The Immigration Bill (in Honor of the Fourth of July)

This is about the “comprehensive” immigration bill that just passed the US Senate (today is 7/3/13). It’s sponsored by a set of four Democratic and four Republican Senators who unfortunately allowed themselves to be nicknamed the “Gang of Eight.” A man who was recently a darling of the conservative wing of the Republican Party, Marco Rubio, is one of its four Republican sponsors.

Let me say first that I have not read the 1,000-odd page bill. Two reasons. One is that normal people, I believe, do not read any legal document that’s 1,000 page-long (or 500, or 200). The second reason, is that I have an in-house legal expert who will be glad to take on this task, I am sure. (See Prof. Terry’s “Comments” on my post :“Homosexual Marriage.”) As I will explain shortly, there is no need whatsoever to suspend one’s life for days to form a valid opinion about this important matter (or about most important matters before Congress).

A reminder: I am an immigrant, even a formerly illegal immigrant. I have written several times on this blog to scourge fellow conservatives for the serious misunderstandings of immigration many of them harbor. (Look on this blog for all titles containing the word “immigration.”) A fellow immigrant and I published a long article on how to solve the problem of illegal immigration in the respected libertarian journal, the Independent Review. The face of this blog has a live link to the article entitled: “If Mexicans and Americans could cross the border freely” (Formerly: “Thinking the unthinkable: illegal immigration; The bold remedy.” ), with Sergey Nikiforov, The Independent Review, 14-1: 101-133 (Summer) 2009.

Instead of an unthinkable reading punishment, I formed my opinion of the Senate piece of legislation by listening carefully to the radio ad touting its merits to conservative audiences. The main thrust of the ad is to deny that the Senate bill is yet another form of “amnesty” for illegal aliens. Its general tone is one of toughness:

“Yes, we are making it possible for illegal immigrants to become legal but it’s not going to be a cakewalk, “ says Senator Mario Rubio of Florida, erstwhile leader of the conservative branch of the Republican Party.

Three comments:

Number One: The ad uses language to the effect that illegal aliens in the process of being regularized will have to go to the end of the line. The implication is that they will be made to re-come in under the normal admission process, this time.

Problem: Under current rules, there is no such normal process. I mean that there is zero legal way for the average adult, married Mexican to be admitted permanently to this country. Same thing for the average Chinese. It’s almost the same thing for the average married Irishman, for God’s sake, except that he has the option of winning at an admission lottery. So does a Tanzanian, for example, but, again, not a Mexican or a Chinese. (Would I make this up?)

There is a tremendous untruth in the part of the ad that implies starting at the end of a non-existent line. Either the Republican Senators are not telling us important things about the contents of the bill: Does it also radically change general admission rules to the US, or does it merely seek to fix the existing problem of illegal immigrants?

Or: the four sponsoring Republican Senators, do not understand the existing immigration system.

Personally, I think they are incomprehensibly ignorant and that they are led blindly by their Demo colleagues’ staffers.

Number Two: The ad appears superficially specific on the point that the illegals will have to “learn English” as a condition of their regularization. There are several problems with this seeming toughness. They become apparent as soon as you think about the implications of this nonsense statement: Will the illegals be forced to go to school to learn English? Who will take attendance? How many absences from class will be grounds for deportation? What happens if the whole family passes the English proficiency test but little Miguelito (15), distracted by little Maria in the front row, gets a D- in English? Will Miguelito be packed off to Mexico? Will he have to be married off swiftly to a cousin (of either sex) who possesses legal status in the US?

This is not serious.

I refer to “Miguelito,” because about half the illegal aliens in this country are Mexicans. They constitute easily the largest category of illegals. So, speaking of Mexican immigrants, I don’t always know which are legal and which are not but I can solemnly affirm something about either category of Mexican immigrants and the English language: The briefest of excursions in Mexican-inhabited areas of our cities, the smallest peek at Spanish language media will tell you that Mexicans are eager to learn English, that they allocate significant resources to the task. The most superficial of observation will thus affirm that Mexican immigrants act mostly the way you expect rational economic actors to act. They would rather obtain the better jobs that come with knowing English than work in the fields like mute beasts of burden. They would rather the transactions of everyday life were easier rather than more difficult, etc., as happens when you don’t know the dominant language. Deuh!

