's dogs, left all night in the yard despite all of our begging, barked their heads off and woke us at 4:30. Several friends have boarding houses next door, but the owners I guess don't have to obey zoning laws either. I had to quit a great teaching gig because my Asian boss after 1 month dropped a bag of money in my lap and said "we're going to do it his way so we don't pay taxes." The kids used to ask me what birth date to put on forms, their real one or the one on their (fake) birth certificates. The Asians started their own PTA at the local award winning high school with their own agenda, not revealed to outsiders. I see people walking by my house every day pushing stolen grocery carts. They live in apartment complexes, formerly housing elderly, in self-imposed squalor I have never seen except for photos of the Great Depression. And more taxes on the way to pay for our crowded schools and deteriorating infrastructure! That's not my fault.I have no problem with a moderate amount of illegal immigration, but this is too much.
The conversation in CA used to be "hey, where are you from?" Now it's "when are you going"?
I am really scared that if the Conservatices win in 06, the next thing you know they will be calling for impeachment. Crazy wingnut conservative bloggers like La Shawn Barber already are!
And of course, so do the commenters on your site! (Though to be honest, I cannot find that comment thread at this moment.)
Bush Derangement Syndrome!!!!
Ann Althouse said...
You want all the laws enforced to the letter all the time?
If you were in Madison in the 70s, you could have voted for Edward Ben Elson, who ran for DA on the slogan "just obey good laws."
I don't really see the relevance of Burke here. There are two issues -- the illegal immigrants already here and continuing illegal immigration. The first is only a problem for the next 60 years or so, as the illegal generation grows old and dies, and their children and grandchildren are all naturalised Americans, hopefully socialised, in our schools, to a loyalty to the United States, with any Johnny Reb secessionist sentiment wrung out of them. We may want to do something in that interval to "normalise" their status, but whether we do or not, this particular problem really will go away if we ignore it long enough. Our society is resilient, and will muddle on.
Stopping up the continuing flow of illegal immigration is not a problem that admits of an easy solution (e.g. Build a wall! And a minefield!), but whether or not that particular end -- viz. developing structures such that we can control ingress and egress into the country, and monitor visa status -- should be pursued seems rather less complicated. And this is the ground the current debate is really on, right now. There are proposals about "guest worker" programmes and new enforcement regimes and whatnot, but they're all talking past each other, because there has not been any consensus on what concrete aims we're trying to pursue at the moment.
"The reason is simple. What was once a minor annoyance is now becoming a threat to our national security and our national identity."
I think there's some truth in that. Perhaps part of the problem is that you see here an increase in numbers of immigrants conjoined to the liberal meme of "multiculturalism" which has fatally undercut the melting pot idea that sucessfully integrated previous generations of immigrants. Today, instead of requiring new arrivals to learn English and to integrate into American society, one walks into Lowes and sees signs in Spanish, and reads in the newspaper that in certain Los Angeles schools, some classes are now being taught in Spanish, no doubt to the immense distress of the non-espanophone students. Perhaps the reason for the bipartisan nature of the concern is that this crisis represents a bipartisan failure: it is a failure of liberal immigration policy conjoined with a failure of conservative border security policy.
"This cannot be repeated enough. Immigration doesn't threaten sovereignty. Illegal immigration does. Which is why it pisses people off, especially those who waited in line properly to get in, and now find themselves lumped together with the scofflaw subjects of a foreign power."
*Raises hand*
I agree. I felt unarticulable contempt for those people who marched under the banner of "a day without immigrants", because I felt in some way people might be taken in by the fiction that they speak for immigrants, and assume that I had some sympathy for these scofflaws. Great choice of words, by the way.
I think being an immigrant strongly affects my views of a number of things, from immigration, to law, to America in general.
Yes, the issue is more complicated out here in California, but that only means the vitriol is stronger - I put the blame on local talk radio for inflaming the issue, for infecting the dialouge and turning what is primarily a social and economic issue into a life or death struggle of national security and even national identity, abusing the word "invasion" and making it into yet another overly politicized, meaningless political term.
