Here’s some common sense from Thomas Sowell, in the context of an essay about Newt Gingrich’s position on immigration:
Let’s go back to square one. The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of this country.
There is no inherent right to come live in the United States, in disregard of whether the American people want you here. Nor does the passage of time confer any such right retroactively.
…When you import people, you import cultures, including cultures that have been far less successful in providing decent lives and decent livelihoods. The American people have a right to decide for themselves whether they want unlimited imports of cultures from other countries.
At one time, immigrants came to America to become Americans. Today, the apostles of multiculturalism and grievance-mongering have done their best to keep foreigners foreign and, if possible, feeling aggrieved. Our own schools and colleges teach grievances.
Read the rest here.
17 Comments
Newt Gingrich made the shocking statement that a segment of the population ought to be treated humanely, and he was roundly booed by the right wing. Suggesting that we should act decently was a huge blunder, which he has been walking back ever since.
Two thirds of all illegal immigrants have been here for at least ten years. Almost half are parents of minor children. Obviously, deporting a family which has been here that long will upend or ruin their lives. However, since they are in the despised class of illegal aliens, those who boo Gingrich are all too happy to deny them any dignity or respect, let alone the ability to work and raise a family here. If the kids are uprooted or the family is split apart: hey, they came here illegally, didn’t they?
If someone beat his wife, drove drunk, or coached a football program amidst rampant pederasty and didn’t do much about it — and the acts occurred over ten years ago — nothing would happen. Ten years is long past the statute of limitations. However, the infinitely lesser offense of illegally crossing an international border stays forever, regardless of what kind of life has been led since coming here. Is that proportional or just?
Sowell is correct that “the purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of this country.” Ebenezer Scrooge was probably correct in despising the poor of London, whose lives of nasty, brutish, and short duration were a drag on the economy. But so what. Do you want to live in such a mean-spirited society, or do you want to live in something better?
Sowell seems unaware of the fact that an illegal immigrant is just as much a flesh and blood human being as he is, and would probably have very different views if he were under John Rawls’s veil of ignorance. But I get it: if Gingrich or Perry has the effrontery to suggest that we ought to treat people with decency and compassion, you’re dead meat in conservative circles.
The Republican Presidential candidates try to outdo each other in how ostentatiously they can display their love of Christianity. I’m not a big believer in Christianity — or any religion — but I am a big fan of the notion of peace on Earth and goodwill to all. They love to talk about American exceptionalism, which is based on the most exceptional notion of all: that all men are created equal. If you really believe in these concepts, you also have to believe that they ought to be applied universally, and not only to those with citizenship papers.
Peter, your breathless comment is little more than a mawkish appeal to the emotions.
Is it your prescription, then, that the United States should have no immigration policy whatsoever? Does “all men are created equal” mean, in your undoubtedly well-intentioned view, that the rights and privileges associated with American citizenship — and indeed the very notion of citizenship itself — are now to be seen as nothing more than pernicious, black-hearted bigotry, and an offense against the natural rights of Man?
In a democratic society, immigration policy can be whatever we decide it should be, and if your wish is simply to fling the borders open, thereby to enjoy a brief period of moral self-congratulation before the nation slips beneath the waves — overburdened and overwhelmed, its cultural essence and identity shredded to pieces and swept away — then that is rightly a matter for public debate. But for now, we already have an immigration policy in place, and the foundation of a nation based on the rule of law is that such laws as there are be applied consistently, or as you say, “universally”.
I think a reasonable balance can be struck between our principles and the difficulties which would accompany completely open borders.
There should be a statute of limitations on immigration offenses. In addition to the length of time spent here, the criteria for determining who is eligible to stay would include things like employment, family status, and being a law abiding resident.
And once that statute of limitations has passed, what legal status would you confer on those who sneak in and manage to elude the authorities long enough to claim the coveted reward?
There should be a resident alien status which is short of citizenship, along with a path to citizenship along the lines of the DREAM act.
So: just get in any way you can, keep your head down long enough, and there’s your brass ring.
Waiting patiently in line, in accordance with to the law, is only one option out of many — and in many ways it’s a far less attractive one, because you have to do your waiting on the outside, looking in.
In other words: you have just, as they say, “incentivized” illegal entry.
If you beat your wife or cheat on your taxes, and elude the authorities for the statutory period, does that incentivize wife beating and tax cheats?
Let’s take Gingrich’s example of an illegal who has been here 25 years, has a job, and raised a family. The logical inference of your absolutist position is that they should all be deported. I think that is inhumane and unjust.
Why yes, to some extent it does, in that it provides a lesser deterrent.
We’ve had such immigration amnesties before; each time they are supposed to be a one-off. If an illegal knows that he can sneak in and have a good chance of being included in the next round of amnesty, or can just get a de facto green card if he can lie low long enough, then of course that “incentivizes” illegal entry.
The logical implication of your argument is that all punishment must necessarily be both draconian and perpetual, as any lesser punishment has a reduced deterrent and hence incentivizes the activity you are seeking to eradicate.
If you believe that punishment should be proportionate to the offense, it is then difficult to justify sending kids who grew up here back to Mexico, because otherwise you could incent even more people to take their chances and cross the border.
It is also disproportionate to exculpate someone who has committed a truly dangerous crime if he’s been able to keep one step ahead of the sheriff for long enough, while you deport someone who committed an illegal act 25 years ago but has been productive and law-abiding since then.
Putting aside all of the chest thumping about exceptionalism — you get the feeling that lots of people want the President to attend the next G-20 meeting or UN summit with one of those big foam #1 things you see at football games — it’s fair to judge a society based on how it treats its most vulnerable and despised members. Based on that criterion, I’m not sure that we deserve a very good grade.
Not at all. I’m certainly not suggesting we should hang people for running red lights. But what you have just proposed isn’t even just a “lesser punishment”, but rather the replacement of any punishment whatsoever with an actual reward, in the form of highly coveted U.S. resident-alien status, for managing to get here illegally and keep under the radar.
There should be a statute of limitations on immigration offenses. In addition to the length of time spent here, the criteria for determining who is eligible to stay would include things like employment, family status, and being a law abiding resident.
Illegal aliens are not law abiding residents. They break a multitude of laws on a daily basis. For example, using a false SSN is a felony for which the punishment is up to five years in jail and a $100,000 fine.
it’s fair to judge a society based on how it treats its most vulnerable and despised members.
They are not members, you nitwit. That’s the entire point. We decide who gets to be a member. Non-members do not get to unilaterally decide to be a member. They can apply for membership via the legal process which we have put in place, at which point we can accept or deny their application.
Let’s take Gingrich’s example of an illegal who has been here 25 years, has a job, and raised a family. The logical inference of your absolutist position is that they should all be deported. I think that is inhumane and unjust.
There’s nothing a liberal enjoys more than moral posturing.
I somehow missed this post and comment-thread till now, so I come late to the discussion. But I did, independently, write a post on Nov. 29, in response to Sowell’s article. I invite you to read my suggestions for addressing the issue under consideration in this discussion.
It may interest all y’all to know that, according to my understanding of the opinions expressed here, my proposed treatment most closely agrees with Peter’s views. Will wonders never cease?
That truly is a wonder. And so close to Christmas!
Being of the Jewish persuasion, I don’t believe in a “Christmas Spirit”. But I’ve been told that it works, even if you don’t believe in it.
Professor Bohr approves.