Good Fences Make Good Neighbors
I asked kgotthardt of Luxurious Choices: Poetry and Polemics to state her position on Illegal Immigration. Here is what she thinks should be done.
Essentially, what kgotthardt proposes is a repeat of what we did in 1986, amnesty. Amnesty advocates persuaded us that it would be mean and heartless to send millions of illegal immigrants back to their home countries. As a result, we now have millions more. Here are my answers to kgotthardt‘s points. I suggest you line up my post side-by-side with kgotthardt‘s. Read her bullet. Then consider my response.
Following the order of kgotthardt‘s list.
- Here we agree.
- This is clearly AMNESTY. It rewards and encourages future lawbreaking. This idea has already been tried. It made the problem many times worse. Making such a mistake once is enough.
- Here I have another question for kgotthardt. Why would we want illegal immigrants who are behind on their taxes to become citizens?
- Petition extenuating circumstances? Such is the type of legal claptrap that employs lawyers. Such claptrap also makes law enforcement nearly impossible. The issues are citizenship, country of origin, and medical health. When illegal immigrants are fit to travel, we can punish first with hard labor and then send them home. If they cannot get home at their own expense, we can put them on a bus, boat, plane – whatever it takes.
- We have 300 million people. We have enough workers. The goal of programs such as kgotthardt propose’s is CHEAP labor. Cheap labor serves the interests of the rich, but it undermines the ability of relatively unskilled American workers (including new entrants into the labor force) to earn a decent wage.
- Learning English and civics are already requirements for citizenship. Requiring new citizens to swear an oath to put the interests of America above that of all other nations is just common sense. Do we need people with dual citizenship? Do we need citizens with divided allegiances? If an immigrant is unwilling to pledge their undivided loyalty to America, why not let them stay where they came from?
- Our government, including our military, does not have money to burn. Our military’s primary mission is to defend our nation. That requires recruits who are first and foremost loyal to the USA. It would be tantamount to national suicide to staff our military with new immigrants. The Romans tried it when they recruited barbarians to fill the ranks of their legions. Their legions turned on them.
- There is nothing wrong with allowing the home country of an illegal immigrant help them, but it is not our government’s job. When people enter our country without our permission, they can figure out how to find each other. Chariable groups can help them. Our govenment need only be concerned with the safety of children.
- We agree. We just need to make certain we punish criminals FIRST and then sent back to their home country.
- What kgotthardt states here is to some extent existing law. All the U.S. government can require employers to do with respect to back-Social Security is what was already in the law. Since employers who did not pay social security taxes were already breaking the law, the government should have received the money. However, what kgotthardt seems to think is an issue is whether our government owes illegal immigrants any Social Security benefits. I see no reason for our government to give Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants. Instead, we should be concerned about employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Such employers should not be allowed to write wages paid to illegal immigrants off as an expense.
- This proposal is unconstitutional. We cannot change the rules after the fact. Instead, we should punish employers who hire illegal aliens. We have the technology to verify citizenship, and we need to start using it.
If we start punishing employers for hiring illegal immigrants, the illegal immigrants will not be able to get a job. They will either leave our country on their own or they will ask for transportation back to their home nations. Either proposition works for me.
Will there be problems and heartbreaking situations? Yes. Illegal immigrants need to consider that possibility BEFORE they come here. Unfortunately, government does not deal well with heartbreaking exceptions. Nonetheless, if all we did was focus on the situations where a law does not work well, we would have no laws. For example, sometimes we put the wrong people in jail for crimes like murder and bank robbery. Should we stop enforcing laws against murder and bank robbery?
When we want people to obey the rules, we have no choice except to make it more trouble to obey the rules than it is to break the rules. So laws by their very nature are brutal. Otherwise, they do not work.
I think, Tom, one problem is after the amnesty bill in the 60′s is that the rules were never followed after. What good is a rule if you aren’t going to follow it? If we are to have immigration reform or anything else, we need to stick by it! Rules that we do not follow or that are not worth following should be stricken from the books.