There's a strong, populist Pat Buchananism in the Republican Party now. It's never pleasant to witness, and it'll keep pushing and continue with its own hysterics until it damages the party, just like it did in 1992.
DU
I don't think that the President or many of the Republicans really want this debate right now - it is most likely why his approval ratings have been in free fall.
But I think things have come to a boil here with both sides pressing hard for a solution. I think a lot on the right are fed up with paying for the illegal immigrants, and are extremely troubled by the level of lawlessness that has arisen in this area.
Of course, all the recent marches, etc., with all the waving Mexican flags, etc. have only increased this feeling - that we are losing the America we love, etc. In the end though, I think that those illegals who are marching are going to be hurt by the marches, because that has increased the paranoia of those opposed to illegal immigration and in fear of being assimilated ourselves.
It is going to be interesting to see exactly what bill gets enacted. As Mike Rosen, on KOA radio here, just said, the House version is strong on enforcement and weaker on amnesty, and the Senate version is extremely generous on amnesty, but toothless on enforcement. Because of all those marches, I expect the final bill to be closer to the House version - and that the most egregious portions of the Senate version will be dropped. Most Americans do not want 193 million new Hispanic residents here (this extremely high estimate from the Heritage Foundation and Senator Jeff Sessions).
Jim said...
"Simon - Are you scared of the Spanish language taking over or debasing our society?"
No - y no pienso que es probable. No pienso que el bilingüismo nacional es deseable.
¿Por qué usted gente lo asume siempre está debido a miedo? ¿Usted piensa allà no es ninguna otra buena razón de oponer la inmigración ilegal?
I do like polipundit, and will miss Lorie there. For a long time, it was fun battling the drive by trolling from the left, and actually got into some good arguments there with some very articulate and well prepared partisans on the other side from me.
But recently, PoliPundit himself has been on a rampage on this issue, and it seems like 2/3 of the articles are fire breathing rants at the Administration over their pig headedness in not shooting the illegals as they cross the border.
In other words, the site has lost its appeal to me. Rove, NSA, Iraq War, etc. can get me interested. But I am pretty ambivalent on this one subject, so have lost most of my enthusiasm for the site.
And, Ann, I don't think you would have liked the site even before this topic came to predominate there. There is a lot more incivility there than you see here, by far. A lot of argument by personal assassination, etc. And, a lot more partisan than your site.
I think the fear here is that the illegals are refusing to assimilate, and potentially getting away with it through their numbers. That is why all those Mexican flags were so counter-productive.
If they were legal immigrants, we would probably be almost as incensed. But this seems to throw all that we stand for in our face. They break the law, sneak in here, and then demand rights.
That, BTW, is why PoliPundit is so incensed - apparently he is a legal immigrant here, jumped all the legal hurdles, assimilated, and then finds all these others who are here illegally demanding what he worked so hard to get.
The Mechanical Eye said...
"Yes, the issue is more complicated out here in California, but that only means the vitriol is stronger - I put the blame on local talk radio for inflaming the issue, for infecting the dialouge and turning what is primarily a social and economic issue into a life or death struggle of national security and even national identity, abusing the word "invasion" and making it into yet another overly politicized, meaningless political term."
Isn't it marvellous how liberals will attempt to blame everyone EXCEPT the illegal immigrants for the current debate over illegal immigration? It's Pat Buchanan's fault; it's Rush Limbaugh's fault; it's Bush's fault; it's the House of Representatives' fault; it's globalization's fault; it's fear's fault...
Doesn't anyone see any fault, even the slightest shred of culpability, in people breaking the law to come here? Don't any of you think that maybe those who are not themselves illegals but who support the illegal cause have something to do with it? That those who try to frame the debate as being about immigration have something to do with it? Don't you think school districts which exclude non-espanophone students by teaching classes in spanish have something to do with it? Don't you think that the people who oppose mandatory ID for voting bear some responsibility? Don't you think that the people who call sceptics xenophobes are partially responsible for the tenor of the debate?
Are you seriously going to claim that this is just a storm in a teacup whipped up entirely by certain elements of the Republican party, and which has nothing to do with the actions of others?
