The reason we have an immigration problem is not because we are welcoming people to America, but rather what kind of America we are welcoming them to. This in turn has an effect on what kind of people seek to be welcomed here, which then provokes the wrong kind of reaction on our part, and which results in a series of actions and reactions not unlike a child’s party balloon that was not tied off yet but was over-inflated, and then let go.
We have two presenting issues on our southern border. One is the border security itself, and the other is all the stuff we are doing that creates the need for border
security in the first place. What we are doing wrong would include, but not be limited to, anchor babies, food stamps, other forms of welfare, free education, and so on. You get more of what you subsidize and less of what you don’t. There are very few things quite as destructive as American good intentions. If we then add to the mix the problems caused by American bad intentions, everything gets really complicated. What would happen to the drug cartels if Americans quit snorting their happy powder? And, incidentally, that problem is not going to be solved by a federal “war on drugs,” what a joke, but rather by Americans doing what previous generations of Christians used to quaintly call “repenting.” A whole host of our “political” problems have no political solution.
Back to immigration. In the current set-up, conservatives have a point when they say that we need to get control of the border first, and then talk about what to do with the millions of ille . . . oops, almost did a bad thing . . . undocumented ali . . . oops . . . what a klutz I am being this morning . . . undocumented personages. Ah, for the halcyon days when folks could just say wetbacks and nobody minded!
Let me take a brief moment to explain that I was not using the word wetback there, but rather was observing that there was a time back in Eisenhower’s day when other people did that kind of thing, and what I did was all in the third person, and so I would suggest, with all appropriate modesty, that I should not be arrested for merely reporting on these facts. Yes, someone might reply, but you were being simultaneously provocative and coy, and we are on to your tricks. You were really making a point that was plainly critical of the current diktats of our most revered speech police, and therein lies your real crime. Well, yes, I guess I was doing that. That is my real crime. I do confess it.
Back to the politics. The problem lies in how conservatives want to get control of the border — thousands of miles of fence, and so on. We are already dealing with the monstrosity of the Border Patrol setting up random check points inside the borders of the United States, with American citizens being asked to provide “their papers please” because they decided they needed to hit Home Depot after the Piggly Wiggly, with Home Depot being on the other side of the local check point. The Border Patrol is already authorized to set up random check points one hundred miles inside the border, and that happens to be where most Americans live their previously free lives. You really want to solve our problems on this issue by giving those guys more money? Billions more?
Any “conservative” who wants to give the Border Patrol billions in order to control the people on the other side of the border, and who serenely expects at the same time to have untrammeled freedom on this side of the border, enabling them to keep on rocking in the free world, is being insufficiently cynical. And by insufficiently cynical, I mean that they are being blockheads, moonbeams, ninnyhammers, pinheads, tomfools, and so on down the line, in alphabetical order.
In years past, I have said that fences along borders make me nervous because anything tough enough and tall enough to keep “them all” out is also capable, when the circumstances change, of keeping “us all” in. Have you not noticed that when our government is “tough on terrorists,” you are the one who has to stand in long lines at airports in order to shuffle through their risible security theater? Have you not noticed that they have a tendency to “protect your freedoms” by taking them away?
I am suggesting that all the money we are spending on this problem is what is actually causing it. If we want to fix it, we should walk over to where the hose connects to the faucet, there on the side of the house, and turn that thing all the way to the right. It is in that sense that my proposed solution should be considered to be “of the right.” No mas. Here is my proposed campaign slogan — Open Borders, But No Freebies. If any politician wants to use it, he can have his staff contact my people.
But . . . what about . . .? It is a commonplace among conservatives that the left is trying to flood our southern states with immigrants, legal and the other kind, as a not so subtle way of turning Texas blue. This brings us back to our first point, which is the kind of America we are welcoming them to. What is the nature of the incentive? If we create a sugar daddy state, we cannot complain when we find ourselves with a long line of applicants who would like to have a sugar daddy. Every culture has its deadbeats, and if we create a system that attracts them, then that is our problem, not theirs.
If the Canadian government started giving out free heroin, would it be reasonable for them to draw conclusions about all Americans because of the caliber of people they now saw coming across their border for their daily treat? Would this not be a Canadian problem, and not an American one?
If we get our house in order, the message we should have for immigrants, as George Will recently put it, is simply “welcome to America.” If we had a culture that rewarded hard work, risk-taking, entrepreneurship, then the more immigrants the merrier. In other words, immigrants will only turn a state blue if that state is already building a bunch of blue attractions. If the liberals succeed in turning Texas into America’s udder, then we shouldn’t pretend to be surprised at the results. Neither should we think the problem was caused by those who come for what we offer.
In short, we will get the kind of immigrants we deserve. And so it is a not whether, but which problem. It is not whether we will get immigrants, but rather which immigrants we will get. And if we get a problem, it was our own stupidfault, not a typo, one word.
One last thing. For those soft bigots who believe that the problem is that Mexicans don’t have a work ethic, I would invite them to get a summer job in a Wenatchee apple orchard, trying hard to keep up.