I don’t think charging penalties and offering work visas is encouraging criminal or law-breaking behavior. If you thought you had the chance to get a job via the right channels as opposed to getting penalized, I suspect you would choose the legitimate route. I kow I would.
I don’t understand where you are getting the idea I think illegal immigrants are owed social security benefits. Those that pay into the system typically never collect. What I am suggesting is that we make sure there is catch-up payment so the social security system isn’t negatively impacted if indeed is IS already.
“When people enter our country without our permission, they can figure out how to find each other.” Yes, but what I am suggesting is more responsibility on the part of the countries whose immigrants are here. They should help process paperwork and clean up this mess, too.
English classes pay for themselves when people enlist. It’s not expensive to teach people English. Tutorial programs do this all the time. I am quite sure the military could manage it as well.
More later I’m sure.
kgotthardt –
Definition of amnesty: the state’s magnanimity to those offenders whom it would be too expensive to punish.
Look at your second bullet again. What penalties?
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Congress and the president have given us no reason whatsoever to believe that amnesty would not result in more illegal immigrants so certain special interests could have more CHEAP labor.
To a large extent, politics is about money. Money is a thing some people substitute for God. It is their idol. What these people want is what they got in 1986 — AMNESTY. Then they can declare victory on the illegal immigration problem and PRETEND it is solved. Except for the fact we will have more illegal immigrants, they will hope nothing changes. Of course, our society will change — for the worse.
The character of our nation is the character of our people. Because they do not share our beliefs and our values — because they have not had the opportunity to learn those beliefs and those values — flooding our nation with hordes of poor and uneducated people must have consequences.
It is a privilege to be an American. Because we were born Americans, we did not earn that privilege. Instead, our forebears bequeath this privilege onto us. So we often forget its value and our responsibility to protect it. Yet the only way we can earn the right to be an American is to do what is required to protect our heritage. We must participate in our republic, and we must do our part to teach succeeding generations what it means to be an American — and how to live up to the values our forebears.
If we are going to reward lawbreakers for sneaking into our country, then we are already off to a bad start. If we have to recruit immigrants to populate the ranks of our military forces, …….
kgotthardt, you would have us act charitably towards illegal immigrants, and that is not a bad thing. We are commanded to love one another. The Bible says: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Yet we must give some thought to the consequences of our kindnesses to one another. What will it profit illegal immigrants if we allow so many of them that they destroy character of the nation to which they have escaped?
You know, Tom, my short response to this is if people would stop being so mean and start being productive, we might be able to reach a consensus on HOW to deal with this without creating so much hostility.
That said, what would your plan look like? Certainly we cannot afford to deport millions of people.
First, let us remember the “illegal” part of being an illegal immigrant. Most Americans don’t seem to have problems with legal immigration, however it only seems fair to question the value of any additions to our country who already show no regard for it’s laws upon arrival.
Second, it seems far too easily forgotten that one must be an U.S. citizen in order to warrant the rights afforded to a citizen. That should be the end of discussion.
Third, legal immigrants working alongside native born citizens have made this country what it is. We have thrived on the contributions of immigrants and will usually need them, though to varying degrees, throughout most sectors of our economy. The problem is that we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to those who enter illegally, ignore our laws and seek to subvert our culture and national values. We welcome those who follow the rules, learn the English language, and respect our sovereignty. As illegal immigrants, it is not only offensive but also ridiculous to ask for rights, which they have not earned nor are entitled to.
Let’s secure our borders by building the fence so we have an effective and controlled immigration system at the same time as we enforce our currently existing immigration laws. During this interval we encourage illegals to depart (attrition through enforcement). Once our borders are secured and we have a grip on a functional system of immigration, we move against those illegals that have refused to leave.
We should never ever grant amnesty.
We tried ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ in 1986. We gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens in exchange for the government promising to secure the borders, conduct workplace enforcement and enforce immigration law. It didn’t work because the government lied and did nothing other than process the amnesty paperwork. Due to that folly, we now have 20 Million or more illegal aliens here demanding amnesty.
