Eccentric Flower talk:201009/Mouth Shut
From Eccentric Flower
Comments on Eccentric Flower:201009/Mouth Shut
Bunny, immigration isn't my field of expertise, so this is (more than usually) just an uninformed impression I have. The problem seems to go like this: Draconian anti-immigration laws play well at the ballot box. Enforcing them as written, however, would require much $$$, and tax increases are poison at the ballot box. Economically, illegal aliens are wonderful for the business community both because they occupy menial jobs that legal immigrants and citizens won't take and because they can often be exploited for less than minimum wage, no social security, unemployment tax, etc. So the business community gives $$$ to politicians who nod and wink at the draconian anti-immigration laws, all the while devoting insufficient resources to enforce them. Contempt for the draconian laws in this area leads to contempt for the legitimate rules, and everything goes to hell. But as I say, that's just an impression I have, uninformed by any actual knowledge.
-- 06:13, 18 September 2010 (BST)
But, see, they aren't ANTI-immigration laws, they're immigration laws. Not many legals are actually refused, and if they are, it's for cause, like felony records or communicable diseases. Or, in some cases, quotas, although I don't know much about that aspect of it.
Point is, there have always been laws governing who and how. There just aren't enough law enforcement personnel to do the job, and, now that the problem has escalated, there never will be. Takes funding, and nobody wants to budget for it. But, damned right, talk a good new law and people will feel good about it. And re-elect you. Perception over reality, every time.
It's the same with gun laws. When Brady got shot, there was a rush to make a feel-good law, by golly. Never mind that there were already perfectly good laws on the books that even then were not being enforced, and for the same reasons.
I'm no expert. My opinions come from "the other side," I guess you could say, the side of the poor working schlub who has rules and regulations and laws to enforce, no money to do it with, and political bickering governing whether or not he SHOULD enforce them in the first place. It's a thankless job. The fact that illegal aliens come in all shapes and sizes, from criminals to hard-working, honest poor people only aggravates an already untenable situation. Send 'em all home will never happen. Nor, arguably, should it. But amnesty isn't the answer, either. Huge problem. So, let's make a few more laws...
-- 18:19, 18 September 2010 (BST)
Quotas is what I was thinking when I referred to anti-immigration laws. I don't know the status of the quota laws, but historically they ranged from the absurd (essentially unlimited Irish immigration because Kennedy was on the committee that wrote the quotas) to the racist (Yellow Peril, anyone?).
A quota anecdote from 70 years ago: When my mother's family emigrated from Trieste in 1939, my grandmother, who managed the logistics, had to get exit visas from the Austrians (for her, my grandfather and mother) and Italians (for my uncle, who was born there), and had to apply under three different quotas with the U.S. Consulate (she had been born in what was, at the time, Poland). It's a miracle they didn't all end up as lampshades and soap.
-- 21:53, 18 September 2010 (BST)
Ack! What a terrifying thought. My French mom came through Ellis Island with me (born in Heidelberg, Germany, American sector hospital, US GI father) and stood in line for hours. When she finally got to the front of the line, the officials told her she could have schlepped me right through ahead of everybody else, because... I was a US citizen! No signage, back then, informing aliens about such things.
No particular reason for this anecdote, just a kind of interesting story. When we visited Ellis Island a few years ago, it became all the more touching. We saw the pictures of immigrants from everywhere in the world, standing, waiting, piles of luggage everywhere. They've done a decent job of preserving the history of that place.
-- 16:32, 19 September 2010 (BST)
Not many legals are actually refused, and if they are, it's for cause, like felony records or communicable diseases.
I have to say, this is either desperately inaccurate or disingenuous.
See also: http://reason.com/blog/2008/09/24/new-at-reason-mike-flynn-shikh
-- 21:32, 23 September 2010 (BST)
Bunny42:
"...there's one reader here who differs notably from the majority of the rest of us on border policy in this country,..."
I'm thinking you mean me. I've not been silent about my feelings regarding enforcement of already-existing laws. Just last week I visited with some friends at my former place of employment, (formally known as U. S. Customs Service, now called, uh, Homeland Security.) They were lamenting the fact that they had detained some illegal aliens who were hiding on a yacht in the local marina, and no one in a position of authority, be it ICE, Border Patrol or anybody else would come and get the aliens and process them. It's always somebody else's problem. No one wants to take the heat and enforce EXISTING statutes. Eventually, someone somewhere was located who would take responsibility, but we all shook our heads in awe at the helplessness among Federal agents who were only trying to do their job, fer crying out loud.
So yeah, I probably see things differently from the majority of your readers. The problem of illegal immigrants in this country is vast and complex, but it started when the authorities stopped saying no, you can't come in unless you do it right. There's no longer any incentive not to jump the border, and the problem just gets bigger and bigger.
-- 01:14, 18 September 2010 (BST)