print“Immigration fundamentalist Tamar Jacoby squints at flesh-and-blood Americans; to her, America is a mere proposition, nothing but an idea. She dismissed Quintero’s illegality as irrelevant to his crime. But for that conceit to fly, Jacoby would have to show that had Quintero been deported or jailed, his victims would have nevertheless suffered the same fate at the hands of another murderer and child molester—a deeply silly suggestion.
Indeed, the Jacobins of unfettered immigration present a consistently weak case against enforcement (and for laundering illegals). If it’s not argumentum ad misericordiam (the logical fallacy of an appeal to pity); it’s fatalism—as when they assert that enforcing the law is futile: “If illegals want to get in, they’ll get in.”
Consider an equally fatalistic parent who leaves the doors to the family home permanently wide open. Why postpone the inevitable, he waffles? If scofflaws were scheming to Elizabeth Smart his daughter or help themselves to his possessions, they’d find a way in, eventually. That this hippie holds an open house soon becomes known around the hood, and the inevitable happens. Can the parent argue in good conscience and logic that the robbery, abduction, rape, or murder of his dependents was unavoidable?
It’s getting harder and harder for America’s policy proxies—politicians, pundits and police—to finesse their criminal negligence and breach of duty.”
The excerpt is from my column, “America’s Open House.” It leads the Commentary page today on WorldNetDaily. Comments are welcome.
It is devastating how this administration is turning our once great Country over to especial interests and corporate America.As a resident of South Florida for the past 35 years, I have seen the changes, for the worse, taking place in Miami, Fort Lauderdale and now Naples.Recently, I read something that sums it all up: “The idea that one can create a hell on earth, and somehow be spared it’s consequnces, doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?”. Sad days, very sad days are coming to our beloved Country.
Shame on the Democrats. The Republicans. The MSM. Academia, and just about everybody else in public life in this country. We’re being buried by a cross-border invasion and whether by weakness, dishonesty, or whatever, nobody who is in a position to do anything about it is doing anything. It stands to reason that if we let everybody in without controls those on the lam from the cops will come over in droves.
I’ve been called every kind of a racist, reactionary, cold-blooded starver of the helpless and redneck rube for years over this immigration thing but I continue to insist that if we can’t control our borders we can’t have a Country. Maybe that’s the whole idea.
The reason why “Sanctuary cities” exist is because the Federal Government allowed millions of Mexicans to flow over the border for years, seeing it as a benefit to the economy. It’s similar to the calculated deaths that car companies use when they realize they have put an unsafe vehicle on the market. Should they recall the vehicles? Or is it cheaper to pay out in damages and wrongful death claims? Whichever is less expensive is the option followed. When money is all that matters, morality and legality often become inconsequential.
I don’t see how ‘Sanctuary law’ contradicts the ‘the Great Chain of Being in criminal behavior’. Quintero was already arrested on other crimes before murder. The great chain was ready to be cut but the justice system failed to keep him behind bars. Sanctuary law isn’t to blame for that.
Allowing millions of poor people to live in “illegal” status creates an undercurrent of crime because there is less accountability. Many of these people simply don’t exist in the system and are part of the underground economy. This situation has been created and exacerbated by the US government.
[illegals have more visibility than us regular stiffs who subsidize their existence in the US. Did you not see the millions of them on American streets waving Mexican flags? Do you not know of the powerful interests working for them pro bono? There is a reason the argument from pity is a logical fallacy.]
The claim that “In 1996, the federal government tried to ban sanctuary laws, as they interfered with immigration enforcement” is bogus. If the government cared about immigration enforcement they would control the border and they would have shut down and arrested business owners that employed illegals. Their is no enforcement to speak of despite the claims of terrorist threats all around us. Bin Laden himself could sneak across the border undetected.
Depending on the status of the illegal, I think there are many cases where it would be wrong to enforce immigration policy. If an immigrant has been paying their dues into the system for years while government willingly turned a blind eye (some would call this encouragement), they do not deserve to be shuttled back to what would be, for many of them, a foreign land (Mexico). This is not an appeal to pity; it’s an appeal to fairness.
[Of course it’s an appeal to pity—and thus an illogic–b/c your exhortation is unsupported by facts. Low-wage illegals COST the taxpayer; they contribute less than they extract; they are heavily subsidized. Read the facts in “The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget.”]
Mac Donald writes: “Law-abiding residents of gang-infested neighborhoods may live in terror of the tattooed gangbangers dealing drugs, spraying graffiti and shooting up rivals outside their homes, but such anxiety can never equal a politician’s fear of offending Hispanics.”
I think that most Hispanics, illegal and legal, would love for the gang members to be moved off the streets. After all, they’re more likely than you or I to become victims of the gang violence. But it’s not just the politicians who are the blame. It’s the system that allows millions to live in the shadows, and allows criminals like Quintero and gang members to walk freely, to proliferate, and to reak havoc. It’s just a calculated risk, and for now, I can only assume by the government’s committment to genuine enforcement of any kind, that it’s still economically savvy.
[illegals have more visibility than us regular stiffs who subsidize their existence in the US. Did you not see the millions of them on American streets waving Mexican flags? Do you not know of the powerful interests working for them pro bono? There is a reason the argument from pity is a logical fallacy.]