Don’t you think it is far beyond time that we engage in Comprehensive Immigration ENFORCEMENT rather than Comprehensive Immigration Reform (amnesty)?
Will anarchy become a part of our culture?
The single most disastrous piece of legislation passed in the history of the U.S. was the 1986 amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens. Thanks to that we now have 20 million illegals demanding another amnesty. Let’s not get stuck on stupid and make the same mistake again.
The only effective program in dealing with illegal immigration is enforcement, which we have used only sparingly. It’s far beyond time that we get serious and implement consistent enforcement nationwide.
Build the fence, get it done. Enforce our current immigration laws without exception. Up to this point we have allowed the illegal aliens, their facilitators and a do nothing Congress fracture our society into two groups: citizens who must obey the laws of our country and illegal aliens who don’t. That must stop unless we wish to make anarchy a part of American culture.
Zeezil, you seem to be making some huge logical leaps here. Offering an earned path to citizenship does not equal anarchy. And the fence it proving to be far too expensive. There has to be another way.
Immigrants who have been here contributing to our economy and working for our employers at the very least deserve workers’ rights and human rights. We cannot knowingly use people for their labor and then say, “Ooops.” As Tom points out, these people have been paid as an underclass in many cases. A work program would eliminate this kind of immoral and illegal behavior.
Our culture is made up of international cultures, so I am not sure what you are referring to there. Our culture is also made up of laws that are overturned in court all the time. So again, there would be nothing new about changing the law.
Once more, we cannnot deport millions of people without bankrupting ourselves with the cost and disrupting the economy even more. It’s just not practical. If there were a practical, fair, moral way to do this, I would endorse it, but there IS no way.
Enforecement only tactics will only serve to turn us into a police state, and citizens will not put up with this. We’ve already read the stories of citizens caught up in raids. This will happen only a couple more times before people who are lawfully here will make sure it doesn’t happen again, of not the sake of immigrants but for their own.
BTW, I’m not saying we don’t need increased and better border security. I’m saying the fence idea isn’t working out.
kgotthardt — Most of the hostility is due to the fact that our elected leaders refuse to enforce even our existing laws — as if that were impossible. In fact, one of Bush’s appointees (I forget his name.), and the man responsible for job, said it is impossible. When you keep in mind that the man responsible for the existing legislation is still in office, Senator Ted Kennedy,…… Sometimes all you can do is grin and bear it.
Anyway, I don’t have any problem with most of what zeezil just said. I think it is wonderful to live in a nation that people like so much they are willing to risk sneaking into it. Nonetheless, if we do not enforce our immigration laws, it cannot remain a wonderful place.
1. We need to do whatever it takes to secure the border.
2. We need to give everyone a tamperproof ID. This ID should be required for employment.
3. We need to punish employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Of course, we can fine and jail employers. However, the most effective trick would be not allowing employers to write off the wages they pay to illegal immigrants on their taxes.
Without jobs, illegal immigrants must go back to their home countries.
None of the above is rocket science. The vast majority support securing the border, but the power elite do not. And the fact the power elite are getting their way should scare you and everyone else. We need to do something about our leadership. Most are unfit for the job.
Tom, I completely agree with your three points. Furthermore, our ID should be a fingerprint or something that cannot be stolen.
Here’s what is interesting about our debate: we CAN have totally different philosophies and still come to some solutions we agree 0n. However, this has not happened in our community and the results are destructive. We have such extremists and hateful rhetoric mixed in with opposing ideologies that the solutions are neither logical nor practical–to say nothing of the environment which has become outright hostile.
Interesting that Bush’s people say they can’t enforce their own laws. And Teddy K. yes….he has some very good ideas but he, too, can be extreme.
BTW, when I say let people earn citizenship, again, I am saying through a work program. Was that how the 80′s amnesty plan worked, or did they just give everyone citizenship?