Per Bruce, by the way, and as previously alluded to, I'm with Polipundit in terms of reason and result.
Walt,
I entirely agree that people who hire illegals are driving the problem to some extent, and should be cracked down on.
One thing I'd add, though, is that the "cheap labor" ship has sailed. Now that this issue has been put on the front burner, I suspect it will be solved, one way or another: either illegals will be deported, in which case the supply of cheap labor will disappear, or their presence will be normalized, in which case they will become subject to normal labor regulations. In either case, though, the low-wage illegal immigrant worker ship is vanishing over the horizon, and is therefore void for purposes of this debate.
There are those who say that we should solve the problem of illegal drug use by legalizing all drugs. And that's certainly an argument: if crime is getting out of control, reduce the number of criminal offenses on the books, and crime will go down. Of course, the same activity will go on as before, it just won't be a crime any more, but if your goal is to claim you've reduced the crime figures, it's certainly a solution. I just don't know that it's a good one. Likewise, we could solve the problem of illegal immigrants tommorow: we could declare an immediate amnesty, retroactively and prospectively. But we might have to consider what the consequences would be for doing so.
As others have said:
Democracy, Immigration, Multiculturalism -- pick any two.
One of my closest friends is the Anglo-Irish grandson of a Canadian immigrant. His wife is the daughter of Mexican laborers. He cares for their 1-year old daughter while doing freelancve photography part time. She makes close to 80K a year as an art director for an ad agency here in NY.
His wife told me that they were declaring their daughter "Hispanic" on the birth certificate so she would benefit from Affirmative Action. My friend's parents were hippies and he saw no problem with it.
Don't forget to find the "independent" business man who hires the illegal off the books culpable.
Excellent suggestion. Simon's comment is well-taken, but we can expect that no enforcement regime will be perfect (not even Japan's is) and so there will continue to be an illegal labour market.
Just thinking idly on this --
The employer should be fined up to treble the gap in wages and benefits between an illegal worker and a comparable legal worker, on a per-hiring-violation basis. Treble penalties, because that's just the way federal laws always get around spotty enforcement -- make the downside three times bigger.
Because of the problem of fake documents, inadvertent violations should simply be fined the wages and benefits difference (so that they do not reap economic benefit from their innocent violation, but are not otherwise penalised), but reckless or knowing violations should be sufficient to trigger treble damages.
Possibly, to defray enforcement costs, there should be a qui tam provision of some sort. Clearly there are quite a lot of people who would be quite eager to sue (or fund a foundation to sue) on behalf of the government, and use their own funds to do it. On the other hand, they shouldn't be able to recover in the full amount of the penalty, and standing to sue qui tam would probably have to be constrained, much as under the False Claims Act.
There should also be separate penalties, possibly criminal, and including jail time, for complicity/conspiracy with "coyotes" and other human traffickers.
Just thinking out loud here, though. This kind of thing is really an area where Burke's admonition, as quoted above, is commanding.
I don't think the word "invasion" is being abused when it is used to describe 12 million people illegally crossing our borders and taking up residence.
Are you serious here? 'Invasion' implies military force, central planning by a mortal enemy and massive destruction, not families sneaking over the border to get construction jobs. This kind of shrill hyperbole is does your side about as much good as waving the Mexican flag does for the other side.
FWIW, National Review weighs in.
'Invasion' implies military force, central planning by a mortal enemy and massive destruction
I don't think so -- in the modern period that has been the meaning, but when we look back at history, many invasions have proceeded without real central planning and direction, and were not engineered by a mortal enemy either. When those Germans invaded the Roman Empire, for example, they crossed the border initially simply to settle (and apparently to flee the Hun). Today in Tibet, although there are more "mortal enemy" and "central planning" overtones to it, China's great offensive against Tibet is to seed the population with so many Han Chinese that even if those "Free Tibet" protesters get their wish, and Tibet is offered self determination, Tibet will no longer belong to the Tibetans: it will have been fully integrated into the Chinese sphere, and will vote freely to remain part of Greater China. And I, at least, think of that as an invasion.
