See other Immigration Articles
Title: Illegal Immigration Myths
Source:
City Journal
URL Source: http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-05-01hm.html
Published: May 1, 2006
Author: Heather Mac Donald
Post Date: 2006-05-31 09:45:22 by Phaedrus
Keywords: None
Views: 1519
Comments: 96
As the nation braced for another demonstration of illegal alien power today, the press has been trotting out “fear engulfs the illegal alien community” stories, following the arrests last month of over 1,000 illegal aliens working for IFCO Systems North America. For instance: IMMIGRANTS PANICKED BY RUMORS OF RAIDS, reported the New York Times; ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FEAR ROUNDUP, announced the Wall Street Journal; TALK OF IMMIGRANT ARRESTS IN AUSTIN FUELS FEAR, blared the Austin American-Statesman; and PATIENTS, FEARING INS RAIDS, DON’T SEEK HEALTH CARE, the Contra Costa Times warned. And what exactly is wrong with that? The premise of all such stories is that the government has acted unconscionably in causing illegal aliens to fear deportation, however remote the risk. Worrying about deportation is a cruel burden that no illegal alien should have to live with, the reporters imply—and their sources state outright. “It doesn’t help society or anyone to have these people running scared,” Mexican consul general Jorge Guajardo told the Austin American-Statesman. The stories sympathetically reported on illegal aliens too nervous to attend karate class, shop, get their free medical examinations, or pick up their subsidized prescription drugs. Somewhat braver illegals go out only to pick up their children from taxpayer-subsidized school or Head Start programs. After Border Patrol agents arrested a few hundred illegal aliens in southern California cities in 2004, the Los Angeles Times ran similar stories bemoaning the resultant fear among illegal aliens and quoting advocates and politicians blasting the Border Patrol’s outrageous behavior. This ubiquitous journalistic conceit exposes two myths and raises a public policy question. The first myth is that illegal aliens live in the shadows. The “shadows” claim then becomes an urgent reason why Congress must pass a legalization plan: so that 11 million people can come out of hiding. In fact, illegal aliens live in the full blaze of day. Only when confronted with the merest hint that immigration enforcement is even possible do they curtail their movements—and then elite thinking immediately declares such curtailment a gross injustice. But even if it were true that illegals lived in the shadows, why is that unfair? The bargain they chose was clear: if you come here illegally, the law says that you should face deportation. It is a measure of how surreal our immigration practice has become that it is now “mean-spirited” simply to raise the possibility in an illegal’s mind that his deportation risk is real, much less actually to deport him. The second myth is that the only way to reduce the illegal alien population is through “mass deportations”—assumed by the enlightened to be patently cruel. The fear stories make clear, however, that the illegal alien population has burgeoned precisely because illegals assume that they face no risk of enforcement. As soon as there is any move toward upholding the law, calculations change. Were enforcement actions to continue, the calculations made by illegals already here and those planning to come would change even more radically: many illegals would go home and many fewer would enter. As Jessica Vaughan points out in a recent report for the Center for Immigration Studies, after the Department of Homeland Security deported 1,500 illegal Pakistanis after 9/11, 15,000 more illegal Pakistanis left the country on their own. We have no reason to believe that illegal Hispanics and other populations would not follow a similar course. For this voluntary flight to happen, however, the threat of enforcement must be credible. Perversely, the federal government makes sure that the opposite is the case. As soon as “illegal alien fear” stories appear, immigration policy-makers repudiate any intention of more widespread legal action and reassure illegal aliens that they have no reason to worry. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Virginia Tice told the Wall Street Journal last week that rumors of arrests of illegal aliens were “baseless. We don’t conduct random raids.” Many immigration officials even fear the “d” word. A CNN reporter called me last year for a comment on whether an illegal Chinese man, trapped in an elevator in New York for several days, should be deported. A Department of Homeland Security spokesman had referred the reporter to me, because he was unwilling to offer any opinion himself on whether deportation was in order. When the Denver Post, in 2002, took up the cause of Jesus Apodaca, an illegal alien in Denver denied in-state tuition to the University of Colorado, Congressman Tom Tancredo was the only public official who suggested that deportation might be more appropriate. ICE stayed mum. And that leads to a key question, usually ducked: What does the country want regarding deportation? If an official from the agency responsible for protecting our borders is unwilling to call for the removal of a single illegal alien once the illegal has a face and a name, where does that leave us? Right-wing talk radio hosts and their audiences complain about border-breaking and informal legalization measures like driver’s licenses and matricula consular cards. But they usually avoid the next question: if not legalization, then, what? If ICE were to start upholding the immigration law and regularly removing illegals, the press would go into overdrive, painting each removal action as a heart-wrenching injustice. It is a calculated falsehood by the open borders lobby that mass “round-ups” are the only way to stop the invasion of illegals. But it is true that consistent enforcement actions will be necessary to broadcast that our national sanctuary policy has come to an end. Some polls suggest that the public would support such actions, and virtually all polls show that the American people certainly have a far stricter stance toward illegals than do the press and the political class—something to keep in mind before we devise our next feckless immigration bill. What Would Mexico Do with Protesting Illegals?