When an American employer gives an illegal immigrant a job to meet the demands of the American consumer for low prices, the illegal immigrant is now a welcome addition to the greeat American experiment in capitalism
Arturo, my only problem is that first, illegal immigrants are given no protection. They can be used and abused, blackmailed and manipulated, and then people say they have no rights. Employers have responsibilities and must be held accountable for their actions like the rest of us are being told to do.
Arturo – kgotthardt last remark is correct. Employers have no right to hire illegal immigrants. The great American experiment in capitalism takes place within the light of day, not in a black market.
There is no reason the American experiment in capitalism cannot work anywhere. It takes know how, but mostly it depends on the determination of people to make it work. Would it not work better for everyone if illegal immigrants stayed in their home nations with their families and worked to straighten out their own governments?
We have plenty of Americans right here that would be willing to work the jobs that supposedly we need illegal immigrants. I work with young adults with disabilities who WANT to work, but can’t. Why? Because all of the minimum wage jobs are quickly filled by illegals.
Amnesty is a slap in the face to individuals who worked incredibly hard to go through the legal route to become citizens. 3 million people were given amnesty under G. Bush I and look what happened – the flood gates were open.
I work in a school system. It is a drain on our educational system when we have children who are here illegally in the schools. We are required to provide free or reduced lunch, special education services, ESOL services, translator services, the list goes on and on. For example, one child in special education can cost the state and federal government up to $12,000 a year. I don’t believe that it is right that tax paying citizens (meaning those who pay into federal and state taxes through their work) to cover this amount.
I also have issue with those that argue that people that are illegally pay for school through real estate tax. One house that has 5 families and 10 children paying the same amount of tax that I pay for 1 family and 1 child doesn’t add up.
I don’t agree with dual citizenship. It puts America’s interests and safety at risk. If you want to live in America and be a citizen, then declare US citizenship, not dual citizenship.
KGotthardt, you are incorrect about government benefits – medicaid and medicare can be accessed by people of all ages, not just retirement age. And if a worker is making minimum wage and has a child or adult dependent that needs additional coverage or has a disability, where do you think that money comes from?
What we need is for politicians to stop pandering to individuals that are here illegally and start upholding the law. Period.
kgotthardt – What is a work program?
Most illegal immigrants are here to work. Most work hard, and only a fool would deny that.
The main thing illegal immigrants want is to stay here. Amnesty allows them to stay here. Staying here also allows illegal immigrants access to the benefits Concerned about Amnesty talked about. You and I, not their employers, are paying for these benefits. That is not right.
Okay, amnesty is like taking a form, telling people to fill it out, running a criminal check, and if there’s no criminal record, poof–they’re citizens. Am I right?
A work program (one of the things I am calling “earned path towards citizenship”) allows immigrants to work in the country legally. What I am suggesting is that people who have been here without papers for more than two years and can show a work history could have the ability to get a special work permit and stay so long as they are working here. Families already here could apply to stay so long as the work permit remains good. If both spouses are working, then there would be no need for this, though.
After working for a certain time, paying taxes and whatever fees owed for being here illegally (and not back-breaking fees, btw, but something reasonable), these folks can then apply for citizenship. In other words, they have to earn it through work, just as they would if they entered the military.
People who have been here less than two years would have to come back over the more traditional way. However, if there were a work program implemented, they would have a better shot at making it back than they do now.
If we do it right, immigrants would pay the fees and back-taxes, and companies would pay social security and a fine for hiring an illegal immigrant in the first place. The program would pay for itself. And with a little help from consolutes, paperwork can be expedited as well at THEIR cost, not ours.
This isn’t the same thing as saying, “Okay. Here’s citizenship.”
How did a smiley face get there when I meant to get parenthesis? Huh.
But it is! You are saying that individuals that have already been here for 2 years can be immediately granted citizenship, so long as they prove a 2 year track record of work. Sounds the same.
The fees should be comparable to what the individual would have paid if they were paying into the tax system. It is not right to give people who came here illegally a break on fees when the same break is not given to individuals who are citizens.
