SENATORIAL PROS AND CONS: ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

elephantgop.pngThis is the third in a series on the competition between Jim Gilmore and Bob Marshall for the Republican Party’s nomination to be Virginia’s next senator.  Here are the previous two posts

Why a post on illegal immigration?  

  • Illegal immigrants are the slaves of our era.  It is immoral for employers to tempt people into our country and exploit them.   Yet it happens.  Too many employers seem pefectly happy to have illegal immigrants in our nation as second class citizens.  Why?  The answer is greed.  To do the work they did not want to do (in this case, the work that Americans supposedly won’t do), human societies have attempted to enslave others throughout history.  That includes Americans.  Remember that peculiar institution of the Old South.
  • In our society, a large percentage of the capital assets, the means of producing food and manufactured goods, are owned by a relatively few people. Quite naturally, the owners of these capital assets want those assets to be worth as much as possible.  They achieve that by bringing down the costs of production.  Labor is often the major cost of production.  Illegal immigrants provide inexpensive labor.  So what is the problem with using illegal immigrants?  Our society can only assimulate so many poor, uneducated people.  The rich are not paying the cost to assimulate these poor and uneducated people.  You and I are paying the bill, and you and I can only afford to Americanize so many people at any one time.  In sufficient numbers, illegal immigrants will balkanize our society and tear it apart.  These people do not understand our society.  Often, they cannot speak our language.  They have difficulty adapting so they set themselves apart.  We have already had demonstrations.  What is next?
  • The issue serves as litmus test.  Even though rank and file members detest illegal immigration, the Republican Party establishment supports illegal immigration.   Why?  Wealthy people, the people who own most of our nation’s capital assets, are influential.  Such people know to select, engineer, and FUND the election of political candidates to public office.  When elected officials cater to such interest groups, they do not serve the best interests of our society.

Where does Jim Gilmore stand on this issue?  This is the sum total of what Gilmore has on his website (from here).

“I am a descendant of immigrants who came to this country legally to seek the American dream. I believe that dream should remain attainable for those who obey the law. However, illegal immigration is costing Virginia taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars each year. As someone with experience dealing with homeland security, I know we must secure America’s borders and crackdown on employers who hire illegal immigrants if we’re going to stop the illegal immigration that is threatening our nation’s future.”

Gilmore’s explanation appears to be an exercise in semantics.  Based upon previous statements when he running for the presidency, there is a strong probability that Gilmore will do virtually nothing to solve the problem of illegal immigration.  The key word in Gilmore’s statement is “illegal.”  To legalize “illegal” immigrants, Gilmore will register them.  Then, after they are “legal,” employers can hire them.  I suggest you read this post at the right-wing liberal.  

If the right-wing liberal post does not satisfy you about the dangers of Gilmore’s position on immigration, then I suggest you read this OnTheIssues post (here).  Consider this quote from their post.

No amnesty for illegals; control the border

Q: Do you favor amnesty for illegal immigrants?

 A: No. I believe there should not be an automatic path to citizenship. We should control the borders, and then require illegals to come in and register. Then we can have an honest debate on immigration reform.

Source: Live Chat with Jim Gilmore on his campaign blog Apr 26, 2007

Where does Bob Marshall stand on this issue.  Here is a sample of what Marshall has on his website (from here).

At the federal level, the Federal Government must do the following:

  1. Secure our southern border by construction of a “fence” (electronic, physical or both) and significantly increase border patrols.
  2. Give back to states the powers they had before the passage of the 1986 federal immigration law which allowed them to penalize employers who knowingly hire or lure illegal workers to the United States.
  3. Refuse amnesty to those who illegally enter the United States.
  4. Penalize countries which refuse to take back illegal aliens who have finished serving time for crimes;  
  5. Abolish birthright citizenship which is a large incentive for illegal immigration.

Because both his position on and his record with respect to illegal immigration are unambiguous, Congressman Tom Tancredo has endorsed Bob Marshall (see here), and so has U.S. Border Control.

Here is what U.S. Border Control had to say about Bob Marshall

      “As chairman of U.S. Border Control,” Edward I. Nelson, of McLean , wrote to Marshall on March 29, “I am proud to give you our organization’s endorsement.

      “I found some time to review your website, not just the immigration portion, but your views across the board.  As important as border and immigration policies are to me, I could not, in good conscience, endorse a person who was right on immigration but wrong on the other serious issues our nation faces.

      “I was delighted to see that your position statements on a wide range of issues reflect a thoughtfulness that must be based on all those thousands of books that you read.  Clearly, this nation could benefit by having a sound-thinking person like you in the U.S Senate.”

Let’s face it.  As Republicans, we know where John McCain stands immigration.  We also know we are not going to vote for Barack Obama.  So we have a problem?  How do we keep McCain from opening the gates at our borders wide open?   