On the other hand, you are almost certainly correct that your average American only thinks of the beaches of Normandy when he hears "invasion," so that it comes off terribly shrill.
An idle thought:
If you had a demonstration for "amnest for bankrobbers," would that constitute probable cause for the police to arrest every person at the demonstration, fingerprint them, and compare the prints to their database of fingerprints from unsolved bank robberies?
I mean, when you think about it, who would show up to a demonstration for amnesty for bankrobbers except people who stood to gain something from bankrobbers getting amnesty? And who stands to gain from bankrobbers getting amnesty?
Townleybomb said...
'Invasion' implies military force, central planning by a mortal enemy and massive destruction, not families sneaking over the border to get construction jobs."
Invasion:
1. "The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer." (emphasis added) ("especially" implies alternative usage also valid)
2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful...
3. An intrusion or encroachment.
Cf. Cambridge ("to enter a place in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage; to enter an area of activity in a forceful and noticeable way; . . . moving into all areas of something and difficult to stop"); Merriam-Webster ("the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful"). Seems entirely apt to me.
Jim said...
"Your spanish is better than mine (or you are very adept at using Babelfish)."
My Spanish is roughly passable; my Babelfish is outstanding. ;)
I love this country, and from where I sit, one of the things that has made it great is that people have brought their own unique cultures to America, and yet have found a way to be both proud to be American and yet proud of their cultural heritage. I don't mind "hyphenated Americans," although I understand why some people find that troubling; the reason I don't mind is because I think mostly every previous wave of immigration HAS integrated into American society, and one of the reasons for that is because we have not been shy to say "if you come here, you can remain proud of your heritage, but you must understand that you will be first, last and always American. This country's ability to absorb newcomers without worrying about whether we're being culturally insensitive by demanding they become Americans overlooks a crowning achievement almost unique to America: you can become American. All jokes aside (and there are so many that offer themselves), you may move to France, and you may become a citizen of France, but you can never become French. By contrast, a person can not only come to America, they can not only become a citizen of America, they can become an American. It remains a mystery why liberals are so anxious to debase with a pallid version of multiculturalism one of the shining accomplishments of the United States: the creation of a polity defined primarily by shared fealty to certain political ideals, the most important of which are of course enshrined in the Constitution. That is why, by the way, Judge Kozinski's story is so inspiring to me: he is living proof that European dentistry and a funny accent do not prevent a person from becoming an American, and moreover, to not just be here, but to make a genuine and important contribution to America. (I suppose if I were more concerned with athletics than law, I might say Gov. Schwarzenegger, whose speech at the last GOP convention was genuinely inspiring, and with which I felt great empathy). My views have a lot to do with being an immigrant, but so does that I feel the need to push those views sometimes: when I hear liberals badmouthing this country, unlike them, I have some basis for comparison. It is not simply a conservative dream that America is the shining city on the hill, or the greatest country on Earth, it is fact, and anyone who sincerely doubts otherwise would be well-served to spend a few years living in another country.
But in any event, something has gone very wrong with our immigration policy when people are not taking seriously the citizenship oath, which admonishes to "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen . . . [and to] support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . . [and to] bear true faith and allegiance to the same" Any person who took that oath and showed up at one of those demonstrations lied when they took the oath. It is binding, and yes, it imposes on non-native born citizens obligations that go above and beyond those of native-borns. That is appropriate, in my view.
"Out of curiosity, from where are you an immigrant?"
The old country: Britain. It goes without saying that it is not lost on me that it is considerably easier for someone who shares a language and approximately eight centuries of history with the American civilization to integrate into American civilization.
I think that PoliPundit originally liked the idea of co-bloggers. Lorie, in particular, is one reason that his blog grew as it did.
The problem I think is that he feels extremely strongly on this one subject, and his co-bloggers don't, or don't agree with him.
That is one thing that Ann has avoided here - she speaks with a single voice, and, thus, can't get into this sort of fight with co-bloggers.
