Tuesday, April 11, 2006
The immigration rallies in context
I'm well-known among my readers for being "soft" on illegal immigration, so many of you may not share my enthusiasm for this picture, from the front page of today's New York Times:
That's tens of thousands of immigrants, all waving flags and signs that say "We Are America." Whatever issues one has with the many cultural questions posed by heavy immigration, illegal or otherwise, America's illegal immigrants are campaigning for inclusion and more fluid labor markets. As a general matter, they want opportunity, not a handout (the handouts in this country aren't that great, anyway). Compare the comportment of our demonstrators with the burning cars of France in November, or the demands of our immigrants with those of French students this spring, who committed arson in opposition to a truly trivial liberalization of the labor market. After years of listening to European sanctimony about the supposed cruelty of the American system, I'll take our social problems any day of the week.
14 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Tue Apr 11, 10:14:00 AM:
By 
, at
Tue Apr 11, 01:43:00 PM:
TH- The organizers of the protests realized they were getting bad press and angering ordinary Americans by waving Mexican flags and carrying signs denouncing Americans. They have cleaned up their act for the most part, but the sentiment for many still remains. Don't be fooled by someone waving an American flag.
In 1986 and 1996 we gave retroactive amnesty to millions while vowing to "get tough" on the border and sanction employers hiring illegals. Did we get tough at the border? Are there meaningful sanctions on employers? No, there are not.
Is history repeating itself as farce yet? Both parties want to win the majority of the hispanic vote. That's the main thing in their minds. Everything else is secondary.
By , at
Tue Apr 11, 02:10:00 PM:
BTW-
How are illegal immigrants treated in Mexico? Mexican law precludes illegal immigrants (and their children) from using public services, including schools and hospitals. Mexican-born children of illegals are not recognized as Mexican citizens. They are not afforded the protection (such as it is) of Mexican law, due process, etc. The regular Mexican army is at the southern border of Mexico to keep people out. About 250,000 illegals were expelled from Mexico last year.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Tue Apr 11, 03:35:00 PM:
Soft on immigration I expected. Approving of something in the NYT was a surprise.
By , at
Tue Apr 11, 03:48:00 PM:
MM says..
"The organizers of the protests realized they were getting bad press and angering ordinary Americans by waving Mexican flags and carrying signs denouncing Americans."
This is correct. The communist, socialist and reconquista organisers of these events hate America and Americans.
Check out Michelle Malkins website
http://www.michellemalkin.com/
to see photos the socialists don't want you to see. Not all illegal immigrants hate America, but way more do than the sanitized photo at the top of this article.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Apr 11, 05:11:00 PM:
Apparently the demonstrations were neither as large nnor as benign as the NYT suggests. See Powerline for video. Note especially the involvement on International A.N.S.W.E.R. an acknowledged Communist organization and the banners of Che Guevara. But for the editorial slight of hand by the NYT -- which is profoundly unfunny -- the actual demonstrations are quite amusing.
Separately, I would note that I am the product of legal immigration, and a big fan of it. But there is a "right way" and a "wrong way". Open, uncontrolled borders is the wrong way and inherently destabilizing.
By Cassandra, at
Tue Apr 11, 05:44:00 PM:
It is one thing, TH, to say that illegal immigrants don't want a handout (and I believe most of them don't) and quite another to say that the end result of their being here is not a drain on the resources of city, state, and federal governments.
Even you cannot say that with a straight face. Unless you are innumerate (or from France), you cannot have a tax system with X people paying in and X + (an ever-increasing number of illegal immigrants) pulling benefits out and trust that it will remain solvent.
Riddle me that one, batman.
You don't favor socialism, but that is exactly what you are advocating, TH: robbing from Peter to pay Pablo. You just aren't saying it openly. And that's just plain dishonest.
These are painful choices. I'm not against illegal immigrants. I understand why they want to be here. Hell, if I were them, I'd want to be here.
But we have laws. The rule of law has to mean something. We are rapidly approaching the point in this country where the race card is being thrown any time anyone wants to enforce the law. That is just plain wrong.
It is not racist to enforce immigration laws just because we share a border with Mexico. You don't live out West where this problem is really impacting a lot of folks because people are running right over their land and they can't be stopped.