We know Bob Marshall‘s reputation.  We know Marshall will fight tooth and nail to do the right thing, and he is not going to let the Republican leadership stop him.  Do you really think Jim Gilmore will fight the head of his own party tooth and nail?  If you believe that, where is the evidence?

Other views

The Mason Conservative tries to set Gilmore’s record straight (here).

STD brags about the money Gilmore has raised (here).

Steven Latimer is overjoyed by Tancredo’s endorsement of Bob Marshall (see here).

The Northern Virginia Conservative explains why he switched to Bob Marshall (see here), and Shaun Kenney (here) and the right-wing liberal (here) echo this post.

 

 

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “SENATORIAL PROS AND CONS: ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

  1. Harry Ippolito

    The politicians are selling the American citizens out on a daily basis. We need to with draw all our troops from all foreign county’s and place them on both our borders to protect thier families, their country, their way of life and the future of our children.
    Let the rest of the world destroy itself. We are a mighty nation and can defend ourselves against anyone stupid enough to try and take us out.

    WAKE UP AMERICA…..POLITICIAN AND BIG BUSINESS’S ARE KILLING THE AMERICAN CITIZENS.

    Like

  2. Phil

    I read that in mexico primary school is grades
    1 thru 6 and that the dropout rate is 40%.
    If that many mexicans have trouble getting
    through 6th grade its no wonder that country
    is so poor.
    People say the Mexican govt needs to do
    something but there may not be that much
    they can do with so many mentally challenged
    people..

    Like

  3. Gentlemen – Thank you for your comments.

    Harry – We have the right to protect our soverignity and our way of life. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of world. Our world is one big globe. We too must share its fate.

    Phil – God, not our doings, determines our prosperity. All we can do is thank Him and make His ways our own.

    Like

  4. Frazil

    The basic premise of your argument doesn’t account for the alternative.

    Economic greed: I’ll agree that employers pay the least amount possible for an employee’s service. The reason is that the consumers of that service also want to pay the least amount possible. So who is being greedy?

    The end result is that the consumer pays one way or another. If you want McMansions built at the lowest possible cost you need cheap labor (illgegal immigrants). If you want to pay so called “good” wages, your McMansion won’t be so cheap. Either way, you’ll pay in taxes for public services to support cheap labor or you’ll pay more for the goods and services you consume.

    It’s a zero sum game.

    Like

  5. Frazil – Consumers have little choice in who employers hire to produce the products they consume. What do you want consumers to do, visit meatpacking plants and chase out all the illegal immigrants? Consumers, most of the citizens of our nation, have asked their government to do that. In fact, here is a report about a government employee who was asked to retire when he chased illegal immigrants out of a meatpacking plant.

    So far, our politicians have refused to enforce even our existing immigration laws, and that is the issue I have addressed in this post.

    Like

  6. frazil

    Perhaps I missed your point. I was responding to your economic analysis and, what I thought, was your conclusion that its the greedy corporations that are to blame.

    I wanted to suggest that it’s greediness all around. We all are to blame. More specifically, my point was that clamping down on immigration, legal or otherwise, will come at a cost. That cost will be reflected as increased costs for consumer goods, whether those goods be strawberries, landscaping services, or McMansions.

    I’ll agree that the consumers don’t have enough information to be able to only purchase goods that are illegal immigrant-free. But they do have enough information to compare price. Right now, you can pay as little $40 per week for a lawn service or as much $125 per week, all other things being equal. You can bet your bottom dollar that the $40 per week service is employing illegal immigrants and the $125 service is probably not. I’ll bet that most people are going to pick the $40 per week, because they want the “biggest bang for their buck.” IOW – out of greed.

    From reading around the blogs the argument for cracking down on immigration has been framed as one of economics. Specifically, illegal immigration increases taxes beyond what they would otherwise be, and thus getting rid of illegal immigrants will save taxpayer money. The second argument I see is that illegal immigration takes jobs away from American citizens. However, I don’t see many people from south-central LA flocking to the Imperial Valley to pick vegetables.

    So in order to get those American citizens to flock to the the imperial valley to harvest vegetables, farmers are going to have to pay higher wages. If those farmers have to pay more to get the vegetables harvested the consumer will have to pay more for those vegetables. Any tax savings will be off-set by increased consumer prices – a zero sum game.

    Like

  7. frazil – Zero sum game? Are you certain you have considered the full consequences of this line of reasoning? Consider this example. Because it is nothing but a zero sum game, perhaps we ought to give up on enforcing laws against thievery.

    Let’s assume that policemen did not bother to enforce laws against stealing – or that when they did enforce these laws it was only because the thieves had done something particularly obnoxious. Most people still find murder disagreeable so I suppose police would have to do something if a thief killed or seriously injured their victim. Nonetheless, don’t policemen already tend to ignore minor crimes. How might citizens react if they believed the police deliberately ignored crimes of thievery?