Poster Comment: Cutting through the illegal immigration "debate" BS. Heather McDonald is a gutsy, insightful commentator who deserves much wider recognition.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 85.
#3. To: Phaedrus (#0)
The huge marches that were staged is not what I'd call "living in the shadows." They're everywhere - they're everywhere! for crying out loud.
Look out What'll I do I can stand the sight of worms
We came not so long ago and ended thousands of year of existence of cultures. We couldn't stand the fact they weren't Christian. Doctrine of Discovery was a policy we used to say non-Christians had no sovereignty. It said that they must be made lie us, be subjugated or die. And Manifest Destiny, the white man rules, stewards those more darkened in the skin as the human body protects the owners of this corporeal form from the sun, was a refinement of that policy passed to Pope to European leaders that helps sustain the genocide of people and culture. Death, intolerance, hatred and more is what your poem is about. A history of self-righteous greed, whose latest chapter with fascist militiamen and bigots to guide it is what is far too much for me. The word Minutemen is used now for Redcoats, President Bush for King George III, if you want to squash the Mexicans, and the simple truth is, and I back it with my very life - as do many others; you have to go through people like me first before a nationwide lynching of people can occur. The immigrants are staying, if you don't like it, tough shit.
The immigrants are staying, if you don't like it, tough shit. No one is talking about lynching anyone. That is just left wing hyperbole, and it should be beneath you, Mike. These are not "immigrants". They are ILLEGAL ALIENS who have broken the laws of this country and are here illegally. We don't know who they are, what they are doing here, what their intentions are, what diseases they might have, who they are bringing in here, or anything else about them. I don't know any other major country on earth that would tolerate millions of people just pouring across their borders and NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. If you tried to sneak into Mexico (which has very stringent immigration laws) they would simply start shooting people - they would not put up with this nonsense that they are trying to force US to put up with. This shit's got to end. Insisting on an orderly process for handling immigration and whether we should have immigration quotas and standards and what that should be (just like any other country) is not "lynching" people.
And the Nazis weren't talking genocide when they came to power, they were talking about national pride in the wake of a horrible economic depression and run away inflation after a humiliating defeat that left the German people frustrated after WW I. They revealed their agenda slowly, and we see where that led. The Minutemen are led by wannabe child molesters and wife beaters like Chris Simcox, who is just another wannabe tyrant like Hitler was at the level he is at now. They are no heroes, just zeros. And the solution is better controls and a tightening of policies regulating the problem, not a wholesale lynching of a people like people who drive the brown boots called the Minutemen want.
How much of Mexico should we allow to come into this country? According to polls 40% of Mexicans want to come to the US. Should we allow all 40% of Mexico to come here? What if it increases to 50%? 75%? 100%? What's the limit? What about the rest of Central and South America? What percentage should we allow to come from there? You tell me how many people should be allowed to come into this country and what the immigration policy should be. Go ahead. Tell me that number and procedure.