Jim,
It was a story on NPR, I think, a few weeks back. IIRC, the expanded gist was that you had a school where something like 5% of the population was white, 15% was black and the rest were latino, so the school hit on the brilliant idea of teaching some - not all - of the classes in Spanish. Which is, of course, asinine for any number of reasons, of which the most glaring are: it excludes 20% of the students, it presumes that all latinos are espanophone, it squanders the opportunity to develop students' use of English, and worst of all, it encourages bilingualism and voluntary cultural segregation
Invasion may be too militaristic a word to describe what's going on, although the "reconquista" rhetoric would seem to warrant it's use.
I would describe what's going on as colonization.
What is happening now is no different than what has been happening continuously over the last few hundred years, except that the 'new' immigrants have more skin pigmentation, and hence perhaps, stronger resentment from folks here already.
This argument is literally no different than what happens in the Suburbs. People want to be the last one in the door, and shut it right behind them. They change and amend laws that make it difficult for new people to enter their territory, and then when they tire of being around all these 'different' people that no doubt find their way in, they leave in place of somewhere more familiar.
This isn't about legal vs illegal immigration, its about how people hate and fear change and anything thats not in their comfort zone. That goes for the blues and the reds..
perry, I don't where you are from but your description is a far cry from how most people feel where I'm from (less than an hour from the border). Fifty percent of my co workers, neighbors, friends and schoolmates of my kids are Hispanic. Its mostly about what's legal, not what's different.
Plenty of Mexican citizens come here all the time legally, to work, to shop and visit. No problema.
I think that this entire incident shows how ingrown and incestuous the blogging world is. I just checked over at Polipundit and this controversy has elicited, as of this writing, 450 comments! It's amazing that we care this much about what is, essentially, a personal dispute. But the blogging world is such a tight little realm that perhaps this shouldn't amaze me.
The incident has also taught me something about the limits of blogrolling. I checked and saw that a few of the blogs I frequent link to Polipundit on their blogrolls. But honestly, until I saw Ann's post on this little tempest in a blogspot, I don't remember ever hearing of the site, much less visiting it.
Bloggers always like being linked to blogrolls, of course. But blogrolling doesn't necessarily bring traffic. The three sites whose blogrolls bring the most readers to my blog are Hugh Hewitt's, Mark Roberts's, and Theoretical Bling Bling. In each case, I think that there are different reasons for the readers there linking to my blog:
Hugh features my blog on a relatively small list of Godbloggers. It's easy to see the link.
Mark is a fellow pastor and I would guess that a large number of those who hit on his links are looking for similar material to what he presents there.
Icepick of Bling Bling has one relatively short blogroll.
To have one's blog listed among a cast of thousands probably doesn't drive a lot of traffic to a site. There's still no substitute for having specific posts sited within posts by other bloggers. That's how I went to the now-beclouded Polipundit for the first time.
One last element of this little storm has to do with group blogging. Of course, group blogging is going to take off in a big way. But I think that in order for them to do so will require some agreed-upon styles, such as one sees in newspapers or magazines. And, there will always be single-authored blogs which, at present, I vastly prefer. I talked about that a few days ago on my own blog (http://markdaniels.blogspot.com/2006/05/i-still-like-simple-single-author.html).
Mark Daniels
Coco said...
"Its like listening to Laura Ingram...which by the way said something yesterday that was almost verbatim repeated by Simon as soon as you used the word immigration in your post rather than illegal immigration. "
Well, sadly, I can't listen to Laura, because she's not syndicated on any stations that I'm in reception distance of. However, I guess the obvious rejoinder to your point would be that if Laura Ingraham said two plus two is four and Ann posted the next day about two plus two equalling four, I'd probably agree with Laura that two plus two is four.
It's clever how you attempt to basically avoid engaging with the actual thrust of the post by scoffing at how beneath your dizzying intellect and sensibilities all this muck-flinging is. That ability to avoid engaging intellectually with an argument - particularly one self-evidently descriptive - is sure something I admire in a person.
perry said...
"What is happening now is no different than what has been happening continuously over the last few hundred years, except that the 'new' immigrants have more skin pigmentation."
