Posted by Jack
Recently, a lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials I’ve seen in ages! It explains things better than all the baloney you hear on TV. Her point: Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.
Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. Let’s say I break into your house.
Let’s say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, ‘No! I like it here. It’s better than my house. I’ve made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I’ve done all the things you don’t like to do. I’m hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).
According to the protesters:
You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to feed me
You are Required to add me to your family’s insurance plan
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest. (except for that breaking in part).
If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there. It’s only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I’m just trying to better myself. I’m a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house.
And what a deal it is for me!!! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted. Oh yeah, and I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so that you can communicate with me. Why can’t people see how ridiculous this is?! America is populated and governed by idiots.
Thank you Jack.
According to “liberal” ignorati such as Chris and Libby, Jesus would welcome a belligerent bum into their house and all the rest.
Such are the lunatics.
This metaphor is not persuasive to me for the very simple reason that a nation isn’t anything like a house, for dozens of reasons.
In direct opposition to President Abraham Lincoln.
So, tell me folks, who do you prefer? The silly Chris brat or the man who ended slavery and paid for it with his life?
Yes, that is definitely a sensible, fair and non-fallacious question.
Libertarian Jason Brennan explains better than I can:
The problem with that is that a nation isn’t like a house. It’s true that I don’t have to rent my spare bedroom to somebody from the Dominican Republic if I don’t want to. But a nation is actually a collection of individuals, some of whom want to do that very thing. So when this country decides to close borders, it’s not the country saying, “We’re not going to let some people in because we just don’t want to deal with them,” it’s some people in that country saying, “We’re going to forbid our friends and neighbors and fellow citizens from having economic interactions with these people.” It’s more like the country’s saying, “You want to rent your house to someone from the Dominican Republic but we won’t let you. You want to give a job to someone from Haiti but we won’t let you. No. We’re saying no. You’re not allowed to do that.” So it’s some people imposing their will upon others, it’s interfering with other people’s free transactions.
http://www.libertarianism.org/guides/lectures/immigration-rights
Brennan goes on to explain that immigration restrictions block economic activity. His argument comports with that of most economists, who argue that immigration boosts the economy. While the notion that immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are a drain on the economy is practically gospel among conservatives, almost no economists agree with that narrative.
” It’s true that I don’t have to rent my spare bedroom to somebody from the Dominican Republic if I don’t want to.”
Yeah, well, maybe. Depends on whether he, or your neighbor, turns you into the discrimination cops.
“We’re going to forbid our friends and neighbors and fellow citizens from having economic interactions with these people.”
A ridiculous argument! Economic interactions of individuals and companies are not dependent on open borders. A small restaurant business doesn’t expect to hire workers from across our country. A business that wishes to purchase products from Brazil doesn’t have to be visited by a Brazilian salesman; he can follow the Presidents lead and use his phone an his pen. A foreigner that wants to work in America can use ur visa system and come into the country LEGALLY.
” So it’s some people imposing their will upon others, it’s interfering with other people’s free transactions.”
Wrong! It is saying that as a sovereign state we reserve the right to decide who comes into our country and in what numbers. It is a nation that is saying the preservation of our values and the safety of our citizens is a priority. It is a nations saying, no, you don’t get to do whatever you want, especially when it stomps on the rights and protections of others.
A nation is very much like a home. the rules are not all exactly the same but certainly the level of respect and adherence to laws should be recognized and defended if we are to hold on to a civilized way of life.
Radical lefties and radical libertarians think like babies…”I want it!” No rules. Gimmmeeeee!
Tina: “Yeah, well, maybe. Depends on whether he, or your neighbor, turns you into the discrimination cops.”
While “Discrimination Cops” sounds like a hilarious name for a police procedural, and I will give you a consultant credit when I pitch it to CBS, there is no such thing in the real world.
I suppose the author’s statement was unclear; he should have said he doesn’t have to rent a spare bedroom to anyone if he doesn’t want to, but if he does, you’re right that he can’t legally discriminate against someone based on their nationality. As a libertarian, he probably thinks he should be able to do just that, which is where I part ways with most libertarians.