You are trying to slip by the fact that these people are being used much as those escaping the dust bowl drought in the Midwest when their farmers were foreclosed when they were enticed to migrate to California by business leaders in that state. Okies were as badly hated by factions as Mexicans are today. Steinbeck's book "The Grapes of Wrath" talked about how these people suffered stereotyping and vilification while those who created the migration never had a hair knocked out of place on their balding heads. What will it take to go after the criminals in this? Why scape goat others for the crimes of business movers and shakers? How is the crime of being desperate enough to migrate worse then that of greed for even more power and money by people who already have too much of both?
You didn't answer the question. Step up to the plate and answer the question. It's simple enough. How much of Mexico (and or Central/South America) would you allow to immigrate into the United States? We now have 10% and 40% would like to immigrate. Would you allow that 40%? 50%? 75% 100%? What, if any is the limit? What rules or laws would you have in place, if any, to regulate immigration? Don't give me any bullshit about the Okies - they were already here. That's not an immigration issue. Give me the numbers and policies you would allow.
I see no point to your query if you see no point to dealing with the criminality of those who entice people into this country to make a buck and to pit one people against another. You are like Pavlov's dogs salivating at the sight of Mexicans just as the people making a buck over them being here want you to. They want you to focus on scapegoat, not the real criminals in the issue. You don't want justice in this issue, you want to have a lynching on the macro to relieve your stress concerning the problem just like they used to do in the South on a micro level when a Black man was hung for looking at a White woman the wrong way.
Mike, you are completely and totally full of shit. You cannot answer the simple question I put to you. This makes you dishonest and a liar by omission. I have no patience with people like you who do nothing but criticize others for legitimate concerns when you yourself don't have the decency or integrity to answer a simple, honest and direct question about what kind of immigration policies WE SHOULD HAVE. This makes everything else you say utter garbage and not worth responding to. You're a coward.
People lie with statistics and numbers all the time on the Internet. They also use diversionary questions that try to bypass dialog regarding the particulars of an issue which is what you do with your pointless question. I have clearly stated that I know there is a problem, and that those most guilty are getting off scott free, and you still want to talk not about the hit and run drivers, but just how many jay walkers should be allowed to jay walk. I submit it is you who is full of bovine droppings, not me. You don't have an patience for dialog on the issue period. You just want lock step compliance with how you perceive the problem to be and what solutions should be executed in regard to it. It is you and your intemperate and starkly black and white attitude concerning this issue that is the problem here, not my dismissal of your pointless and diversionary tactic that drives your ploy regarding this pointless question.
I have told you explicitly that 10% of Mexico's population is already here. That is well documented. Another 40% wants to come in according to polls. IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU? Is 50% okay? 75%? 100%? This is a simple goddam question that you can obviously answer but you won't because you'd rather play foolish, non-productive, hateful, blame-whitey games instead of actually addressing the problem and what should be done. I am again asking you - what percentage would you allow in, and what policies would YOU put in place in this country for immigration.
Tranlsation: Yours are the concerns of commoners. While he's off striking the root or whatever, us commoners will have to attend to the task at hand.
Heh, Translation of mehitable's question: "Hey common folk, don't worry your pretty little heads about those men behind the curtain. Tell you what, let's go throw rocks at dumpster divers instead."
Mike, you are just so full of shit. You cannot answer a simple question. Yes, I know all about these evil men who use and abuse the poor of all nations, including ours. That's not the issue I'm asking you about; it's another facet of it. The basic issue is immigration. And the question is very simple and direct: How many people from another country, on a percentage basis, would you allow to come here and what laws or policies would you enforce, if any? This is an issue and a question that needs to be answered totally on its own aside from any issues of abuse and exploitation from the rich. And you refuse to answer obviously BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ANSWER. This makes your opinions irrelevant.
