I wonder when I see these enormous demonstrations by illegal aliens and their supporters why the areas are not cordoned off and cleared with mass apprehensions. As much as the street crime, health care costs, and cultural fragmentation of illegal immigration are problems, the biggest problem of all is the open disrespect and contempt shown to our government and its laws by these people and the reciprocal contempt in which we must then hold ourselves for our collective failure to do anything about it.
A society in which laws are openly ignored, broken, and mocked is one in which all laws may potentially be ignored, broken, and mocked. Such a society’s ability to impose community standards on individual behavior will be compromised. And the reverence and sacredness which must attach to laws and judgments of the community will disappear completely. One widely cited factor in the 1970s crime wave was the spirit of rebellion ignited by the protests and disorder of the 1960s.
Such selective lawbreaking may appear at first to be not so bad, an expression of a certain kind of practical liberalism or even a kind of civil disobedience. But even free societies depend in part upon laws and public respect for them. Not everyone will buy into or understand natural rights. Most people will never read Locke. Some will want to break laws against using marijuana as well as laws against theft or child molesting. The fundamental problem of all social organization is the challenge of restraining private behavior from harming the interests of the society as a whole. And this endeavor will always require the institution and enforcement of wide-ranging laws, including certain arbitrary rules and conventions that exist alongside those that involve more august matters of natural rights. The rules designed purely for social organization range from speed limits and the age of majority to the requirement of jury duty and the level of taxation. There is no rigorous way to say one expression or the other is absolutely right or wrong in the abstract. But we can conclude that such laws should be held in respect and followed once they are instituted regardless of their status as “mere” conventions.
It only takes a moment’s reflections to realize that we cannot have a society where everyone follows only the laws he agrees with. And a second moment’s reflection will show that we should want others to follow laws even that we ourselves disagree with. Because those lawbreakers and the atmosphere of lawlessness they would create are more dangerous to our liberties than the suffering that one would endure by complying with any particular law that he disagrees with. Without law and government, the only liberty we would have is that of a state of anarchy, where “there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
Subscribe To This Feed
I think there should be a federal law making it illegal for a telephone phone tree to have options in Spanish. (“Para Espanol, marque el numero dos.”)
Agreed. I also once saw an ATM that looked like the Rosetta Stone with all of its language options. How about this option: learn English or life will be made purposely inconvenient for you as an incentive through a broad social consensus.
I appreciate your arguments here, but frankly, this strikes me as grumpy complaining. Your argument is insufficiently radical. Why is no one enforcing these laws? Why is the President so adamant in the defense of immigration? Why do efforts to curtail immigration always fall through the cracks, despite continued popular support from the electorate?
Because the people who pay for this regime, corporate America, want immigration. Period. Anyone who attempts to criticize immigration but who fails to address the economic factors pushing it should, as Alain de Benoist advises, keep their mouthes shut.
So, when are we going to see conservatives protesting the companies pushing for this policy? Where are the counter protests? Where are the picket lines in front of ADM or Microsoft? Where are the calls for boycotts?
I see calls for boycotts of Ford because they support gays, but I don’t see people protesting grocery stores who sell produce picked by illegal immigrants. Is this a disconnect? I think so.
Until I see people on the American right attacking immigration at the source, i.e. business, and protesting these companies, I will not believe they are serious about pushing for more closed borders or enforcement of existing immigration laws.
It all just seems like petty posturing to me.
I agree this is a source of much of our immigration woes and that many transnational corporations have no loyalty or sense of identity with any particular community or nation. Other than political organizing to restrain this power–and it has worked in a range of areas, including various workers’ rights legislation–I’m not sure if there is another solution, including private action like boycotts. The problem is that the low prices that cheap labor produces at the buy end make it very difficult for companies and buyers to resist this pressure.
If your point is correct, however, how then did the 1924 immigration restrictions come to pass when companies back then, like today, loved cheap labor. One difference is that companies then were more self-consciously patriotic even when immigration was at its height, providing Americanization activities in some cases to their employees. But the situation does not seem materially different.
I agree this is a source of much of our immigration woes and that many transnational corporations have no loyalty or sense of identity with any particular community or nation. Other than political organizing to restrain this power–and it has worked in a range of areas, including various workers’ rights legislation–I’m not sure if there is another solution, including private action like boycotts. The problem is that the low prices that cheap labor produces at the buy end make it very difficult for companies and buyers to resist this pressure.
