Why I don't have time, right now, to write about immigration reform...
I want to write about why more secure borders against terrorism and violent crime are not mutually exclusive with amnesty for most decent illegal immigrants...
And why they actually reflect a very smart prioritization of limited border patrol resources...
Meaning why focussing limited INS resources on terrorism and violent crime rather on kicking out illegals who raise families and do valuable work in America is pretty smart way to patrol borders...and more realistic, by far...
But I've got an IEP to do:):):)... I'll try to remember to come back to it another time:):)...
Love,
Ben
2 comments:
There is no signficant effort whatsoever to curb the demand for undocumented workers. None. The reform measures under discussion almost exclusively focus on how to handle the supply of undocumented workers.
I ain't no immigration expert, but this seems bass ackwards to me. A great deal of time is being spent on symptomology without a great deal of consideration on the underlying disorder.
Why not spend a bit of time discussing ways we can change the situation by dealing with employers?
If they are unwilling or unable to hire the undocumented, one of a few things will happen...
Either the right wing fantasy of Americans filling those jobs will come true or we will start seeing more and more border-crossers stopping to give up some prints and to take a picture while filling out requisite forms.
Personally, I have a pretty good idea why the focus must, for political reasons, remain on the shoulders of the dude wading across the Rio Grande under cover of darkness.
It has something to do with actually getting at the truth about the underpinnings of politically expdient positions and having to confront a few foreign policy and economic realities that are not quite as fun as saying "let's build a big wall."
Let's say it became impossible to safely hire an illegally present worker. What would happen?
Hmmm... Either citizens would take the jobs at existing pay rates (unlikely) or we'd have to find a way to stomach letting in just as many folks from down south of the border via a legal system (unlikely), or industries would take a big ol' financial wallop. Of course, according to pro-crackdown forces that financial wallop would be offset by overall economic gains produced by sending the leeches back to their homes.
Do you think anyone REALLY believes that? Or that the crackdown team would be cool with seeing the same number of "legal" Mexican immigrants? I doubt it.
So, unless people are ready to admit to racial biases and a fear that maybe those leeches are really a net gain and a host of other uncomfortable things, we just have focus on pretending to tighten the borders just enough to appease the far element of the right while leaving the system just broken enough to protect the industries that rely upon undocumented workers.
The careful balancing of appearing to care while maintaining the sieve is essential to truth avoidance.
That's a very brief and meandering outline of my perspective, anyway.
Yeah, Carson...I definitely think that most illegals are here for reasons that I would also likely consider finding any reasonable way possible to take advantage of -- given similar circumstances (meaning a much more relatively weak Mexican economy, a very meager public education system -- Mexicans only get public education until age 14 or 15 and then either they pay for private schools or they find work -- a government that is often broken and corrupt and certainly not very trustworthy, often, and the opportunities that their neighbor immediately to the north offers...
I do agree with those concerned about border control that potential future violent and terrorist activities need to be prevented and that immigration is an important element to those efforts...meaning that if people are a clear and present danger to Americans, now -- rather than some time in a past distant enough to warrant trust -- borders and immigration check-points are a valuable means of preventing our porous borders being used against us...
And I definitely want people to go through the admittedly far too lengthy and paperwork cluttered process of applying for legal immigration status...but I have no interest whatsoever -- and neither does America, frankly, I don't think -- in trying to penalize or deport or otherwise undermine the efforts of many decent people to make lives to support others here or back home...
And I think a more open border and more relaxed border regulation would actually promote the first and more important goal better because now you have 18 million more eyes, ears, and Americans -- even if they haven't declared citizenship -- looking out for the other more dangerous terrorist and seriously violent element...as is, many of those illegals -- 18 million of which will not be scared off by a few raids on U.S. businesses no matter how much people may wish otherwise -- likely often end up identifying with those who feel ambivalent towards the U.S. because of a perception -- fair or mature or not -- that the U.S. is doing them wrong...
But absent tighter immigration controls, those same people don't have the same kinds of incentives to hold back in communicating with authorities about the activities of those who might actually do harm to Americans...
But by lumping all these groups together, Americans who want tighter controls end up undermining the more important priority of tracking down people who are here to do harm...a fact that INS officials under the Bush Administration (absent the most recent undocumented crackdowns at U.S. businesses) have done much to come to terms with a smarter, better prioritized use of limited INS resources by focussing on terrorism and more serious violent crimes...
It's something that I think if people took just a little bit of time to think about the real people dynamics rather than just trying to wish away a problem with legislation or enforcement that it would be much clearer to them...
But alas far too many political issues deals in realm of wishes and not nearly enough in the real consequences of policy...
Ben
Post a Comment