“A ridiculous argument! Economic interactions of individuals and companies are not dependent on open borders.”
No one said such economic interactions are dependent on open borders, just that there would be more of them, and more free interactions, with open borders. (I’m also unclear on his definition of “open borders.” I favor more openness, but not complete openness. We do need to know who’s coming in, but I think a less strict and arduous process that included a more rigorous background check would be the best compromise. Personally, I think we should allow anyone without a criminal record to enter, live and work in this country. That’s what America is about.)
“A foreigner that wants to work in America can use ur visa system and come into the country LEGALLY.”
Yes, and what the writer is suggested is that we change the law to make this easier. He’s also taking into account WHY so many are breaking our current immigration laws, something opponents such as yourself seem to be committed to ignoring. Prohibition was ended because it was a stupid law that wasn’t worth following or enforcing. Our immigration laws are getting to that point.
“Wrong! It is saying that as a sovereign state we reserve the right to decide who comes into our country and in what numbers.”
….I’m not sure what you’re missing here; the argument is that those who want freer immigration are just as much a part of this sovereign state as you are, and we get an equal say in deciding who comes into our country and in what numbers. We want more, because more immigration is good for the economy.
“It is a nation that is saying the preservation of our values and the safety of our citizens is a priority.”
Our current laws give tons of incentives for people to come into the country illegally and work under the table under occasionally abusive conditions, and tons of disincentives for those people to report crimes that are committed in their neighborhoods, lest they themselves face deportation. Freer immigration would be a good thing for public safety. If we allowed more immigrants in while screening them properly, we would arguably have a better sense of who is coming into our country than we do now. And with an easier path to citizenship, more would become full citizens and would be less likely to self-segregate in poor neighborhoods.
EXCELLENT allegory!
And I see no evidence of the open-border advocates welcoming “refugees” or other illegals into THEIR homes.
Even the pope has gotten into the act of asking other countries to take in more “refugees” yet the walls around the Vatican still stand, and those gates are still able to close . . . . . .
I suppose if I had to put my response in terms of the letter-writer’s analogy, I’d say “It’s my house too, lady. I’m a legal resident of this house, I pay rent and contribute as much as you do, and I say the guy who broke in to save his family gets to stay. Don’t like it? We’re electing a new house leader soon and we’ll see what the rest of the house says.”
This response might be shocking to the letter-writer, who seems to be believe that the house belongs only to her and people who think like her. But it belongs to me too, and I say our house has plenty of room to spare.
“…I say the guy who broke in to save his family gets to stay.”
Sure, because support for the rule of law has zero value. Because holding Mexico, Cuba, South America, nations in the M.E., Africa and others responsible for the conditions that drive people from those countries to America is crazy. Because it doesn’t matter if open border policy overwhelms our education, healthcare, and assistance programs and drives America into greater debt. Because it doesn’t matter that people living in the border states are bearing a terrible burden because of the thoughtless, open borders attitudes that are held within “our house.” Because multicultural political correctness is the only thing that should guide our policies and decisions.
“Don’t like it? We’re electing a new house leader soon and we’ll see what the rest of the house says.”
Sounds like a threat. Are we supposed to flee in fear or turn you in to the hate police?
The people will speak in November and we will see whether the country will be run by the rule of law, common sense, civility, and respect for everyone or the adolescent demands of a bunch of thoughtless, self-centered, children who believe people should be able to do anything they want (Except hold a conservative position).
Ok, I take it back: “Hate Police” is a WAY better CBS procedural title than “Discrimination Cops.”
Tina: “Sure, because support for the rule of law has zero value.”
Not zero. I know you can only think in absolutes, but try to open your mind to the idea of nuance for one second to understand these premises:
1) The law has value.
2) Human beings also have value.
3) When the law creates suffering for human beings with no corresponding benefits to others, the law should change.
4) Until the law changes, some people will break the law if they believe it is the only way to reduce their suffering and that of their family.
