The Republican Proposal on Illegal Immigrants and, the French Are Coming

I am responding to a Republican radio and TV ad about illegal immigration. It’s presented as the Republican counter-proposal or response to Pres. Obama demand for “comprehensive immigration legislation.” It displays involuntarily some of the main fallacies Republicans commonly entertain in connection with illegal immigration and other topics. It demonstrates disturbing collective ignorance in my camp. (I am a registered Republican.) Here are four major fallacies in that short ad:

1 The ad continues to be based on the false notion that there exists an alternative to illegal immigration in the form of some orderly visa queue. In this perspective, illegal immigrants are rude, unprincipled line jumpers. Everyone hates such people.

In fact, there is no such queue. The average unmarried Mexican has no way (zero) way to come live in the US legally. (An unmarried Mexican can try to marry a US national or legal immigrant to gain a quick visa. Some do. This is hardly a more principled way to immigrate into this country than overstaying a tourist visa, for instance.)

2 The Republican proposal demands “no amnesty.” The Republican proposal contains an amnesty: amnesty for those who entered the country illegally. It rewards those who took the matter into their own hands against other foreigners who would like to move to the US but do not wish to violate laws to do so. Again, illegal immigration is the only way to enter the US and stay for almost everyone in the world.

There is no way to regularize the status of current illegals living in this country without an amnesty of some kind. I predict that neither the federal government nor the individual states will ever engage in the massive police action that would be required to hunt down illegal aliens in their homes, places of work, churches, and schools (including kindergartens). Everyone else also knows this to be true. Republican leaders have yet to acknowledge this simple fact of life.

3 The Republican proposal would require illegal aliens to “learn English” as a condition of their legalization. This is ill-informed as well as downright stupid.

First, illegal aliens are very busy learning English. They are all aware of the fact that knowing the main local language is a condition of real economic success in this country. To say otherwise is to make a tremendously xenophobic statement by implicitly calling immigrants stupid. That’s in addition to ignoring the facts on the ground.

Second: What are we going to do with Juan if he flunks his English midterm? Throw him over the border? How about Mr Lee, who has been here (illegally) for fifteen year and who owns a restaurant employing six people? Do we ship him back to Canton if he gets two C- in a row on his English grammar test?

Plus, what is the federal government going to do when some ill-intentioned academic reveals that a significant percentage of American-born US citizens also flunked the midterm, the same midterm?

Is this “obligation” to learn English, specifically, even constitutional? The last time I checked, the US had no official language. Why not Navajo?

This all smacks of the insane dreams of comfortably monolingual individuals who believe they would master Spanish if they could only clear a dozen Saturday mornings. Do these people take advice from anyone? Do they read anything?

“Securing the border” has become a mindless Republican incantation. It’s increasingly irrelevant for the purpose of immigration control, at least closing the southern border is. Several relevant points. At them same time as we were having our endless economic crisis killing thousands of jobs, the Mexican economy was doing better than before. And, Mexican population growth has almost ceased. The huge hordes of hungry Mexicans massed at the border to jump in and take over everything American have evaporated. Mexicans have almost stopped coming. Those who do use a student visa or a tourist visa and just don’t go home until they are good and ready.

Securing the border may serve a purpose in the context of a drug war. If that’s the issue, Republicans should have the coraje (same as “cojones” but more polite) to tell the truth.

And now, what the Republican leadership is not doing or not doing enough: Shout to the rooftops that legalizing illegals and awarding them citizenship are only artificially linked (by artful Democrats seeking free votes for generation). European countries have established successfully for many years the fact that citizens of another country can live in forever without acquiring political rights at all. (A recent well publicized Swiss vote on immigration does not deal with this matter.) Fellow immigrant Nikiforov and I explored this idea in depth in connection with the US and Mexico in our article “If Mexicans and Americans Could Cross the Border Freely” featured in the libertarian journal Independent Review.

Here is a real immigration issue the Republican leadership is not attending to: Tens of thousands of younger French people want to move to this country. The issue is so serious that there is a brand new French cabinet post dedicated to stemming the flow. Many of the would-be French migrants possess to a high degree the kind of training Silicon Valley companies say they can’t find. Many of the same well-educated French citizens who wouldn’t dream of opening a lollipop stand under French conditions discover that they possess a big entrepreneurial gene a couple of years after landing here. Let me also point out that the quality of food improves automatically after a surge of knowledgeable and demanding French customers. (Yes, some stereotypes are well founded.)

At this point, there is no legal way to bring in these high quality immigrants. Our immigration system is forcing into illegal immigration the most determined and least law-abiding segment among exactly the kind of immigrants we want.

11 thoughts on “The Republican Proposal on Illegal Immigrants and, the French Are Coming

  1. “The ad continues to be based on the false notion that there exists an alternative to illegal immigration in the form of some orderly visa queue…
    In fact, there is no such queue.”

