In the Glow of an Angry Public - Immigration Part Deux

A uniformly angry public outcry over my immigration post let me know I did a crappy job explaining my position. Here's try two, which could make things worse, but I'd rather have a constructive dialogue, have readers tell me how I'm wrong, and grow from those comments, than be afraid to speak for fear of being stoned in the public square. Here we go:

1. Wow. Never talk about flags. It's too touchy, and your point will be misconstrued. (I should have remembered this from the heated argument I had with a family member over how counter-intuitive an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prohibit flag burning would be). My point on flags was a PR one. Had I been working with pro-amnesty groups as a political consultant, they would have been draped with American flags. It’s a heart-warming visual.

2. I don't have a problem with people flying other flags (except the Confederate) as long as the American flag is on the top of the pole. No other country, state, defeated secessionist faux country, or university flag (no matter how much you loooove Purdue) should be on top. But it's not like I'd pass a law to stop them. I just think that it's disrespectful.

3. I support one language for America. If you want to make it Spanish, cool. I started to learn Spanish myself, so I’ll hopefully be ready soon. But I do think a country that has ONE official language fares better, largely because we struggle to communicate with each other with ONE language. If you accept an "official" language, it seems easier to use the one that most Americans already know, no matter how imperfectly.

4. If you accept that immersion is best way to learn a language, we’ll get to one language quicker NOT giving information in multiple languages. The irony is that the larger the non-English speaking population in an area, the more likely government and business (including mass media) will provide product in other languages, thereby slowing the immersion process. If everything here was in Spanish, trust me, I’d learn it quicker.

5. I have no problem with people speaking other languages in America. I just do not believe government should make linguistic accommodations because the government imprimatur of having an official language will compel people to learn that chosen language quicker, both by practical necessity and civic persuasion. It is an irrefutable fact that the better a person speaks English in America, the more prosperous (s)he will be. Part of my issue with ESPN Desportes (and running replays in Spanish on Monday Night Football) is that it’s an effort to get us acclimated to Spanish so people won’t say things like, “I just do not believe government should have to make accommodations.” If someone can show me a study to convince me that being surrounded by your native language gets you to the new language you want to learn faster, then I obviously have to rethink my whole position on this. (Regardless, I still contend that it's hubris to go into another country and ask them to change government documents into a second language. I would never have the cajones to do it).

6. Wilson, you do great research. But who ULTIMATELY gave in? The Germans or the government? I haven’t seen any German publications at the BMV lately, have you?

7. It was suggested that Irish, Germans, and other European immigrants weren’t required to prove “fealty.” Sure, they were. Just like every other Latino who came here legally and became a citizen. They showed “fealty” by respecting America's immigration laws, even if they disagreed, and in addition, they all took the “citizenship oath,” which states:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

8. If you favor an open border policy, please work to get the immigration laws changed. Don't just sit there. I'm bothered terribly that the Bush Administration has ignored immigration laws completely. If you favor amnesty or open borders, you might not not care about this, but George Bush has fined nobody for hiring illegal immigrants. Compare him to Clinton, who at least imposed fines of $4 million dollars (still a pittance if you want to deter the practice, of course). Also, Congress appropriated money for more border agents who George Bush never hired.

I guess as a lawyer, I'm too "rule bound" and caught up in little things like respecting our government structure. I'm terrified by the increasing ease with which a President can ignore a law passed by Congress just because he doesn't like it. Isn't this what the Bush Administration has done on domestic surveillance? On torture? How can we be upset at the non-compliance on those laws, but say, "Oh, you can go ahead and ignore immigration laws. We don't like them."

9. The “greater good” argument is tricky in the immigration debate. If I live in Mexico, and I can get a better life in America, and I’ll do work nobody else will perform with no negative consequence to American citizens, doesn’t that serve the greater moral good?

That's a fair point, but there is a cost for America. It's not in government benefits, which is what most opponents of illegal immigration say. There's no argument that the healthcare cost alone in illegal immigrant-heavy states, such as California, is astronomical. But illegal immigrants more than pay for themselves in taxes paid and lower consumer prices.

The federal government actually receives an estimated seven billion annually in Social Security and Medicare taxes from illegal immigrants who pay in under false social security numbers, but who will never collect it. And because the federal government knows that the four states with the highest illegal immigration populations also have the most employers who submit incorrect and mismatched social security numbers, it KNOWS where this money is coming from and turns a lady justice blind eye.