This is called seeing the issue in a realistic way. The anti-immigration crowd has gotten so unrealistic that they are now talking about having Mexico build us a wall and pay for it, and have no idea that this policy is a deluded science fiction scenario. Realism means accepting that our current immigration laws are overly restrictive and are creating suffering while doing nothing to benefit our country overall.
“Because holding Mexico, Cuba, South America, nations in the M.E., Africa and others responsible for the conditions that drive people from those countries to America is crazy.”
I said nothing about not holding those countries responsible. There are ways to do that without punishing citizens of those countries who want to make a better life for themselves here.
“Because it doesn’t matter if open border policy overwhelms our education, healthcare, and assistance programs and drives America into greater debt.”
It would matter if any of those things were happening. Since they’re not, this argument is irrelevant. You know as well as I do that there has been zero net increase in immigration from Mexico over the past five years. There is no “flood” of immigrants overwhelming our system. It’s a paranoid, xenophobic myth.
“Because it doesn’t matter that people living in the border states are bearing a terrible burden because of the thoughtless, open borders attitudes that are held within “our house.””
You’re wrong. Violent crime in border states has been dropping, just as it has been everywhere else.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/us/20crime.html?_r=0
“Because multicultural political correctness is the only thing that should guide our policies and decisions.”
I just linked a whole article which talked about the economic benefits of freer immigration. If you want to say that all I’ve given you is “multicultural political correctness,” then you’re free to do so. Others are free to notice that you are lying.
Me: “Don’t like it? We’re electing a new house leader soon and we’ll see what the rest of the house says.”
“Sounds like a threat.”
Don’t be so PC and sensitive, Tina. My meaning was obvious: We make decisions in this country as a group, and anti-immigration folks are not the only ones who get to decide who we let into this country. There was nothing even vaguely threatening about what I wrote. Stop being so damned afraid of everything.
“Are we supposed to flee in fear or turn you in to the hate police?”
You’re babbling incoherently at this point.
“The people will speak in November”
Yes, that’s what I said. You somehow perceived this as a “threat,” because you see everything said and done by your political opponents as sinister and everything you and your allies do as noble and patriotic. It’s a really simple, childlike way of viewing the world.
Chris went off the deep end long before this idiotic comment.
Which is why you’re always able to rebut my points with facts and logic.
Oh, wait. You never do that.
Never? Another Chris lie.
Nevertheless, how does one rebut a lunatic?
“Never” was an exaggeration, but it’s certainly been a while since you’ve done so. Which is a shame; when you do attempt to use substance rather than insults, you show that you do have worthwhile things to say. I wish you’d do so more often.
“Lunatic?” Nothing I said above is outside the mainstream of American politics. If I’m too radical for you, and you can’t bring yourself to speak civilly to me, good luck engaging with anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
Chris: “3) When the law creates suffering for human beings with no corresponding benefits to others, the law should change.”
US law does not “create suffering” for people who come here illegally.
“3) When the law creates suffering for human beings with no corresponding benefits to others”
Corresponding benefits to others? What about corresponding detriments. The growing debt is a concern. The added cost to state and local governments, in addition to federal programs is no small matter.
The cost to American students, held back in their progress due to the numbers of languages and education levels of foreigners in the classroom is no small matter. The cost to hospitals and emergency rooms is no small matter. The additional crime and incarceration costs are no small matter.
People who “want to make a better life for themselves here” need to get in line and take their turn so that we won’t be overwhelmed. Common sense, Chris.
Tina: “US law does not “create suffering” for people who come here illegally.”
I hate to steal Dewey’s thing, but: LOL. This is an extraordinary thing to say. Of course it creates suffering. Why do you think the majority of illegal immigrants immigrate illegally? For the thrill of it? They do it to escape suffering. Laws which make that more difficult contribute to that suffering.
“Corresponding benefits to others? What about corresponding detriments.”
