Skip to main content

Why we can't have a real immigration debate....

This so-called symposium on illegal immigration conducted by FrontpageMag.com exemplifies the difficulty in having a genuine dialogue about the issue.

It's not a real symposium of different views, but three co-authors shilling for their new book. So you're not going to find anybody raising different opinions during the discussion.

Those authors mix carefully cherry-picked statistics with supposedly representative anecdotes to reach a conclusion not limited to illegal immigrants. According to Manhattan Institute fellow Heather McDonald:

While many immigrants continue to thrive and to enrich our country, too many from the second and third generation of Hispanics are developing behaviors that will fray the social fabric and cost taxpayers millions in welfare and criminal justice outlays.


The entire piece is aimed at presenting the image of thoughtful scholars in deep consideration of a serious national problem.

The reality, when you wade through it all, is that here we have three people attempting to move the whole issue to a new level: from anti-illegal immigration to anti-Hispanic.

That's arguably scarier that the image of poor people wading the Rio Grande.

Comments

Brian Shields said…
The more I think about this issue, the more I'm thinking it's a human rights issue instead of a legal one.

Would our ancestors be any different if they came from south of the border? There's no big Ellis Island type place there that could be the beacon of hope and a symbol of entry into this land of opportunity.

Lately, I'm looking at this issue like it's about human rights. Underground black market wages, the fear of authority, the factory and field treatment of these people are not controlled or cared about, and the human rights abuses could be astronomical.

Ok, I'm done having my democrat moment. On the other hand...

Law enforcement is important, but are we, as a state, staffed enough to handle it? As a nation I know INS is not able to handle it, or else we wouldn't be in this mess.
Hube said…
No, Brian, we're not currently equipped to handle it. That's b/c there's no political will, even though there is popular will. But, certainly, we can't seek out and deport 12 million people nor should we. Some sort of guest worker program is probably the best solution to the illegal immigrant issue, but it will take political will on both sides of the Rio Grande.

I tend to curl up the corner of my mouth when I hear terms like "human rights issue" etc. when discussing illegals. Not b/c I disrespect the term, certainly, but b/c illegals in the US probably have more rights and are safer than they would be any on other place on the planet. In addition, merely contrast how Mexico treats its illegal residents to how the US does. Then, when you hear Mexican officials lamenting how their citizens in the US illegally are treated, you can only but guffaw.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...