The fairly widespread belief that they “refuse” to learn English is one of the stupid, “Know-Nothing,” nativistic nightmares that give the political right a bad name. It’s also a sort of negative projection of most native-born Anglos’ deep, tenacious incompetence in foreign languages: “How can the a semi-literate Mexican field hand manage to learn some English when I, after three years of Spanish in high-school and two in an expensive college am unable to say, for example, ‘I will see you in one hour’ in Spanish. That would be too unfair. Better to ignore the evidence of my own eyes.”

It’s nearly impossible to believe that Sen. Rubio, the bilingual son of Cuban immigrants shares in this deep cultural misunderstanding. He allows this stupid part of the ad because….. Whichever way you finish the sentence is bad news for the bill and for Mr Rubio’s future career as an intellectually responsible conservative torch-bearer . There is a politician, a Texas Senator who has been doing a good job on the air of combating this non-sensical bill, by the way. His last name is Cruz, not an Irish name or a Polish name.

Number Three: Sen. Rubio and his Republican Senators accomplices in the Gang of Eight are being grossly manipulated by their Dem colleagues and by their staffers. The main objective of the bill is to install in this country an unbeatable Democratic majority for the foreseeable future. The intent is to turn this polity into a one-party system. Everyone assumes, of course, that the electoral benefits of the bill will redound to the Democratic Party. If you don’t believe it, conduct a simple mental experiment: Tell yourself under what circumstances the implementation of the present bill, or of one similar to it, would cause a net increase in the number of Republican voters?

At best, at the very best, the admission of ten million formerly illegal immigrants and of their dependents would have no effect on American electoral politics. There is no scenario whereas it would help the conservative cause.

New immigrants vote Democrat. Immigrants from societies with authoritarian traditions vote left unless their societies have gone through violent purging convulsions such as happened in “communist” Eastern Europe in the nineties. The idea that the government should leave people alone is a sophisticated one. It does not grow naturally out of the experience of oppression.

(Tech. Note: As mentioned, about half of illegals are estimated to be Mexicans and their children. The other half is divided up between groups of several national origins. I refer to the first category: Mexicans and their children. I do not refer to the pseudo-sociological category “Hispanics,” whose only commonality is last names and the likelihood that one of their grandparents had Spanish as a first language.)

Noe that, as I have pointed out before, this quandary comes entirely from the insistence that regularization, legalization, of illegal immigrants entails access to citizenship. It does not. It does not, especially for immigrants from Mexico. If you think about it, there is little demand for citizenship emanating from that particular immigrant group. The exception is an organization that calls itself, “The Race.” (“La Raza”). It’s the same political organization that reminds us every so often that California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, etc, are not American soil.

As the case of Europe demonstrates, there is no compelling reason to tie legal status to exist somewhere with political rights within that entity. As Nikiforov and I point out in our Independent Review article (see above), Romanians can work and live in France without voting in French elections, without determining the future of French society. Many Mexicans would be happy with the right to move freely across a porous border that would be porous for them alone, as is usually the case between good neighbors. (And, as we argue elsewhere, unfettered transit of Mexicans would likely improve American ordinary police control over the border.)

Conservatives decision-makers should follow three simple imperatives:

Bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows.

Don’t reward anyone or anything for past trespasses (including with guaranteed new voters ).

Keep in mind that the current immigration situation, however deplorable, is preferable to a permanent Democratic majority that would be tantamount to the installation of a one-party state in this country.

The Senate immigration bill is not a bill conservatives should favor. It’s actually a bill of goods that Republican backers are too naïve, or too blind, or too lazy, to detect. Republican decision-makes need to get some backbone. The desire to be loved is a very bad adviser.:

If you win elections by sacrificing both principles and rationality, who is the “you” that has won?

And I don’t need to read the 950 other pages, or the 989, or whatever, that describe other aspects of the putative reform of immigration. It’s a bad bill. Three rotten apples are plenty enough to make the barrel of apples that is the bill unbuyable by rational conservatives.