If your point is correct, however, how then did the 1924 immigration restrictions come to pass when companies back then, like today, loved cheap labor. One difference is that companies then were more self-consciously patriotic even when immigration was at its height, providing Americanization activities in some cases to their employees. But the situation does not seem materially different.
If there are no or very few options, as you seem to suggest, then this reveals the degree to which we have lost control of our government. But, unlike what the mainstream conservative talking heads suggest, it is NOT liberalism that has hijacked our government, but global capitalism.
It’s time conservatives wake up to the fact that the market does not produce conservative culture nor does it always work to protect our values. The question that faces us is simple. Do we command our government, or does the market now command our government? If it’s the later, what does this tell us about our own self-reliance, or lack thereof?
‘If your point is correct, however, how then did the 1924 immigration restrictions come to pass when companies back then, like today, loved cheap labor. One difference is that companies then were more self-consciously patriotic even when immigration was at its height, providing Americanization activities in some cases to their employees. But the situation does not seem materially different.’
Your argument about the 1924 argument is hollow for two reasons: 1. Companies in the 1920s could afford to run at higher costs because their main competing market, Europe, lie in rubble. This is hardly the same situation companies face today in the market of global competition and ever-falling margins. and 2. There was no minimum wage in 1924. There is now. You can get illegals at or even slightly below minimum wage. You cannot do this with citizens. In 1924, you still could.
Let’s be honest, is this country prepared to pay $2.00 for an apple vs. $3.00 for a pound of apples? If the answer is no, then you know where we stand as a country.
The same “Oh, my produce will be so expensive!” arguments were made when the bracero program was ended in the 1960s. Then the farmers mechanized. I don’t see anyone going bankrupt trying to afford tomatoes anywhere.
‘The same “Oh, my produce will be so expensive!” arguments were made when the bracero program was ended in the 1960s. Then the farmers mechanized. I don’t see anyone going bankrupt trying to afford tomatoes anywhere.’
Are you completely ignorant of how agri-business in this country operates? Who do you think drives those tractors? Who do you think repairs them? Who packs the tomatoes, who ships them? Shall we hazard a guess here?
One other thing. Everyone keeps bringing up the so-called successful blocks to immigration in the past. Yet, each one of these initiatives, be it the immigration quotas of the 1920s, the bracero, Eisenhower’s expunging of the illegals in the 1950s, failed. In fact, most of them failed within a decade, with the exception of the 1920s quotas, which were not the reason immigration slowed in the 1930s. There was something called the Depression that helped with that.
I think this inability to look crticially at these failed political experiments, and at the core economic factors that ulitmately undid these efforts, is worth looking at. Yet, I don’t see anyone on the anti-immigration side looking at these issues in any kind of meaningful way.
I accept that we have certain constraints from structural economic factors. And, as a conservative, I am skeptical of blind faith in free markets, unrestrained corporate power, notions of economics divorced from community and patriotism, and reductionist views of the common good that look solely to economic growth.
That all said, what is the solution? Should we not aim to some incremental and politically posible change that has been able to be approved before? Or should we despair? Or should we instead engage in a more quixotic, less politically popular, and through-going review of the economic structure of our society and change that?
I’m willing to concede such a comprehensive reform would be necessary. But since there is much good in our society and its economic system–not least the substantial elimination of grinding poverty–I’m more than a little fearful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Stephen,
I know more about agribusiness than most. I know more about economics than most. I know more about politics, history, and law than most. If you have statistics, then use them. Otherwise, I assume your rambling is just designed to help you demonstrate your apparent superiority.
The “core” economic factors you talk about boil down to “employers want cheap labor.” This is a wholly unsurprising finding, much like saying, “Consumers want cheaper toothpaste.” It is not an argument regarding immigration unless you are going to tell me (A) what our employment levels are relative to full employment, (B) how many non-members of the workforce will be drawn into the workforce after we push past full employment, (C) what the inflationary pressures and relative price increases will be once we push past full employment, (D) what innovations are currently being avoided or undiscovered due to low labor costs, (E) how productivity levels can be affected by a worker or technology shortage or addition, and (F) whether the change in relative wages from currently low-wage, high-illegals jobs will re-allocate native employment in a more efficient manner (that is, away from, say, filing in the City Clerk’s office to building houses).