Well, not really. The difference isn't the color of their skin, because you'll notice that no one of whom I'm aware is talking about deporting (a) immigrants or (b) latinos; they're talking about deporting illegal immigrants, of whatever race. The difference is entirely in the law. Let me be explicit: I think immigration is good. I fully understand and applaud a desire to come to this country. I think that if these folks leave, they should not be forebarred from coming back the legal way, and in fact, should be encouraged to do so. But what I will not do is sanction their being here illegally, and it is a mystery to me why so many Americans seem to be demanding that the government fail to enforce the laws that already exist on this issue. What drives you people to demand amnesty - is it greed? Is it fear? I mean, you keep saying how it's all about us conservatives being afraid, but it seems equally plausible that YOUR position is motivated by fear, in your case, of the economic consequences of mass deportation? It's far too easy - and lazy - to play this silly ad hominem fear card, especially since both sides can do it.
OTOH:
"This isn't about legal vs illegal immigration, its about how people hate and fear change and anything thats not in their comfort zone. That goes for the blues and the reds.."
You know what? Don't tell anyone, but I'll let you in on the secret: you're right. You've got us pegged. We sure do just hate and fear change, and anything that's not in our comfort zones. You know what else wasn't in my comfort zone? Moving four thosand miles from my family into a culture which is, if anything, made even more alien by overfamiliarity. It wasn't much in my comfort zone to have to work out, from scratch, how to integrate into this country, and to determine what the paramters of this society and my obligations to it were. It wasn't exactly in my comfort zone to discover that a lot of poltical ideas I'd thought were self-evident before I moved here simply didn't apply in America; it was necessary to start again, from scratch: culturally, socially, intellectually and politically. But it is what this country requires of immigrants, and I think it's right that it does. Your comments speak ill of you.
Seven Machos said...
"If there were no immigrants to take crappy, low-paying jobs, (a) a lot more legal Americans would have crappy, low-paying jobs, or (b) costs of goods and services would rise because crappy jobs would pay more, or (c) some things involving crappy jobs would not get done."
I think the answer is primarily (b).
"The same people who bitch about illegal aliens cheat on their taxes and cheat on their spouses, and get parking tickets."
Tangentially, I'd point out that people who cheat on their spouses are thereby estopped from entering the debate on homosexual marriage. This is why I have no beef with homosexual marriage: because I believe marriage IS sacrosanct, but I also think there are things that some heterosexuals do that inflict far more damage on the sanctity of marriage than would two men or women in love being married to one another. Two people in love is not a threat to the sanctity of my marriage, or anyone else's. Quickie divorce, modern culture, infidelity, Britney Spears: if none of these things existed, it might be possible to talk seriously of homosexual marriage harming marriage in some quantifiable sense, but since they do exist, any damage that homosexual marriage might to do the sanctity of marriage (and I'm not convinced there is any) would be a drop in the bucket. I agree with a lot of things Newt Gingrich says, but I am not going to take a lecture from that man on the sanctity of marriage.
"Having said all this, a wall between the U.S. and Mexico + the path to citizenship + real assimilation argument would really be the true ideal."
Depending on what you mean by "the path to citizenship", I agree. If by "the path to citizenship", you mean a generalized liberalization and simplification of our immigration laws, I fully agree; if you mean amnesty, I do not.
"One more comment: enforcement against employers is going to cause (a) small businees to go out of business or (b) goods and services to cost more money."
I believe in the efficacy of the market, I believe in the rule of law, I believe in fair play, and I don't believe in subsidies. Failing to enforce immigration laws distorts the market and penalizes law-abiding companies by unfairly subsidizing companies that break the law. Quadruple word score. ;)
It's a "velvet" invasion. Clearly the Mexican government has encouraged it overtly and their consulates here organize support for the amnesty cause--as well as keep up with their countrymen now that they have money.
The way we relate to each other and to our government, our notions of civic society, all of these are changing by virtue of a majority third world populace in urban California. The music centers, museums, and cultural institutions are withering. All of this constitutes "culture." As I said before, the immigrant communities I live with are segregating themselves away from our culture voluntarily.
Not everybody takes advantage of cheap labor. My house is being painted this week by legal workers with proper insurance at twice the cost of a cheap job done by illegals.