In order to enter the military, you must be able to speak English first and take the ASVAB (although not required, it’s recommended). Should the military then be forced to spend money to prepare potential members and teach them English?
The smiley face comes when you do ; ) together, like this
“But it is! You are saying that individuals that have already been here for 2 years can be immediately granted citizenship, so long as they prove a 2 year track record of work.”
No. I am saying they have to EARN citizenship through WORK (hence the need for a work program). Citizenship needs to be earned, not just given away.
The military does not HAVE to do anything, but if they want eager recruits who want to earn citizenship, then they might want to think about it. Teaching recruits English is not that expensive and the military has teachers employed already.
Fees: these are in addition to taxes and back-taxes. I am referring to fees for being here illegally in the first place. I am suggesting these fees and taxes be taken right from the paychecks in easy-to manage payments that won’t make the employee go broke but will still repay the system.
Ahhh! Let me try that
Hee heee heee…okay. I’m tickled! Thanks!
kgotthardt,
Just because our great American Capitalism brought them in, that doesn’t mean we must lose our humanity. The illegal immigrants that Americans (the entrepreneur, but more important the consumer) have taken into our communities are still human beings and must be treated with respect. We should make sure they do. So let’s give them amnesty.
Tom,
It is not in the black market that Americans buy the grapes that illegal immigrants pick for them. Our economy is a consumer-driven economy. If the consumer wanted to pay more at the grocery store so growers can double the salary of the workers so more Americans would take those jobs, growers would do that. But consumers go to the grocery store wanting to pay less, not more. And that actually works very well. Americans who are not going back to less-skilled work are increasing their skills, and that is good for America in so many ways.
I recommend everyone to read the new book by Jason Riley, “Let Them In”.
In the 1970′s the average Mexican woman had six children. Today, it’s two. With the Mexican economy expanding as it is, soon Mexicans will have no need to come. If we’ll still need workers for an expanding economy, we’ll be getting them from elsewhere. The fence is big waste of money. In twenty years we’ll be looking at it with embarrassment.
I reviewed discussion on immigration for the last day here.
The two opposing positions have one common element: both are purely socialistic. One side believes that government should be strict in executing our current, in its essence socialistic immigration laws. Opposing side suggests more lenient approach. Both sides accept as obvious that government should decide if a foreigner should have a right to come and work here. None of the position taken here realize that the current immigration laws mean nationalization of the meaningful part of the labor market in the U.S. Government in controlling labor market is as good as it was about thirty years ago when it tied controlling oil market. Older people remember miles long line to gas stations. Younger people should at least ask older people about it.
Wake up socialists of opposing flavors. At least formally, it is still capitalistic country. To open your eyes and shake your views, please read about the Freedom of Migration Act proposal, http://www.henrykkowalczyk.com/immigration.htm . On this page, you will find links to my texts explaining dynamics of immigration processes. If you like to watch, please see slide presentation of the Freedom of Migration Act proposal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i8xbHNCxoU . Among my several other videos, some are about immigration as well.
…correcting misspell…
Government in controlling labor market is as good as it was about thirty years ago when it tried controlling oil market.
Henryk – I checked out your website. Nice job!
There is much to be said for your proposal. Generally, I agree the less government we have the better. Nonetheless, the wide open border you propose does create reasonable concerns.
Most of our new immigrants come from Mexico and Spanish speaking nations to the south. They are nice enough, but learning a new language is hard work. Rather than learn English, many of these new immigrants will continue speaking Spanish. So we risk balkanizing our nation by language and culture.
Immigrants seek opportunities in other lands because they cannot find them in their own land. So when there are no restrictions, most immigrants tend to be poor and relatively uneducated. Just by being here immigrants gain access to a host of social programs. Their employers do not pay for these programs. The rest of us do.
