[Part I in a series on Immigration.]
An up front disclaimer: I support open immigration. To spend billions of dollars to prevent millions of people from coming here to seek a better life is offensive to me both politically and morally. To impose quotas based on national origin, world region, or numerous other arbitrary factors is also repugnant. Our nation is not only a nation of immigrants, it’s a nation of dirt-poor, shifty immigrants—who schemed their way across the oceans to flee poverty and oppression. Those “huddled masses yearning to be free” built many of our great cities, staffed our factories, made our slumlords rich, and built a better life for themselves and a downright decent life for their children or grandchildren.
So I don’t like this modern tendency to view those “poor brown people” with disdain and fear. But I know why many people fall back on that: they’re scared and mad. And they have every right to be. This is not their father’s America, or—more to the point—their great-grandfather’s.
In those days, the American Dream was simple: you come here, you work your tail off and maybe, just maybe you get lucky and get rich. But, mostly, you probably die still pretty poor. However, and here’s the kicker that drove the engine of immigration for decades, your children start slightly-less dirt poor. Now, they work their tails off, maybe get lucky, but probably die somewhat poor. Their children, however, start only modestly poor. And so on. Repeat that over a few (not many) generations and you go from someone having (literally) nothing but the clothes on their back to Americans indistinguishable from everyone else except for a few extra holidays and some colorful language.
That dream, the dream of a better life for your children, drew millions across oceans. They endured poverty, abuse, racism, and everything else because America—for all its sins—was a place you could build a life for yourself, and certainly for your kids. And that’s still the main reason for most immigrants. We don’t have millions of undocumented Mexicans because they came to be on the dole. You don’t see illegal immigrants littering the homeless shelters. You see them crammed dozens to an apartment, working three jobs, trying to make enough to support families back home or bring those families to America.
So what’s the problem? In the 1960s the Left gained a major victory for what they termed “the Great Society.” They rammed through massive social entitlements going far beyond FDR’s wildest socialist dreams. And they’ve continued to expand and “improve” those entitlements. Heck, they’ve even gotten the Republicans to fund massive new entitlements, for goodness sake. We now spend nearly $700 billion on Health and Human Services and over $200 billion more on agriculture, education, and Housing and Urban Development. (That’s of course not including Social Security, which would not be an entitlement if it were actually fully funded.) That’s over $2500 for every man, woman, and child in the country.
Now, those on the Left may not be the sharpest knives in the drawer, but they certainly realized that the key to this massive wealth transfer is prosperity. Of course, this directly conflicts with their endless desire to humiliate, despoil, and impoverish the rich and successful. But, since the Republicans are still pretty much a wholly-owned subsidiary of the country-club set, the Left could allow them to shield the rich just enough to keep the whole thing shuddering along, wasting tremendous amounts of capital, generating tremendous amounts of graft and corruption, but transferring trillions of dollars to the favorite money pits of the Left.
There’s just one problem: to keep the party going, you’ve got to limit the guests. If every poor person is going to get massive amounts of government handouts—far above their tax contribution—then clearly you can’t operate a system open to the flood of those “huddled masses.” So, with the deepest irony, at least some of those self-described “advocates for the poor” found themselves arguing against admitting hard-working foreign poor people to protect domestic poor people already on the dole (and in the pocket of the “advocates”).
At the same time, poor Americans whose work ethic was being systematically destroyed by the honey trap of the welfare system naturally feared the competition from immigrants to whom the wages—never mind the government benefits—of a sub-minimum wage job seemed heavenly. Of course, this fear of competition from immigrants is nothing new, nor is the sense of entitlement that drives it. But now, rather than simply being obviously self-serving, it can cloak itself in concerns about the “cost” to society. If everyone, foreign or domestic, who fails to prosper winds up in the welfare net, then there’s a decent argument against risking adding too many new welfare cases. Let those “huddled masses” wallow in misery in their own countries, the argument goes, rather than coming here and either sucking off the welfare teat or (worse) forcing us to do the same.