The reason we have the anchor baby problem is the 14th Amendment. It was written to grant Blacks citizenship, but was poorly written
Well said. So well, in fact, that it finally hit me — that Doug has a wisp of Dave Barry’s comic stylishness air about him, no?
It seems odd to comment positively on the work ethic of Latin American migrants while simultaneously insinuating that they are the deadbeats of their respective countries whose goal is to arrive here and immediately live off American welfare. That sounds like you’re trying to have your cake and eating it too. As for abolishing anchor babies, I’m curious what the status of someone born here in an American hospital would be? Would they be deportable, or would they be allowed to stay, but simply not allowed to apply for food stamps, social security etc? Would they be allowed to work?… Read more »
We are farmers just North of the 49th parallel, better known as “the border”. Here in Canada we are able to participate in a government program called SAWP. The Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (SAWP) is a guest worker program that attempts to respond to the labour shortage in the Canadian agricultural sector. We have a very hard time finding able bodied Canadian men who want to work on the farm these days so this program has been a true blessing! We have hosted a number of fellows from Mexico for quite a few years now, up to 50 or more… Read more »
Great synopsis Doug. But I have one item that may need adjusting. You said that it is “the current diktats of our most revered speech police” that lands you in hot water. I would suggest that that may be some what true but they would not know anything if it were not for the noses of the police snitches. And when the police come for them we all know how a snitch fares when incarcerated.
Nicolas: He wasn’t contradicting himself. If you give out free stuff, you’ll get the deadbeat Mexicans. But he doesn’t want to say that all Mexicans are deadbeats; in fact, some of them have great work ethic. Hence the Wenatchee apple orchard comment.
You hit the nails on their head. I’ve argued the same points with a much smaller audience though no less hostile, and I hope your words actually get through to some. Traveling southern AZ, NM and Texas I’ve encountered the checkpoints. Interestingly at Eastport, ID I was stopped by the US Border patrol before going through Canada Customs and into Canada. Was that a practice run?
Long time reader from Mexico (since the Hitchens debates) and never-commenter until now. I would say in all my conversations over many years with people here who have gone across the border or have been contemplating it, the controlling factor has always been work: it’s available & it pays 10 times more than here. I’ve never heard anyone thinking about going for the government handouts. Not that no one does, but I am sure the numbers would show (if I had time or inkling to look them up) that illegal immigrants are still vastly more contributors than takers Stateside. Check… Read more »
Hi TimG. I’ve never heard anyone thinking about going for the government handouts. Not that no one does, but I am sure the numbers would show (if I had time or inkling to look them up) that illegal immigrants are still vastly more contributors than takers Stateside. My reading says the exact opposite. I will try to get the stats for you if I have time today (doubtful). Consider also the declining wages and real net-worth of American workers. They have little say in this invasion and are the hardest hit by the real decrease in their wages. Finally, consider… Read more »
Excellent discussion material. Having lived in Southern Arizona for the majority of my life and having owned a business that primarily relies on the work ethic of Mexican immigrants – it is possible to simultaneously say that we are drawing hard workers who are “handout” recipients. Our employees are excellent at what they do and came to America for a plethora of reasons. Once they clock out – in all honesty – things change. They are all on state AHCCCS (AZ “free” healthcare), many draw welfare because of the number of children they have being unmarried; and in spite of… Read more »
In years past, I have said that fences along borders make me nervous because anything tough enough and tall enough to keep “them all” out is also capable, when the circumstances change, of keeping “us all” in. There are probably some drugs you can take to cure this paranoia. Seriously dude, no one wants to keep you here. Just leave, no one will care. And what is all this about liberals turning Texas blue? What liberals? What are you even talking about? Maybe this is a consequence of the conservative pathology that divides the world into makers and takers. Back… Read more »
Hi TimG. From a cursory breakdown of these numbers from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/character/fy2010/fy2010-chap10-ys-final Here is how VDare puts it Whites are 68% of U.S. population and 31.8% of welfare recipients. Blacks are ~13% of U.S. population and are 31.9 percent of welfare recipients. Hispanics are (?)% of U.S. population and are 30% of welfare recipients. quoting from the end of the linked article: The TANF data presents many interesting questions. Why is the share of blacks on welfare declining? Why are whites consistently around 31 percent of those on welfare? Above all: why is the Hispanic proportion soaring? The rising Hispanic welfare… Read more »
“And what is all this about liberals turning Texas blue? What liberals? What are you even talking about? Maybe this is a consequence of the conservative pathology that divides the world into makers and takers. Back during the old waves of immigrants, people said the same crap you are saying here about how we’re getting the sponges that are dragging us down. That they were completely wrong is one reason why conservatives look like hatey ranters when talking about immigration.” Look, brah, you need to seriously reevaluate your position on immigration. Do you even know what percentage of Hispanics vote… Read more »
When Texas turns blue you can forget about there ever being a Republican president again. Texas may shift blue based on immigration, among other things, but there is no direct line from “liberals” to this happening. Texas is governed about as republicanly as a state can be, so the idea that “liberals” are targeting Texas for some kind of immigration plot is conspiracy-level goofiness. Even if they had the desire they don’t have the means. In general it is very bigoted to portray illegal immigrants as swarming north for handouts. It’s no wonder they vote Democrat; I would too. I… Read more »
Non sequitur. The DNC is a national organization, not limited by who governs Texas. ICE is a federal, not state, agency.