I, of course, did note that your plan denies new immigrants access to social benefits for five years. Great idea, but I rather doubt you we will get that one pass the NEA. Children not receiving a “free” education! How abhorrent! Moreover, once somebody gets into our country, if they get sick, we tend to see it as our problem. Our roads are free. Our police/security forces are free, and so forth. More people means the more money is required from the taxpayers who can afford to pay for these “free” things in order to maintain quality.
Finally, I disagree that we have a workforce shortage. We have 300 million people. If other countries were richer than our country, THEY would have a workforce shortage. Workers go where the money is. Employers want to hire the least expensive workers. From the perspective of employers, there is always a shortage of workers who will work for nothing.
We do not need more unskilled workers. We have plenty as it is. That said, I see no point in immigration quotas. What I insist upon is that anyone who wants to immigrate here to work learn English first.
I don’t find it useful to use the word “Socialist.” It has become one of those meaningless terms people apply to whatever they feel it might apply to. I would put the term in the same category as “liberal” or “conservative.” The words have magnatized too many connotations to communicate much.
Tom, I think most people would prefer immigrants learn English. Most immigrants I know try. It’s easier said than done. And it cannot be done at all so long as we have people discouraging people from studying and attending classes which is happening right now in our county.
kgotthardt – I suggest you check Henryk A. Kowalczyk’s website and read what he says about himself. If anybody has the right to use the term socialist, he does.
Anyway, see my latest post on immigration.
“The illegal immigrants that Americans (the entrepreneur, but more important the consumer) have taken into our communities are still human beings and must be treated with respect. We should make sure they do. So let’s give them amnesty.”
Arturo, I agree immigrants and EVERYONE should be treated with respect! I don’t think an earned path towards citizenship is disrespectful, however. In fact, an earned path means citizenship is valuable and that immigrants who EARN it have done something meaningful that they can be proud of. If I went to another country and “earned” my citizenship, I would be proud because I would know it was something I worked hard for, that is was something WORTH working for.
Workers here need much more protection, and right now, they are not getting it. There are too many people against abject amnesty, however, and that will keep workers from getting what they need and deserve. A work program, though, as a path to citizenship, is fairly middle of the road: it allows the immigrant to work towards citizenship, earn a living, be given protection and rights, and help keep families together. It means that taxes and a fee would have to be paid as well. A work program tells the world that you cannot come here illegally but if you DO come here to work and want citizenship, it is possible. And it also tells the world that the United States doesn’t just use and abuse its workers. If someone has been here, working, he/she deserves the chance to make it right through the worker program or military service.
People deserve the chance to make things right.
kgotthardt,
What you’re saying is exactly what I mean by amnesty. These days I like to use the word amnesty, because it bugs the anti-illegal-immigrant extremists.
Everyone, I stress: read the book “Let Them In” by John Riley. Educate yourselves.
Tom, thank you for giving me some credits.
In you replay you used the conventional, “you are right, 2% right to be precise”, and went back into ruts of your way of thinking.
I do not want reprint here my reasoning behind market driven immigration policy; it is in the essays posted on my website. Let me use a parallel. When bicycles started gaining popularity in the end of the XIXth century, most “reasonable” people then argued that only an idiot could ride a vehicle that could not be stable when standing; therefore, it is obviously even more dangerous when moving. We know now that behind this reasoning was lack of knowledge of some basics of physics.
The same, Tom, in your reasoning is the same lack of knowledge, and consequently distrust, of the free market. Hence, you believe that unless the government will order so, immigrants would not learn English. The same, you believe that without government regulations wrong foreigners would immigrate here.
…correction…
In you reply you used the conventional, “you are right, 2% right to be precise”, and went back into ruts of your way of thinking.
kgotthardt, you are correct that terms “liberal” and “conservative” are meaningless, http://www.henrykkowalczyk.com/freedom_lost.htm.
“Socialism”, however, it is a scientific term defining “political concepts of state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services”; I quote from wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism . If some people use the term “socialism”, or any other term as a matter of fact without knowing its meaning, criticize them, and do not hold me responsible for their mistakes.