I explained very clearly why I know your question and tact is full of B.S. I am not interested in talking about the mechanics of how the people who were used by those who profited from this migration need to be regulated. You have no answer that is not frightening to you in regards to dealing with those who made this migration so. To deal with those people is dangerous as they can make any people or group of people pay dearly for messing with them. Not to mention they have co opted and neutralized many in key positions who could bring them to task because they have the power and money to do so. Your lack of willingness to acknowledge the full scope of the issue and to prioritize the issue whereby the most appropriate target in this issue is put in the cross hairs shows a lack of courage and will on your part, not mine. The above quote verbiage in fact shows you asked the question merely to deliver the "therefore your views don't count" punchline. Just because I've been posting enough not to let someone derail me from getting to the meat of a problem or let them put me on the defensive doesn't mean squat. But thanks for finally sharing your punchline, I was wondering then you were going to get tired of your rhetorical gambit and give it up. ;-)
You may think you're being clever some how but you're coming across like a mega- asshole who can't answer the most basic question about immigration. This means that it is impossible to have any kind of actual conversation with you as all you want to do is rant at us about how awful whitey is. As for these people who are exploiting the Mexicans my answer is simple, tax the crap out of them, make them pay higher minimum wages and benefits, penalize them if they get caught hiring illegals and SHUT THEM DOWN - literally force them out of business. Beyond that we should repeal NAFTA and probably most of our other trade policies made during the past 20 years. I would like to see most of these Mexicans return home and kill their ruling class - I mean that literally - and take over and run the country themselves. They can run it any damn way they please, I don't care what type of government they institute or what policies they want to live under. There may be room for some small guest worker program if we simply cannot find enough Americans, but I just don't believe that - and I don't trust guest worker policies. If the wages are higher and benefits given, there will be Americans to do these jobs. That's my answer for the exploitation. Now back to you: If 40% of Mexico wants to come to the US, is that okay with you? What if any policies or rules would you put in place?
Translation: OK, now I'm getting pissed, and to prove it, I'm going to accuse you of race baiting again." Wonderful solution; why if the German people had taxed their Nazi government an exorbitant amount for each Jew murdered, we would have ended the whole genocide problem right there. Non solution, your gutless proposal gives defacto legitimization to the crimes of these people. They belong in prison, not have taxes that partially undoes Bush's tax break to them he uses to pander for votes. We are in agreement on this point. I would like them encouraged to move home, but if they want to stay, let them. As for the bloodthirstiness of your post, I can understand why some blood letting happens when people struggle with their government, but I will never sanction or celebrate bloodshed. Too Neocon a modus for me. And I've seen how much blood drains from a dead person and how the red settles on the yellow plasma as it separates and starts to stink and draw flies during my two month 'field trip' to Panama. You should be careful what brinkmanship you wish for, you might not get exactly what you though you would. Sounds like we might disagree on the demographics here, but essentially I can agree with much of this too. Still my reaction to this reiteration:
Okay Mike, I guess my final conclusion about your misinterpretations of my very clear prior post vis a vis "race baiting" and "blood thirstiness" is that you're just a mega-asshole, as I said before and there's no point in continuing this discussion. You refuse to supply any solutions from the Mexican side of the border. So I said to tax these employers - so what? We could jail them too and I'd support that. Obviously I am not in favor of employers exploiting these or any other workers and everyone who reads my posts can see that. You're just pushing your anti-American, pro-open borders agenda and you're being extremely dishonest about it. So that qualifies you as an asshole in my book, and unworthy of further discussion. End of debate.
You play the game of trying to redirect where I know the problem emanates from, and you are using the process to catapult your propaganda. I don't care if you like me or not. I am here to talk politics and engage in lively discussion. You are engaged in trying to shut down the focus of my comments, and I reject the pertinence of your dance on the head of a pin regarding numbers. Name calling doesn't excite nor bother me. But thanks for sharing your lack of discipline in refraining from ad homenim attacks, I am indeed entertained. How can it end when you worked to keep it from being started. Remember, you first fretted how I was "ruining" your thread by not dancing to the tune you were fiddling in it, not me.
I asked you very simple questions as an attempt to actually have a dialogue with you about this issue. Instead of answering some very simple questions, you try to put spin on the issue so you don't have to actually reveal what your real beliefs are or what your actual agenda is. You'd rather spew meaningless garbage about exploiting workers -w hich most of us would not DISAGREE WITH - than actually try to determine what the acceptable limits of immigration are. Therefore it is impossible to converse with you. Moreover, you are deceptive and dishonest in your discourse. I prefer direct answers that attempt to solve problems, I don't deal in spin.