And that’s just the economic factors to consider. It wholly leaves aside questions of culture, assimilation, relative legal status of immigrants (legal and illegal) and citizens, the incentives and effects that would be created by a guest worker program . . . .
Obviously, opposition to your point of view as a failure of critical thinking. It can’t be that other observations and considerations of this multifaceted issue have resulted in conclusions other than, “Oh, it’s hopeless, and my ketchup will be priced above ability to pay!”
Stephen,
I know more about agribusiness than most. I know more about economics than most. I know more about politics, history, and law than most. If you have statistics, then use them. Otherwise, I assume your rambling is just designed to help you demonstrate your apparent superiority.
The “core” economic factors you talk about boil down to “employers want cheap labor.” This is a wholly unsurprising finding, much like saying, “Consumers want cheaper toothpaste.” It is not an argument regarding immigration unless you are going to tell me (A) what our employment levels are relative to full employment, (B) how many non-members of the workforce will be drawn into the workforce after we push past full employment, (C) what the inflationary pressures and relative price increases will be once we push past full employment, (D) what innovations are currently being avoided or undiscovered due to low labor costs, (E) how productivity levels can be affected by a worker or technology shortage or addition, and (F) whether the change in relative wages from currently low-wage, high-illegals jobs will re-allocate native employment in a more efficient manner (that is, away from, say, filing in the City Clerk’s office to building houses).
And that’s just the economic factors to consider. It wholly leaves aside questions of culture, assimilation, relative legal status of immigrants (legal and illegal) and citizens, the incentives and effects that would be created by a guest worker program . . . .
Obviously, opposition to your point of view as a failure of critical thinking. It can’t be that other observations and considerations of this multifaceted issue have resulted in conclusions other than, “Oh, it’s hopeless, and my ketchup will be priced above ability to pay!”
Your initial post brought to my mind one of Lincoln’s earliest speeches, which I’ve excerpted below. I especially like his reference to “national” freedom. I think it’s far too easy for us today to think only of “personal” freedom.
I know the American People are much attached to their Government;–I know they would suffer much for its sake;–I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.
Here then, is one point at which danger may be expected.
The question recurs, “how shall we fortify against it?” The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;–let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children’s liberty. . . .
While ever a state of feeling, such as this, shall universally, or even, very generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom.
When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made.–I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed. So also in unprovided cases. If such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay; but, till then, let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with.
There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law. In any case that arises, as for instance, the promulgation of abolitionism, one of two positions is necessarily true; that is, the thing is right within itself, and therefore deserves the protection of all law and all good citizens; or, it is wrong, and therefore proper to be prohibited by legal enactments; and in neither case, is the interposition of mob law, either necessary, justifiable, or excusable.
First things first. Roach, help me define Quixotic. Is being Quixotic trying to realistically assess a problem and the structures that contribute to it and then find a real answer to the problems? Or is it vainly complaining about the problem, resisting any kind of thorough analysis, and pushing for blind solutions that have not worked in the past and will not work again in the future? Which is these is tilting at windmills and which is an attempt to address the problem?
Leif, I appreciate your attempt at an economic analysis of the issue, but, to be blunt, you have failed to address any of the core points I have raised? As for your questions about asimilation, etc., I do not argue with you. My response to you is simple: In a world driven by markets, what value do these items really provide?
My general point is this. Economis is driving immigration. If you really want to preserve a core culture and its values, then you have to look at the effects that global markets create on cultures and the ways that these economic forces shape them. If you are unwilling to do this, or, even worse, turn to a kind of blind sentimentalism that choses to emphasize nostaligia over real analysis, then you are doomed to taking silly prescriptions that will not address the issues at hand.
Stephen, you should perhaps do a better job of articulating your “core points.” Employers want cheaper labor; customers want cheaper toothpaste. If you’ve got something deeper than that to contribute, then do.
The “failed” political experiments you discuss “failed” because of a lack of political will in actually enforcing the laws on the books, not because “economics” conspired against them. Economic thought is a tool, a descriptor; it is not a pre- or proscriptor of action. Economics describes how goods and services flow from source to terminus; it describes the interaction of factors in the world. It does not impel people to cross the Rio Grande; it does not impel Congress to under-fund law enforcement efforts; it does not impel employers to call their Congressmen to complain that following the law will make tomatoes too expensive.
Let us not forget that if there are truly negative macroeconomic consequences of enforcing the immigration laws as they stand, those laws can be amended to increase the amount of legal immigration. Turning a blind eye to criminality because of “economics” is a dodge, a hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable. You are a poor economist, Stephen.