Henry, I went to your site. Very interesting to hear the story from someone who I am gathering endured Socialism in a different form. Am I reading your blog correctly?
The problem with the word “socialism” in the United States is that it has taken on connotations propegated by extremists. Apparently, anyone who wants immigration reform is some kind of pinko-communist or socialist…the terms seems to get mingled.
Whan the next president gives out amnesty and
citizen ship to all mexicans in the country
illegally that will send a clear message to the
world that trying to immigrate legally is a waste
of time. They just need to get here illegally
and wait for the next amnesty.
Henryk – Because some things are not measurable, there is a difference between fact and opinion.
When I was a graduate student at college many years ago, one summer I roomed with a Mexican who had come to learn English . I am not exactly a charming fellow, and I was quite busy with my studies. Nonetheless, I was disappointed when my roommate chose to spend all his free time with his classmates from the South.
There is an old saying that time and time again has proven to be too true. Birds of a feather flock together. If you want to learn to speak a tongue that is foreign to you, it is best to practice with its native speakers.
How much progress did my roommate make learning English. Not that much. Unfortunately, even though this fellow had come to the United States, he had not left Mexico sufficiently behind him.
Too many of the illegal immigrants in this country do not make the effort to learn English or about this country. Instead, they try to bring a bit of home with them. They form their own communities, and the largest of those communities become Spanish speaking communities. That poses potential problems. Consider Quebec and its relationship with the rest of Canada. For the sake of rigidly adhering to some idealized economic model we should bring such nonsense upon ourselves? I think not.
Whether I like it or not, to some degree, I live in a socialist country. Why? Whether I like it or not, not even capitalism works the way I wish it would. Sometimes the optimum is a compromise.
“There is an old saying that time and time again has proven to be too true. Birds of a feather flock together.”
This has been true of every immigrant community throughout our U.S. history. In large cities, we have pockets of neighborhoods–China Town, Little Italy, etc. In the city where I attended college, you could find Portuguese, Canadian, Hispanic and Vietnamese neighborhoods. They all gathered for mixed culture-fests. More often than not, they spoke English.
Integration and assimilation are not easy–they are learned human behavior. Language acquisition is the same. If you asked me to learn another language, I would have difficulty doing so for a variety of reasons. I know people that study for years as adults and just “don’t get it.” It’s not for a lack of trying. Blundering through a new language can be embarrassing. I know because my Spanish is terrible and I say really stupid things. To boot, I cannot follow usual, rapid conversation.
How do we encourage people to learn English? Well first, we must create a safe environment. No one can learn when they feel intimidated. Unfortunately, our county has become intimidating which means the problems around language have become exacerbated.
That said, Tom, I just cannot BELIEVE you are not a charming fellow! Your blog is a reasonable attempt to dialogue rather than inculcate or indoctrinate. That in itself is rare and charming, I think.
Tom,
With all due respect, my argument was about understanding dynamics of social processes. Assimilation of immigrants, is an example. You went into moralizing, referring to some of yours personal observations.
If you watched my video about the Freedom of Migration Act proposal, you would know about unfair advantage, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i8xbHNCxoU . With my approach, population of immigrants would be larger, but ethnically more diversified. Hence, assimilation would be faster. One more time, the bicycle example.
kgotthardt,
I am posting this one more time, as my previous post did not show up.
Thank you for your kind comment. You are correct that terms “liberal” and “conservative” are meaningless, http://www.henrykkowalczyk.com/freedom_lost.htm.
“Socialism”, however, it is a scientific term defining “political concepts of state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services”; I quote from wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism . If some people use the term “socialism”, or any other term as a matter of fact without knowing its meaning, criticize them, and do not hold me responsible for their mistakes.
Some of my comments posted here are visible, some never make to the board. Is it any reason behind it?
Henryk – I think the problem was the links you included. I guess I will have to look at relaxing some of the limits on my spam filter. Sorry about that, but I get a lot more spam than real comments.