    Apparently there’ve been a bit more than 1 million/year immigrants gaining status since 2007. There’s obviously a queue so you must believe it’s not orderly. I’m an immigrant to Canada so I know the process from the inside; you know the US process from the inside. In what way is the queue not orderly?

    US Department of Homeland Security, Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status: Fiscal Years 1820 to 2012

  2. Correcting Terry Amburgey:

    Here are the ways to obtain a permanent visa to move to the US:

    1 Family reunification. (If you don’t have a close relative legally in the US, you are out of luck.) This rubric includes being the spouse of an American or of a legal immigrant.

    2 A small number of specialists’ and occupation-based visas. The quota for those is usually filled in a couple of days. That’s why both farmers and Silicone Valley firms are complaining.

    3 Refugee status awarded by special acts of Congress. It’s capricious: Cubans obtain visas fairly easily, Haitian rarely. “Those deemed “economic migrants” are excluded.

    4 A lottery- an actual lottery – for areas of the world that have recently contributed few immigrants, such as sub-tropical Africa and most of Europe.

    The four categories account for nearly all of the one million immigrants entering each year. (The few others are too small to be of interest here.)

    My statement stands: There is no way for a married British mechanic or for a married French pastry chef to become a permanent resident of the US except by winning the lottery mentioned above.

    A Mexican with children in the US has a chance; many Somalis have a chance. A Russian high-level programmer may have a chance depending on his prospective employer’s talent and determination. For all others, it’s the free lottery (which you can enter as often as you want.) I have known two people who had won the lottery, by the way. One went home after two years; couldn’t make it.

    There is no queue to enter the US, there are queues. Very few people in the world are allowed to join any of the queues.

    My description is very far from the orderly queue I hypothesize the Republican leadership believes exists. My hypothesis rests on the inference that the ad in question makes no sense unless you believe in the existence of such a queue.

    Experience in becoming a legal immigrant in another country is of no relevance in this discussion. However I note that Canada has a more rational policy overall that I wish we would imitate here to some extent.

    PS I think I have a great deal of merit resisting the temptation to manipulate stalwart man-of-the-left Prof. Amburgey into defending the Republican leadership. It sure was not easy!

    • “PS I think I have a great deal of merit resisting the temptation to manipulate stalwart man-of-the-left Prof. Amburgey into defending the Republican leadership. It sure was not easy!”

      Duly noted 🙂

      So it’s not that there is no queue or that it’s disorderly it’s that the queue isn’t big enough? I would agree with that.

  3. Small point of logic: To charge the Republican leadership with false beliefs about reality does not imply that one espouses the converse of these false beliefs.

    I don’t care much about what orderly queue to have.

    From my standpoint, in my opinion, the queue could be smaller, much smaller, and satisfy my requirements for rationality. US immigration policy would have to take US economic interests into account more explicitly. That would include the matter of accepting well trained, experts requested by Silicone Valley for example.

    “Family re-unification” as the pillar of US immigration seemed like a good idea at the time. It’s turned out to exclude many of kinds of workers needed in the US. It has also given our immigration a regrettable racialist appearance: In its results (though not in its intent) it seems largely to exclude white immigrants. This has unpleasant and predictable sociocultural consequences.

  4. So you’re saying there are not tons of Mexicans waiting to cross the river, or fence into the U.S.? You are severely misinformed. I see it every day. Over stays happen frequently but don’t kid yourself and say people still aren’t coming in droves.

    Yes, I am a Border Patrol Agent.
    No, the border is NOT 100% secure. We catch maybe half of the drugs and people smuggled into this country. Honestly we are lucky that something worse hasn’t been smuggled in and I hope it doesn’t ever happen. The reality is, it is very likely it could happen.

  5. Danny: There are many Mexicans waiting to cross the river illegally. There are many fewer than there were five years ago, for example. You, people are catching fewer. It’s either because there are fewer attempting to cross or because you are sitting on your hands.

    You seem to be doing precisely what I denounced: confusing drug interception and illegals interception. I argue that politicians should say clearly which they want to do (even if the two are frequently intermixed on the ground).

    You also seem to be arguing in your head with someone other than me (border not 100% secure). Perhaps you should consider writing a piece for Notes on Liberty based on your experience on the ground. It would not have to be long. Many people would be interested. I hope to read you soon.

  6. There is and always has been a fast and simple way to get into the US and become a citizen; come for a supposed day-trip, then cut and run to the nearest recruiting office, and *join the military*. This path is open to healthy young women as well as men these days; only the aged are excluded. Other than that, all you’d need is enough competence in English to understand commands.

  7. Leslle : A strangely punitive attitude toward immigrants.

    I don’t even know if it’s true that anyone may join the military more or less at will. I suspect it’s not. Last time I looked, military recruits were healthier – including mentally – and better educated than their overall American age group. Probably few immigrants could achieve that high status, especially given a language barrier in many cases.

    There is an overall discussion of the desirability of immigration in general that’s just begging to be had.

Leave a Reply to Jacques Delacroix Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s