I'd have no problem with a path to citizenship that would include fines either - it is a form of punishment. Giving a fine would NOT be amnesty - the word suggests a an unconditional forgiveness of a transgression.
Also, I notice "amnesty" is fast becoming a swear word hurled at those who don't advocate immediate sweeps of entire neighborhoods. This is what I mean by the nasty effects of the talk-radio circuit on the issue.
Finally... I'm a LIBERAL? Simon, I think you should peruse my blog - the URL's on my Blogger Profile. Its possible for conservatives to have different takes on the same issue, you know.
I wasn't aware our side of the aisle was becoming as ossified and label-driven as the left.
DU
I used to read Polipundit during the 2004 campaign, but I stopped after that ...
I think the contributers are mainstream, ardent Republicans. That they would come to such a divide says something about the illegal immigration issue. I don't lean quite as far right as Polipundit does on most issues, so I'm sad to hear Lorie Byrd is leaving. On the other hand, the blogosphere as a whole has thousands of personalities clashing with each other, winking in and out of existence, this is just business-as-usual.
Somewhat unrelated:
I second the point made several previous posters that it's not a immigration issue, it's a ILLEGAL immigration issue. The MSM is applying tremendous energy to confuse the two topics. Illegal immigrants are criminals simply by standing on US soil.
Are they good people who just want a better life? Mostly, yes. Should we change the laws? Absolutely. But let's not have any nonsense about their current standing with the law. A sovereign nation has the right to refuse immigrants and place walls on its soil wherever it pleases.
Chris:
"entering the country without permission is a crime, but actually being in the country is considered an administrative issue. If this is the case, the continuing depiction of illegal immigrants as scofflaws is a little harsh."
Well, if you're game to join a colloquy, let's try it this way: the Fourth Amendment generally prevents warrantless searches. If the police search your home in what they admit is violation of the Fourth Amendment, is that evidence admissable in Court?
(Here's a hint).
Quote Chriso: My point was simply that a lot of commenters seem to feel that illegal aliens are in the act of committing crimes simply by walking the streets of this country. I think it's relevant only because there is a distinct undercurrent of thought that they don't deserve any sympathy because they are lawbreakers.
Yes, they are lawbreakers simply by standing on US soil. Sympathy is irrelevant - if we had the right (and apparently some think we do) to obey the laws only if we thought they were humane or right or just, they would hardly be laws at all. A law without unconditional enforcement is not a law.
By that standard, any one of us who has ever broken a law should be looked at the same way.
No. The situations are completely different. If I robbed a bank, got caught and served time, I would deserve to be given a second chance, having paid my debt. If I robbed a bank, was not caught, and continue to live off my ill-gotten gains, then I broke the law and continue to break the law.
Illegal immigrants break the law by entering, well, illegally, and continue to break the law by staying.
Chris -
Yep, that's what I had in mind. :) I think "altoids1306" has already made the point I'd have made with his bankrobber analogy.
ChrisO:
Illegal immigration is pretty open-and-shut to me. The name says it all (which is why the media tries to obscure it with this "undocumented" idiocy). Entering a country without a valid visa or other form of legal standing is illegal. Staying in a country without a valid visa or other legal standing is illegal. This is so simple and self-evident that I can hardly believe it is necessary to type these words.
Now, obviously, most illegal immigrants are good people seeking a better life. But that doesn't change their legal standing, and, given that millions diligently wait for their visas and green cards to enter the country legally, I don't have particular sympathy for them.
This whole issue reminds me of "group think". Everyone talking about the same issue at once. Who give the blogger their talking points?
I'm sorry, but illegal immigration has been around forever. This is Bush's first decent proposal since Social Security reform. If we're really worried about terrorists, then it makes complete sense to start documenting the guest workers that are here and accepting reality. Then you can actually weed out the people who should NOT be here.
This whole debate borders on Xenophobia and racism. It is so sad. What is even sadder is that these xenophobic bloggers are now considered mainstream.
Bravo to Bush (and trust me - I haven't said that for a while).
Post a Comment