I’m not sure about whether this is all a liberal plot to turn Texas blue, but whether it is plausible or not really has very little to do with who is running Texas, and everything to do with who is running Washington
It does not have to be a plot or a conspiracy to be effective. Once the inertial mass of a society is started in the desired direction, as a result of years of “education” by fellow travelers operating a tax funded indoctrination machine upon willing payers (parents), then a trajectory can be plotted. An orchestra is not a conspiracy, but all the players cooperate toward the same end.
Nicholas E
The anchor baby is a US citizen. Illegal aliens thave children here and hide behind their diapers to stay here. The child is eligible for all services. How do you keep illegals from benefitting from those services which they are intelligible for? That is what is meant by anchor baby. It seems clear that Mexico intends to conquer the Unted States without firing a shot.
The child is eligible and the parent s not. Illegal immigration is sinful for several reason s. Illegal aliens facilitate their employers in not paying state and federal employment taxes. Illegal aliens, by their actions, are not trusting The Lord to provide a way to support their families, legally. Children of illegals Mexican, Chinese, whatever, in trying to be loyal children, watch the abuses that coming illegally invoke on their parents, grow up bitter, thus proving that sins of the fathers are visited onto the children.
Illegal aliens, by their actions, are not trusting The Lord to provide a way to support their families, legally. This is rather a weak point. Were people trying to sneak out of Iron Curtain countries sinfully not trusting the Lord to protect their families under communism? Or were they simply placing their family’s well being over obedience to a man-made law, when “well-being” is not a marginal issue but potentially one of life and death? I am not saying American immigration law is comparable to communist restraint of movement, or that there is no moral component to being subject to… Read more »
Jane, if people are starving in Mexico, that would be different. Plenty of scriptural examples. If they are fleeing a communist country, then the country is actively threatening to take their children and raise them to hate Christ, usurping Biblical authority. We have plenty of refugees under those circumstances . BTW, refugees are not under the quota system of immigrants. There is no where in scripture that supports hiding behind your children’s diapers to get what you want. I notice you didn’t refute my other arguments. Even if Obama grants amnesty, that doesn’t address repentance at all. We will have… Read more »
This is so, so true. My husband has taught middle school teacher in California in a school that is around 90% Hispanic, mostly second-generation immigrant kids, for 12 years. This is a private, Christian school, so these kids’ parents moved here legally to work hard, start businesses, and keep the money they make; something that the class system in Mexico keeps them from doing. He teaches history and every year he gives his students a political spectrum quiz (including conservative, liberal, socialist, and libertarian). His most conservative and libertarian kids every year? Consistently the Hispanic boys. In conversations with their… Read more »
But just to give one example as to how messed up our legal system is on the whole issue; we know one Mexican who is here legally who is a medieval philosophy professor. However, because of his green card restrictions, he is not allowed to make enough money to support his family, so he teaches karate lessons at the YMCA. Thankfully, his wife is a doctor and is also an American citizen, so they can make it. However, berry pickers who are here illegally are making 10x that much under the table in the same town.
I’m not sure about whether this is all a liberal plot to turn Texas blue, but whether it is plausible or not really has very little to do with who is running Texas, and everything to do with who is running Washington The theory here is that “takers” are enticed to come to America to get them some handouts. If this is not a reference to state-level policies then it makes no sense, as liberals couldn’t possibly affect Texas specifically in this manner with national policies. Were the theory true (it isn’t), our taker horde south of the border could… Read more »
The law of supply and demand affects the price of labor. Even in the absence of any welfare, migration from Central and South America and anywhere else on the planet would continue until an equilibrium were reached between labor prices in America and those in the poorest of countries. Lets see how Americans like living on $2 a day.
“The first amnesty was passed by Reagan and the second proposed by GW Bush. The plot to turn Texas blue implicates a lot of conservatives, much to the bafflement of Vdare et al.”
I think you’re confusing Vdare with Fox News.
Matt, the reference to “turning a state blue” means it’s about electoral college politics. If there’s a plot to affect electoral college politics in a pro-Democratic direction through immigration, it obviously doesn’t involve California or New Mexico, since they are already solidly blue. Here’s the idea: you entice people to come to Texas, make them dependent on the welfare state, which makes nice little Democratic voters out of them, thus turning Texas, an electorally red state, into an electorally blue state. Obviously, this would be a concern of a national political party, and whether the state political party is on… Read more »
They don’t need Texas if they’d can solidify a couple swing states. Ohio, NC, Florida, Tennessee
This: Florida
The California of the east coast. There is a demographic change occurring rapidly in S. FL, moving from Cuban (a historically more conservative demo based upon their most recent experience with murderous communists) to South American, whose most recent experience is one of radically failed socialism, but who still believe that it only failed because it was not done by the “right people”.
Would Ezekiel 47:21-22 have any bearing on the modern “anchor baby” discussion?