About Jacques Delacroix

I write short stories, current events comments, and sociopolitical essays, mostly in English, some in French. There are other people with the same first name and same last name on the Internet. I am the one who put up on Amazon in 2014: "I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography" and also: "Les pumas de grande-banlieue." To my knowledge, I am the only Jacques Delacroix with American and English scholarly publications. In a previous life, I was a teacher and a scholar in Organizational Theory and in the Sociology of Economic Development. (Go ahead, Google me!) I live in the People’s Green Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Current Events. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The Immigration Bill (in Honor of the Fourth of July)

  1. Pingback: The Immigration “Reform” Bill: RINOs, Labor Unions and a Libertarian Alternative | Notes On Liberty

  2. Bruce says:

    You’re exactly right about this, unfortunately our elected representatives in the House of Representatives don’t have the ability or willingness to think rationally.

  3. Terry Amburgey says:

    Hmm. If both Jacques & Bruce are opposed it must be an ok piece of legislation [that will go nowhere].

    “Keep in mind that the current immigration situation, however deplorable, is preferable to a permanent Democratic majority that would be tantamount to the installation of a one-party state in this country.”

    The good news is that the current immigration situation will also lead to a long term Democratic majority [at the federal level]. The teapublican base of angry-old-white-men is a demographic dead end.

    “If you win elections by sacrificing both principles and rationality, who is the “you” that has won?”

    Music to my ears!! Screw that ‘compromise’ stuff. Stick to your guns! The rest of us can finally get stuff done while teapublicans do what they’re best at: shaking canes at the kids and yelling at them to get off the lawn!

    • Terry: I am always glad to let you eavesdrop because of the unlikely event that you will learn. Obviously, this piece was addressed to conservatives, to help them make up their minds.

  4. Terry Amburgey says:

    “Obviously, this piece was addressed to conservatives, to help them make up their minds.”

    Ah, ok. Are there technical difficulties with the transmissions from the mothership?

  5. I enjoyed reading your article. I have to admit that I too, unfortunately haven’t read the 1,000+ pages of the bill. I agree with you on the first two point but on the 3rd point, I have to respectfully disagree. I believe it may be a 50/50 split. Immigrants (especially Latin American Immigrants) usually tend to be Christians. So they may relate more to the Republican doctrine. They also tend to believe in their family values as well as the belief that they can make it on their own, without “handouts” as the Republicans like to put it, so they may relate to them in those aspects as well. I am not saying that Democrats don’t necessary believe in family, Christianity, etc., just that they aren’t displayed as being at the forefront of their beliefs as vividly as Republicans in my opinion. So I believe that it would not necessary be an all democrats party if illegal immigrants were to join the voting pool.

    Your reference to the French system is an interesting one in reference to voting rights. If that is your recommendation then I believe that you would be recommending that there would be another visa category created for them to remain on from that the application day forward.

    I believe that falling to act in a responsible manner will bring about a one party system faster than not acting at all. Hispanics are considered to be the fastest growing race demographic in the United States. So if they continue to feel like they are being alienated and unfairly targeted they will react accordingly, by voting Republicans out. That doesn’t include the other demographics which also feel like they are also becoming a target of the Republican Party. Compromise can be good in the long term, since the only thing that’s constant is change.

  6. Terry Amburgey says:

    Just to clarify something, There is already a status that allows someone to reside in the U.S. and not be a citizen: “In summary, an estimated 12.6 million LPRs lived in the United States on January 1, 2010. 8.1 million of those LPRs were eligible to naturalize”. It exists in Canada as well, I’m a permanent resident but not a citizen.

    That’s quite different from ‘moving freely across a porous border’. That’s not true for either Mexico or Canada…are you suggesting a ‘border less’ system like the EU? A North American Union?

  7. Yes, thank you for the this relevant reminder. Yes, in our article my co-author and I suggest that a borderless North America with respect to persons would be better than the current system. I now say that it would be much better than what the Senate bill wants to accomplish. My co-author, another immigrant , has not said anything recently on the subject.

    Technically, we, I am not suggesting a North American Union because the European Union involves much more then the free movement of persons including the gradual construction of a super-European state and a central bank.

  8. Terry: If you stopped hanging out with Latter-Day Communists, your mind would straighten out.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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