…she said, while completely ignoring the benefits. The same Wikipedia page you linked to also cited UCLA research showing that illegal immigrants generate $150 billion in economic activity a year. Heck, even the portion you cited describes the costs as “modest” and “small,” so if that’s the best you can do, you’re making my point for me: as nearly every major economist has concluded, the benefits of immigration outweigh the costs. That Wikipedia page also cites experts who point out that if we legalized those who have come here illegally, we’d see even more benefits from increased tax revenue and economic activity from formerly illegal immigrants who no longer feel the need to hide in the shadows.
” The growing debt is a concern.”
Illegal immigration contributes very little to our debt, and the increased economic activity that would come from legalization could actually help us lower the debt.
“The added cost to state and local governments, in addition to federal programs is no small matter.”
Except that even the evidence you cited above from the Wikipedia page described it as “small” and “modest.”
“The cost to American students, held back in their progress due to the numbers of languages and education levels of foreigners in the classroom is no small matter.”
I’m a teacher in a community with a large portion of English language learners, Tina. If I had to list all the factors holding my students back, their EL peers wouldn’t even be in the top ten. Which isn’t to say that’s not a concern; demographic changes have added challenges to education. What’s your solution to that? Breaking up the families of these kids, which would further impede everyone’s education? Building a wall, which will never happen? Deporting them all, which will never happen? Changing demographics are a reality regardless of immigration policy and enforcement. We’re doing everything we can to serve these kids while still reaching everybody. What else do you suggest we do? Being harsher on immigrants isn’t going to do much. But freer immigration would make immigrant communities less likely to self-segregate, and more likely to seek out resources such as adult education, including English language training. The “no amnesty” crowd is insisting that we cut off immigrants from the rest of our society and then punish them for it. Its
“The cost to hospitals and emergency rooms is no small matter.”
From your Wikipedia link:
“Moreover, studies have also shown that not providing undocumented immigrants with a decent healthcare might actually cost the country in the long-run rather than save expenses. In 2000, researchers compared the perinatal outcomes and costs of undocumented women with and without prenatal care and inferred the impact of denial of prenatal benefits to undocumented immigrants in California. Nearly 10% of undocumented women had no prenatal care. These women were nearly 4 times as likely to be delivered of low birth weight infants and more than 7 times as likely to be delivered of premature infants as were undocumented women who had prenatal care. For every dollar cut from prenatal care, an increase of $3.33 in the cost of postnatal care and $4.63 in incremental long-term cost were expected. Elimination of publicly funded prenatal care for undocumented women could save the state $58 million in direct prenatal care costs but could cost taxpayers as much as $194 million more in postnatal care, resulting in a net cost of $136 million initially and $211 million in long-term costs. Although their parents are undocumented immigrants, these children are actually U.S citizens.[55]”
I beg you to read the entire Wikipedia page you linked to; it’s full of facts like the above.
“The additional crime and incarceration costs are no small matter.”
There is very little additional crime, as immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the general population. The incarceration costs are mostly a result of our overly strict immigration laws, and could be lessened by not imprisoning illegal immigrants and by having freer immigration laws.
“People who “want to make a better life for themselves here” need to get in line and take their turn so that we won’t be overwhelmed. Common sense, Chris.”
We’re in no danger of being overwhelmed any time soon. Again: Zero. Net. Migration. There is no “flood” or “hoarde” or whatever dehumanizing dog whistle word you might use for it. We’re America; we can handle it.
A statement from a family member of a slain robber who broke into a 54 year woman’s house in Florida and she shot him:
“You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood,” said Harris. “You have to understand… how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point-of-view.”
Liberal thinking toward what is yours, they are entitled to it as well ! …… sigh!
Aw, this was an extremely good post. Spending some time and actual effort to generate a superb
article… but what can I say… I put things
off a whole lot and don’t manage to get anything done.
It’s a shame you don’t have a donate button! I’d without a doubt donate to this superb blog!
I guess for now i’ll settle for book-marking and adding
your RSS feed to my Google account. I look forward to fresh updates
and will talk about this blog with my Facebook group. Talk soon!