I do not believe the marches are a good example of illegal transparency. Many in the protests were illegal but many were not – and after the march they disappeared to wherever they came from. Also, when I say that they’re living in the shadows I’m mostly speaking figuratively. There is a reason why estimates of the number of illegals finding sanctuary in America is just that… an esimate.
Instinct tells me that large amounts of illiterate, unskilled, poor people coming across a border in droves hurts the economy more than it helps. It’s similar to outsourcing except that we have to pay the high cost of health care and housing for the ‘cheap labor’.
However, I also believe that for many years, certain businesses profited handsomely from this idiosyncracy but they won’t be made to pay for it. Why is it always the poor that should beaten with the iron fist? This is not moral equivalency. If we want real change, we need to set a real precedent.
We cannot travel back in time to correct this but we can begin now to change how we handle future immigration. I’ve seen nothing that indicates anything new is being done about this. Is the border any more controlled today? I do not believe that Hispanic Lobbyists have the power to keep the borders porous. [they do a good share, as does business, the voting appeal of importing masses of government dependents, apathetic and complicit government, and liberals. More on the costs in “The Fallacy of Open Immigration,” by S. Cox] If the Government wanted to control it, they could, and they would have the support of most Americans.
Ilana, I don’t think Jacoby’s position is a ludicrous as you make it out to be. Most criminals are not criminals because they are in America; they are criminals because they are amoral, strong, and stupid. Outside of being illegal, most immigrants are the same. In Mexico they’d be similarly criminal. It is silly to suggest that Quintero’s specific (American) victims would have been victimized had he been successfully prevented from being in America. But it is not silly to suggest that in that case, he would have victimized some Mexicans, instead. Is America worse off for his presence here? Clearly. Is humanity? Can’t know.
Of course, many would argue that it is better for criminals to victimize Mexicans than Americans; we are important to us, after all. That line appeals to me as an American, but I’m a libertarian first: rights are rights.
What I would say, is that Mexico should deal with the problem of its own criminals.
Unrelated: my compliments on your association of “Jacoby” and “Jacobin”. That’s funny!
[see my reply hereunder, in the next comment]
Guys, I bet some of you have wished I’d stop scribbling on your text. Well, instead of defacing your letters, I’ll write my own BAB Comment—as time allows.
This answer is it to Leonard, above:
Your thinking is very confused—it’s not libertarian in the least. A government in the classical liberal tradition is entrusted with protecting the rights of its citizens ONLY. By your logic—the logic of the humanitarian left—we ought to be enforcing rights everywhere. By your logic, it is very apt for our tax dollars to be aiding in the policing of the world. (I always urge reading “Classical Liberalism and State Schemes” to get an idea of what obligations and rights mean in practice.]
The logic of my statement vis-Ã -vis Jacoby is perfect. Had government done its narrowest duty, a girl would not have been molested; a man murdered. Moreover, clear thinking involves applying first principles to real events, not foreseeable event. Had the thug in my column been deported, you cannot know that the equivalent Mexicans would have been harmed, although this is irrelevant to the duties of the American authorities. Deal with real, not foreseeable, events; local not global. (The same goes for government, btw.)
—ILANA
I don’t understand the whole ‘debate’ about borders. Can’t have a country without them, right? I guess the idea is to eventually get away from the idea of ‘country’ as a whole, but right now, we’re kind of stuck in that station.
We have people trying to kill us. No, really. Believe it or not, some people really, really don’t like us. September 11th kind of showed us that. Can we move on?
Following this fact, leaving open borders to anyone is like leaving the castle gates down when the Huns are about. It’s just not smart. Yes, some things really are that clear cut and simple.
Since some people can’t think in a line, it’s simply stupid for anyone to ‘want’ to become an American citizen, come here illegally, and then fly their country’s flag around. If people in Mexico really enjoy Mexico that much, why are they here? If they want to become American’s, why strong nationalism?
The answer is that they don’t want to become Americans. They are illegal immmigrants. If they wanted to become legal American citizens, they would have gone through the really, really simple process of becoming one. It’s certainly a lot more simple than trying to change border policy through laws and the like. [where do you get that it’s simple to come here legally? It’s very hard. Read my immigration archive; you’ll find stuff in there. Why would you want a policy that brought in low-skilled, poor people easliy?]
The definition of a barbarian is someone who comes into another country, unwanted, and wages war in some way or another. American culture values are superior to most cultures, and our long abandoned governmental system – while never perfect – is light years ahead of any other government, and in its original state, it was the greatest state achievement in human history, a true classical liberal masterpiece.
Mexican culture is fine. No one is saying that Mexicans change their culture or attitudes. But Mexican nationalism is out of place in another country. What is the point?
Hopefully people who can think in a line (also called ‘thinking straight’ and ‘making common sense’) can understand this.
Then again, maybe not.
I’ve read that Mexico deals harshly with illegal aliens (caught) streaming over its southern border from further down in South America. I believe they are deported, perhaps some of them are jailed. I thus find Mexico’s demands for an open border between it and the U.S. to be ironic and hypocritical.
Ilana, you’re putting words in my mouth. I never said I favored a policy that asked for low skilled, poor people easily. I didn’t imply it either.
If you re-read my post, you will find that I agree with you.