The costs I'm talking about are job shifts and wage depression. Bear Stearns issued a 2005 study showing millions of US jobs shifting, "as employers have systematically replaced American workers with lower wage illegal aliens." In other words, it's at least arguable that SOME jobs are moving from citizens to non-citizens.

But let's say the Bear Stearns report was entirely made up by Lou Dobbs. People who are comfortable with illegal immigration generally say things like, "They do jobs no Americans want." There's some disingenuousness in this claim. I wouldn't cut grass for $6 an hour presently because I make more as a lawyer. But I would cut grass in a heartbeat if I got $200/hour. The willingness to do most jobs is almost entirely wage dependent, which is why America will never lack for strippers. So, sure, there ARE jobs that American citizens won't work...for minimum wage.

But IF nobody will work a low-wage job, and you DON’T increase the workforce from which to fill that position, what happens? WAGES GO UP. If we actually enforced laws against hiring illegal immigrants, now instead of paying them to clean its American stores, Walmart might have to pay a custodial staff $8 per hour, and I promise you, somebody will jump at those jobs. But say they don’t. Now Walmart has to go $10/hour or higher. Yes, that cuts into the profits of America's largest corporation (don't cry for them - they can afford it), so they will never ask for immigration laws to be enforced.

I don't know how else to say it. Our government is getting a cut for pimping out illegal immigrants for corporate interests, and many highly-educated, white collar Americans will let them do it because they want cheap labor themselves and because they want to pay two dollars for a four-pack of socks and have low produce prices.

Sorry, but there is a tinge of elitism among some illegal immigration supporters. Some of them, including posters on this blog, have said they support illegal immigration because immigrants work menial, labor-intensive jobs. Putting aside the condescension in the notion that cleaning and lawncare is all that illegals can do, it seems from their emphasis on the job type that these enlightened people would have a different position if illegal immigrants were doing computer programming, web design, internet media, and competing for THEIR jobs for dimes on the dollar. If you are a lawyer, accountant, doctor, professor, or other professional, you can rest easy knowing that illegals CAN'T do what you do, which is why support is easy. These same people will sell out American custodial workers, construction workers, food preparation workers, and lawncare company workers in a heartbeat. I expect that from leisure-class Republicans, just not from allegedly labor-friendly Democrats.

If Congress passed a $10 minimum wage and gave amnesty to every illegal alien in the country, I'd say great because the influx of cheap labor would be negated and wages wouldn't be depressed below what someone can live on in America. (Sorry, Wilson, but I'm just amplifying some sentiments I heard Congressman Carson say about illegal immigration. He KNOWS it affects the working class voters who are in his district).

9. Some people won’t care about the competition or the personal financial loss associated with illegal immigration. Those people are heroes. Show me an American citizen janitor in California who isn’t asking for better border enforcement, and I’ll show you a guy I admire. He is willing to make his own family suffer or go hungry so some other guy who isn’t even an American citizen can feed his family. By the way, let me know when you find that guy.

10. Isn’t there a moral laziness that comes from this argument: “Illegal immigrants want a better life, so we’ll turn a blind eye because they were ambitious enough to get here?” If our immigration policy goal is moral, shouldn’t who gets to come to America be based on actual need, not on who won the geography lottery? Instead of ignoring border enforcement and having 20,000 new illegal immigrants enter the country next month, why don’t we enforce our borders and get a governmental allocation to fly planes into Africa and bring back 20,000 people who are verifiably dying from starvation or who are about to be executed in Darfur? I’d be for that. But I bet I’d be standing with only a handful of people at that rally because there would be a true cost. Support amnesty if you like, but before you get “moral” about not enforcing immigration laws, just realize that your contention about “giving people an opportunity for a better life” is arguably a pseudo-moral path of exploitatively advantageous and cost-free convenience.

Yes, white collar folks (including me) reap the rewards of illegal immigration exploitation even if we don’t do the exploitation individually, just like white folks reaped the rewards of exploitation with slavery, even when they didn’t do it individually. Sorry that the truth hurts.

(If you are actively lobbying to get Darfurians here, seeking an increase in the minumum wage, and asking for immediate amnesty for all illegal immigrants so they can get the social security and medicare they are paying for, pat yourself on the back. You're putting your money where your mouth is, and this post doesn't apply to you). For the rest of you....yeah, not so much.

Comience el ataque!

In the Glow of an Angry Public - Immigration Part Deux