    Without any serious effort at law enforcement, would thievery become more and more commonplace, part of the status quo? Don’t some people always find great advantage in maintaining the status quo? What would happen in this case? Can you imagine the possibility that retail stores would find it advantageous to buy political influence to defend thievery? Could politicians be persuaded point out that when thieves steal, they provide a worthwhile public service? By selling their stolen goods at a reduced price, don’t thieves enable customers who might not otherwise be able to afford such goods to buy them? Thievery would just be an anti-poverty program.

    In addition, our politicians could rationalize that the additional policemen, jails, judges, juries, courtrooms, and so forth would be quite costly. How could we afford the expense? And putting all those thieves in jail! They might resist! We would be breaking up families! We would have to put the children in foster homes! What an awful, unkind mess! Leave well enough alone!

    In fact, since the thieves would not be doing any real harm anyway, politicians would probably protect thieves. They would say that thieves are just trying to make an honest living as best they can. So when they are trying to protect their property, property owners have a responsibility not to hurt those hardworking thieves. Any property owner who did hurt a thief could be sued or sent to jail.

    Finally, because we would all be buying stolen goods (could not really tell stolen goods apart from other goods), you could say that we would all be complicit in thievery; we would all benefit.

    Yep, sounds like a zero sum game to me. Enforcing a law just takes too much effort. With a little thought, we can all figure out how to benefit when a crime is committed against somebody else. So we may as well just scrap all our laws.

    Like

  8. Pingback: THE APPEAL OF ANARCHISM « Citizen Tom

  9. frazil

    Ok, You’ve convinced me that the issue of illegal immigration has nothing to due with economics. Its unfortunate that it seems to be the primary argument the anti-immigration crowd uses.

    I do take issue over your analogy, however. It has long been established, in this country, that crimes against individuals (theivery and murder in your analogy) are punished more severly than crimes against the public as a whole (mortgage fraud for example). It is also well established in this country that a crime’s punishment must be comensurate with the damage done (we don’t lock people up for jay walking, a misdemenor. We don’t want to run-afoul of that pesky 8th amendment, do we?). Lastly there are many laws on the books that simple are not enforced. For example, and admittedly I don’t know if this is still the case, in Virginia, until recently at least) oral sex between consenting adults was sodomy, which carried a jail sentence of several years. When was the last time a husband and/or wife was locked up for sodomy?

    So taken together, you’ve shown that the argument ventured by those upset over illegal immigration is not one of economics; and it is not about the so called “rule of law” because the “rule of law” argument must pass constitutional muster and there are many laws on the books that are rarely, if ever, enforced.

    So what is it about?

    GL over at BVBL seems to suggest its all about economics and the “rule of law.” You and I both know it really isn’t. 🙂

    PS. You have a nice blog. Well done.

    Like

  10. frazil – Thanks for the compliment.

    The observation that crimes against individuals are punished more severely than crimes against the public as a whole is interesting. I had not made that connection.

    Like

  11. American Abe

    The way I see it is that Government want to take me to prison, just because I won’t trade humanity for Patriotism.
    Do we really think our country never sparks up terrorism?
    They vote for us to go war instantly, but non of their kids serve an infantry. The stack are against them like a casino, think about it most of the army is Black and Latino. Lets share America with the Americas…

    Like

  12. Meranda Villegez

    illegal immigrants aren’t harming us. all you guys are just stuck up in how everything used to be. remember all people are treated equaly. so treat them equaly. and they are not slaves. they are just hard workers who get the job done. walk a mile in their shoes before you start judgeing and stereotypeing them!!

    Like

  13. Melanie Arison

    Everyone I know other than my family are illegal immigrants. My point if you are not native indian then you get out with the mexicans and others you are fighting so hard to kick out of america. An that means all you 1/3 , 1/4 , 1/2 , 3/4 indians. You want tighter borders than get off our land. The only true americans are the 100% native indian.

    Like

  14. Melanie – I was born here. Everyone is born some place. I did not choose to be born here. So I hope you will not hold it against me, but it seems that you do. Nonetheless, because I was born here, I belong here as much as you.

    When they cease to understand what it is that made them strong, advanced civilizations fail. America is not strong because the white race stole the land. More Indians died of disease than anything else, and the spread of disease started before Europeans understood what was going on.

    What made America strong is that most of its people practiced a Christian ethic that originated with the Protestant Reformation. It is the remnant that still practices that ethic that keeps America strong.

    Unfortunately, the large majority of the immigrants illegally entering country know little of America’s history. Moreover, many are too easily persuaded to beliefs that are detrimental to the maintenance of a republic. That is one reason many of our politicians want them here. To a power hungry politician, gullible citizens are a necessity.

    Yet you want to make this out to be a race issue. As I said, gullible citizens are quite handy to a power hungry politician. That is where such politicians start. They divide us. And what could be more divisive to a nation than hordes of poorly educated strangers who cannot speak the language?

    Like

Comments are closed.