“If some people use the term “socialism”, or any other term as a matter of fact without knowing its meaning, criticize them, and do not hold me responsible for their mistakes.”
From this point forward, I shall not. : )
Tom,
Returning to my first post here. Can we compare your immigration proposal with the Freedom of Migration Act?
In my view, your approach recirculates mainstream ideas, which in my view can be summarized by “let us do one more time what did not work within the last forty years but let us do it this time with greater determination”.
Tell me what is wrong with the Freedom of Migration Act Proposal, http://www.henrykkowalczyk.com/immigration.htm ?
Henryrk – I don’t see anything hugely wrong with your proposal. I just see it as immoderate.
There are a couple of things I noted with some irony. You will give immigrants an ID card. That is nice. What if immigrants do not want to bother with this ID card? What is the penalty if employers hire illegal immigrants? What is the incentive for using your private employment agencies to get a job? What is to stop people from just walking across the border and getting a job on their own? It is what they are use to doing.
Because you assume it will simply be easier to obey the law, your system has no provisions for enforcement. In effect, what you are saying is that we should legalize illegal immigration. That simply is not what most Americans want, and there are reasons for that.
Government exist to prevent immoderate behavior that either violates peoples people’s rights or has the potential to disturb the peace. That is why we regulate the “free” market. A totally free market would result in chaos. Somebody has to enforce contracts. Somebody has to enforce standard weights and measures. When you go to a gasoline station, because the government verifies the pumps are accurate, you have some assurance you are getting what you paid for. With a totally free market, you would not have such an easy assurance.
Even with the plan you suggest, the government has a regulatory role, but it is insufficient. In addition to a job (which could be the most menial labor), I want new immigrants to be able to speak and write English. I see nothing to gain by bringing a bunch of illiterate people into this country just to pick tomatos. In the long run, they cost us too much.
You think me wrong. I see two problems. First, consider kgotthardt. She is a nice lady, but like many nice ladies she has a soft heart. When she sees someone in need, she is tempted to do whatever she thinks necessary to help them. She might even be willing to rob the rich to give to the poor. We know for certain that too many politicians are perfectly happy to act on such a temptation, but the rich know how to protect their money. It is the middle class that gets robbed. So it is that we have a bunch of illegal immigrants who have the RIGHT to use many of the “free” or “reduced priced” services offered by our government. That encourages the immigration of cheap laborers for the rich.
The second problem is that most of our immigrants will come Spanish speaking nations. Unless we insist they learn English, their numbers have the potential to create Spanish speaking enclaves. Since civil strife can be obscenely messy, we would be foolish to create the potential for it.
Hey! I resent that! I am NOT A NICE LADY!!!!
(Okay. Maybe SOMETIMES I am.
)
You see that one cannot keep the balance on the bicycle without having a foot on the ground when bicycle is standing. Consequently, you see it logical that it would be suicidal riding a bicycle without a third wheel.
You seem not seeing a difference between a free market and lawlessness. Free market means that two individuals should be able enter any contract they see suiting them. We need laws to guarantee that these contracts are executed.
We do not need regulating “free market”. When the “free market” does not work because of being abused, it simply means that someone has too much freedom, at the cost of someone else who does not have equal freedom. Socialists of all sorts, seek solution to this problem by reducing freedoms of people who are in the position of taking unfair advantage of the freedoms they have; mostly, money. It never comes to their mind that the solution is in increasing freedoms of people who are taken advantage off.
The irony of government “correcting” unfairness of the “free market” is that when it is given to politicians, by the end of the day, they will come with solutions that would suit those individuals that can make the largest contributions. This obviously, would lead to a conclusion that even more regulations are needed to “correct” shortcomings of the “free market”.
If you want to hire Mexicans, and if you can arrange work this way that it would be not essential for you whether they speak any English or not, should I have a right to prevent you from entering into a contract with these Mexicans, unless they would learn English?
Pingback: IMMIGRATION AND THE LIMITS OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY « Citizen Tom