Stephen, you should perhaps do a better job of articulating your “core points.” Employers want cheaper labor; customers want cheaper toothpaste. If you’ve got something deeper than that to contribute, then do.
The “failed” political experiments you discuss “failed” because of a lack of political will in actually enforcing the laws on the books, not because “economics” conspired against them. Economic thought is a tool, a descriptor; it is not a pre- or proscriptor of action. Economics describes how goods and services flow from source to terminus; it describes the interaction of factors in the world. It does not impel people to cross the Rio Grande; it does not impel Congress to under-fund law enforcement efforts; it does not impel employers to call their Congressmen to complain that following the law will make tomatoes too expensive.
Let us not forget that if there are truly negative macroeconomic consequences of enforcing the immigration laws as they stand, those laws can be amended to increase the amount of legal immigration. Turning a blind eye to criminality because of “economics” is a dodge, a hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable. You are a poor economist, Stephen.
‘The “failed” political experiments you discuss “failed” because of a lack of political will in actually enforcing the laws on the books, not because “economics” conspired against them. Economic thought is a tool, a descriptor; it is not a pre- or proscriptor of action. Economics describes how goods and services flow from source to terminus; it describes the interaction of factors in the world. It does not impel people to cross the Rio Grande; it does not impel Congress to under-fund law enforcement efforts; it does not impel employers to call their Congressmen to complain that following the law will make tomatoes too expensive.’
Thank you, Leif, for spanking me.
If it’s not economic factors that driving people across the Rio Grande, Leif, please tell me what is? What is this factor?
Common, you’re trying to avoid the forest for branches on the trees.
“Let us not forget that if there are truly negative macroeconomic consequences of enforcing the immigration laws as they stand, those laws can be amended to increase the amount of legal immigration.”
This has been one of the major points of my argument. Sorry if you failed to grasp that.
Stephen, for a “major point” of your argument, you certainly do – how shall I put this – never mention that.
Economics is not a descriptor of a static state (whatever James Mill and the early Classicals thought); it is a descriptor of reactions to incentives (much like psychology is a descriptor of reactions to stimuli). When you say “economic factors,” you mean, “illegals want more money.” Well, duh.
That changes nothing about the debate – everyone wants more money. It is the porous border and lax enforcement of law that makes it possible for these illegals to seek that extra money with little chance of reprisal or punishment. Sadly, the main deterrents to criminal entry into the U.S. are not fear of capture or fear of punishment – it is the fear of (a) dying in the desert during foot crossings or (b) being killed or mistreated by the coyotes or human smugglers transporting you. That’s disgusting, on many levels.
I notice that all you do is wail about the impossibility of getting government to respond to the situation, and the undercurrent is that there is no response because “capitalism has won.” That’s ridiculous. Incentives affect behavior. Aggressive deportation of illegals deters illegal entry; actual criminal prosecution would do the same (if the incentive is to work to make money, you’re sure not getting rich pressing license plates at $0.17 an hour). Interior enforcement of the law against employers deters employment of illegals, drying up the market for their labor and reducing their incentives to travel here for labor.
We do not know what the “true” American labor market looks like because of its perversion through the employment of these illegals. Sufficient enforcement would reveal the interplay between the market forces in America – wages would rise, capital would substitute for labor, prices would adjust – and give us some idea of how and to what effect the government could and should shape the market through its power to regulate legal immigration.
And that’s just the native economics of it. That doesn’t even begin to describe the Mexican and other foreign governments’ incentives and motivations in the matter – many Latin American countries receive massive wealth transfers as a result of expatriate labor in the U.S., frequently to the tune of several percentage points of GDP. These governments have incentives to allow their unemployed (and, frequently, criminal – lest we forget, Americans have lots of money to steal or obtain extra-legally, not just to earn) citizens to migrate to the U.S. whether legally or not; it permits those governments to avoid necessary domestic economic, social, and political reforms. There is, in short, a reason why most folks at day-labor gathering spots are mestizo and why folks like Vicente Fox are as white as the driven snow, and it has little to do with American labor markets.
And, wow, that’s just the economics of it. Chris ably addresses elsewhere the potential cultural and political impact of a large, unassimilated pool of criminals among whom enforcement of cultural and legal norms is functionally impossible because of their estrangement from the body politic and body social.