#87. To: mehitable (#85)
I disagree, spin is exactly what you are dealing with.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: lodwick, Phaedrus (#3)
They're everywhere - they're everywhere!
Look out
Brown immigrants on parade
Here they come, hippity hoppity--
They're here, they're there, brown immigrants everywhere!
What'll I do
What an unusual view
And look at microscopic germs
But cinnamon-colored guest workers
Is really too much for me!
#5. To: Tauzero (#4)
#10. To: Ferret Mike (#5)
The word Minutemen is used now for Redcoats, President Bush for King George III, if you want to squash the Mexicans, and the simple truth is, and I back it with my very life - as do many others; you have to go through people like me first before a nationwide lynching of people can occur.
#13. To: mehitable (#10)
"No one is talking about lynching anyone."
#20. To: Ferret Mike (#13)
#23. To: mehitable (#20)
"How much of Mexico should we allow to come into this country? According to polls 40% of Mexicans want to come to the US. Should we allow all 40% of Mexico to come here? What if it increases to 50%? 75%? 100%? What's the limit?"
#32. To: Ferret Mike (#23)
#37. To: mehitable (#32)
"You didn't answer the question. Step up to the plate and answer the question. It's simple enough. How much of Mexico (and or Central/South America) would you allow to immigrate into the United States? We now have 10% and 40% would like to immigrate. Would you allow that 40%? 50%? 75% 100%? What, if any is the limit?"
#51. To: Ferret Mike, all (#37)
#52. To: mehitable (#51)
"Mike, you are completely and totally full of shit. You cannot answer the simple question I put to you."
"I have no patience with people like you who do nothing but criticize others for legitimate concerns when you yourself don't have the decency or integrity to answer a simple, honest and direct question about what kind of immigration policies WE SHOULD HAVE."
#53. To: Ferret Mike (#52)
#56. To: mehitable, Ferret Mike (#53)
#58. To: Tauzero (#56)
"Tranlsation: Yours are the concerns of commoners."
#62. To: Ferret Mike (#58)
#67. To: mehitable (#62)
"This is an issue and a question that needs to be answered totally on its own aside from any issues of abuse and exploitation from the rich. And you refuse to answer obviously BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ANSWER. This makes your opinions irrelevant."
#71. To: Ferret Mike (#67)
#76. To: mehitable (#71)
"You may think you're being clever some how but you're coming across like a mega- asshole who can't answer the most basic question about immigration. This means that it is impossible to have any kind of actual conversation with you as all you want to do is rant at us about how awful whitey is."
"As for these people who are exploiting the Mexicans my answer is simple, tax the crap out of them, make them pay higher minimum wages and benefits, penalize them if they get caught hiring illegals and SHUT THEM DOWN - literally force them out of business."
"Beyond that we should repeal NAFTA and probably most of our other trade policies made during the past 20 years."
"I would like to see most of these Mexicans return home and kill their ruling class - I mean that literally - and take over and run the country themselves. They can run it any damn way they please, I don't care what type of government they institute or what policies they want to live under."
"There may be room for some small guest worker program if we simply cannot find enough Americans, but I just don't believe that - and I don't trust guest worker policies. If the wages are higher and benefits given, there will be Americans to do these jobs."
"If 40% of Mexico wants to come to the US, is that OK with you? What if any policies or rules would you put in place? "
#79. To: Ferret Mike (#76)
#83. To: mehitable (#79)
"OK Mike, I guess my final conclusion about your misinterpretations of my very clear prior post vis a vis "race baiting" and "blood thirstiness" is that you're just a mega-asshole, as I said before and there's no point in continuing this discussion. You refuse to supply any solutions from the Mexican side of the border."
"So I said to tax these employers - so what? We could jail them too and I'd support that. Obviously I am not in favor of employers exploiting these or any other workers and everyone who reads my posts can see that. You're just pushing your anti-American, pro-open borders agenda and you're being extremely dishonest about it. So that qualifies you as an asshole in my book, and unworthy of further discussion. End of debate."
#85. To: Ferret Mike (#83)
Replies to Comment # 85. "I don't deal in spin."
End Trace Mode for Comment # 85.