Illegal Immigration and the Rule of Law
As is usual when I make an immigration post (wherein I am supportive of open immigration and suspicious of gung-ho enforcement efforts) I got mail saying that the real concern here is the rule of law. People inevitably want to inform me that this immigration is ILLEGAL (usually in caps) and that these immigrants are BREAKING THE LAW and that the law cannot be enforced unevenly.
First, I am happy to listen to this argument from any commenter who has never broken the speed limit or done a rolling stop at a stop sign.
Second, I would like to offer the rule of law folks, especially those on the right side of the aisle, a thought problem: Soon, it will be illegal to not purchase a health insurance policy that meets specifications set by Congress. It is anticipated, however, given relatively low fines, that many people will break this law and not obtain health insurance. This failure will be ILLEGAL. These people will be criminals. Do those of you who seek higher penalties, more robust enforcement, police sweeps, and reduced standards of probable cause for people committing the crime of illegal immigration also plan to seek the same higher penalties for lawbreakers who do not buy an insurance policy? After all, as you have said, this is not about the law itself but respect for the rule of law.
By your immigration logic, we should be ruthless about lawbreakers who do not have the right insurance policy. We should encourage the Minutemen to patrol for people without health insurance -- after all, they have said that their concern is with people breaking the law, not immigration or Mexicans per se. There should be sweeps where people can be arrested for suspicion of not having health insurance, just as they can be arrested under our new AZ law for suspicion that they do not have a green card.
If there is a difference, please explain it to me. I understand that you may be opposed to open immigration or high immigration rates or immigration by poor uneducated people or whatever. If so, fine, we disagree -- but stop saying that this is all about the rule of law, or telling me we can't pick and choose what laws we violate. Because we do the latter all the time. Our willingness to challenge the state is a large part of American exceptionalism.
PS- Just to avoid misunderstandings from trolls who do not usually read this site, of course I do not advocate the above for health insurance violations. Just as I don't for Mexicans seeking a better life in this country without obtaining a license to do so from the government.
Disclosure: I have several good friends who are illegal immigrants. They are wonderful, hard-working people who have been in this country for years. If we were to conduct tests of people's acceptability to be present in this country, they would pass with scores far ahead of many US citizens.
Update: I find the argument that open immigration and an overly-generous welfare state can't coexist to be moderately compelling, though I don't see why we could tie citizenship narrowly to receiving these benefits. I have problems saying that a government license in the form of a green card is required for mere presence in the country. I have no problem imposing this licensing requirement for receipt of unearned goodies.
Right, so now the same guy who helped give us Obama favors amnesty.
Excellent example of how these "Coke vs. Pepsi" libertarians in the U.S. are the best friends of authoritarian fascists and how they've done more to advance big government than any other political faction.
It's almost as if the same logical thinking skills that allow them to see the economic reality behind government programs render them utterly unable to think tactically when it comes to politics.
The reason we make the distinction between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration is that we favor immigration but don't think the criteria for deciding whom to admit should be physical proximity plus willingness to break the law. It's a recipe for -- California.
I don't blame illiterate Mexican peasants for pursuing a better life, but I have to laugh at the absurdity of a libertarian whiner advocating policies that will make Arizona more like Mexico and less libertarian.
We may be a nation of immigrants, but immigrants gave us FDR and they destroyed Argentina, one the richest countries in the world in 1900. To act as if the culture of immigrants is irrelevant and as if doesn't matter how we select our immigrants is suicidal. With our current welfare state, doubly so.
Oh, and while Coyote is getting duped into admitting 20 million new statist voters, we're still busy turning away some of the most talented people in the world who are moving to Canada or Australia -- countries with sane immigration policy.
-Mercy
If we were honest, racism and greed are the primary motives behind the belly aching against illegals. Spoiled, greedy, selfish, North Americans, of which I am one, fearful of someone taking a crumb from a banquet table is what we are. These motives are the same for the USA doing to Mexico what Sadam Hussein did to Kuwait, although we did it on a much larger scale to an even poorer country. We whine and cry and thumb our noses at a people not given the privilege we were born into and who are merely trying to make things better for their families. Wouldn't you do the same? Maybe not. Sure the illegal, work harder, value family, and appreciate life more than we could ever hope to, because we've been handed our Nike's and Ambercrombie & Finches on a golden platter. We could fix the border problems, but if you look close, there is too much money to made from illegals to change things. Have you looked at what they risk attempting to come here? Have you looked at the laws and fees required to get here legally? Have you looked at what US companies are doing to the Mexicans in the Maquillas? I've worked in Mexico. I've seen their busses pick up mothers from their homes at 6am and drop them off at 1am for wages that is 1/4 what we give your teenagers to play at the mall. Come on North Americans, have a heart.