I can't help but wonder how you would feel if it was your yard, or Screwy's, this was happening in? If you weren't even secure on your own property?
But it's not, you see, and that changes everything, doesn't it?
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Apr 11, 11:08:00 PM:
Well, Cass, I'm not too passionate on this topic either way. Build the wall, or don't. I doubt it will make nearly the difference that opponents or advocates imagine. So I don't care.
Now, of course I don't want lots of people running across my land. But this debate really isn't about a few ranchers who own a stretch of desert along the Arizona border, is it? (Never mind how intensely ironic it is that American ranchers, who own this land only because the United States essentially conquered it from Mexico, are now all outraged that demography seems to be overwhelming the military victory we thought we secured 150 years ago.)
As for the alleged rampant tax evasion, I'm a huge skeptic. Illegals pay sales tax, tobacco tax, liquor tax, gasoline tax, special taxes on telecom (if they use a phone), taxes on electricity, gas and so forth. You can't evade those taxes. The poor ones don't make enough money to pay income tax, so they're not evading that. Just about the only tax they should pay but don't is Social Security tax, and how are they going to collect that when they don't have a Social Security number? Indeed, some illegal immigrants pay Social Security, because they use a stolen number to get a job. Point is, the tax evasion argument strikes me as probably true at the margin, but probably not any more true for illegals than for most American working poor. And if the problem is that the concentration of poor people, whether here illegally or not, poses a fiscal burden for certain localities, we can fix that by helping out those particular localities.
By , at
Tue Apr 11, 11:58:00 PM:
"Never mind how intensely ironic it is that American ranchers, who own this land only because the United States essentially conquered it from Mexico, are now all outraged that demography seems to be overwhelming the military victory we thought we secured 150 years ago."
Ironic? How did what is now known as the American Southwest become a part of Mexico? Spanish Conquistadors invaded from the south, slaughtering and enslaving the local Indians. Would you say that was ill-gotten land acquired by a foreign power invading Indian land?
When the Mexicans finally kicked out the Spanish in 1821, Mexico claimed all lands formerly under Spanish control. The mostly unsettled territories in the north were dominated by Spaniards who had received land grants from the Spanish government at the expense of local indians. For example, when California was seized, there were only about 3,000 "Mexicans" in residence.
What claim do poor Mexican indians from Chiapis, Michoacan and thousands of other destitute areas in Mexico have on the southwest lands? Mexican indians who live here now came after Americans took the land.
"And if the problem is that the concentration of poor people, whether here illegally or not, poses a fiscal burden for certain localities, we can fix that by helping out those particular localities."
State and local governments have been begging the Federal government for funds to ameliorate fiscal burdens for years with mostly no results. Do you recall that the Democratic governors of Arizona and New Mexico have declared a state of emergency due to being swamped by immigrants?
Do you want some irony? Do you know NAFTA has allowed American farmers to ship subsidized grains and sell them in Mexico for less than the cost of production of Mexican grains? Probably a million poor Mexican farmers were forced off their lands. And where did they go? Why, to Gringolandia to do farmwork. Nice loop, huh?
A reconquista might be a humorous irony to you, but there is no way all these people coming all at once can be absorbed and made into Americans.
By Thomas, at
Wed Apr 12, 05:00:00 AM:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By Thomas, at
Wed Apr 12, 05:02:00 AM:
My cousins in Honduras patiently waited to apply for legal visas to come to America.
They are college educated, speak fluent English and were rejected. They would never dream of coming here illegally (and many millions more who are still in Latin America would never become illegal aliens either).
What they went through is NOT FAIR. When most of Latin America will see that those who break the rules are rewarded their will be more cynicism which is bad for us.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Apr 12, 06:09:00 AM:
I certainly agree that whatever we do, the INS should be turned into an efficient agency. It sounds as though it is terrible.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Apr 12, 06:38:00 AM:
Dawnfire, re your NAFTA point: the problem is not NAFTA, it is American farm subsidies, which are, in my opinion, an indefensible social and economic policy.
By , at
Thu Apr 13, 10:10:00 AM:
The news media are just showing the pictures they want you to see in reality the illegal aleins want to take over the whole nation and make this country part of MEXICO i say we should DEPORT THEM ALL and to hell with the damn politicians