So, nativism reared its ugly head for about the ten millionth time in American history. Once more, those despicable “foreigners” were swarming over the border to “take our jobs.” (Completely disregarding the evidence that many of those foreigners were “taking” jobs nobody much wanted.) And, as always, they smelled, lived in filth, spoke funny languages, and committed the deadly sin of working their tails off in ways most “real Americans” aren’t willing to do.
Of course, the nativists have some legitimate points, as well. The traditional pluralism of the melting pot—in which common ties like English, patriotism, and the rule of law were exalted, while cultural and religious ties to the old country were grudgingly accepted—has given way to Euro-style touchy-feely multiculturalism in many places. And, as it always, does this multi-culti nonsense produces division and tension, and often an ugly sense of entitlement among those immigrants who adhere to it. Another fine gift from the Left—this time the New Left.
So, forget illegal immigration, many on both sides aren’t too happy with immigration at all. As long as it’s limited to a relative handful of people (each year the U.S. admits somewhere between 700,000 and 900,000 legal immigrants), it’s not a problem. But with a veritable swarm flowing over the southern border, both sides are up in arms. That number of gate crashers might just crash the party.
The irony, of course, is that the vast majority of those streaming in have no desire or intent to become welfare drones or diversity activists. They’re beating a path straight for good old-fashioned low paying jobs, living twelve to a room to keep the rent down, scraping up money to send back to the folks, and scheming either to return to the “Old Country” with pockets full of dollars or to get their families over to the Promised Land as well. But that’s the problem, then, isn’t it? Everything about them—from their struggle to get here to their incredible work ethic—loudly proclaims that all they want or need is a paycheck and a chance, no government goodies required, no special recognition of their “unique culture” needed.
In other words, they’re still “living the dream,” the old-style American Dream. They just don’t realize that many Americans have cashed that Dream in for a fistful of government greenbacks and a headful of “identity politics”. They’d have thrived in great-grandpa’s America, and they’ll thrive here now. But maybe we’d all thrive a bit more in the long run if we took a long, hard look at all those government handouts and diversity perks we’re “entitled” to, and the barriers they put in the way of all those “huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.”
June 4, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Woah, apparently it’s the *liberals* that want to stop immigration to stop the flow of “party crashers” that are making their underlying desire (dare we say “conspiracy”) to bring the rich to their knees by giving all they can to the poor? Which “liberal” did you have in mind that voted to build a giant fence? Or that voted against allowing illegal immigrants to participate in social security? Or that voted against guest worker programs? Or that voted against giving guest workers a path to citizenship? Obama didn’t. Neither did Clinton. And neither Edwards nor Richardson have said they would. Do you have even a *shred* of evidence (aside from snotty invective) that liberals don’t want immigrants because it spoils the welfare party? Of course you don’t. But lets ask ourselves, which xenophobes DID vote for (or support) those things? What is the political affiliation of most members of the “Minutemen Project”? Here’s a hint: freedom fries.
June 5, 2007 at 8:18 am
Even Itinerant Laborers should practice their reading comprehension skills. “Everybody” isn’t usually translated as “liberals”, and much as the Democrats would like to think, not all working class Americans are ideological lefties.
When even conservative pundits like Sean Hannity peg their opposition to immigration on the “cost” of immigrants to our “social networks,” one should stop and think “Why?” Both “Why does Hannity think this way?” and “Why does this message resonate with people?”
In the past, the primary cry was “Immigrants will take our jobs” Now, while that’s still heard, you also hear increasingly, “Immigrants will cripple our [health care network/school system/goverment largess of your choice]” and “Immigrants no longer assimilate, but now want us to assimilate to them.”
That last is mostly nativism (as I discuss), but it has a core of truth, because the New Left really does envision an America where classic American assimilation no longer occurs.
To end with a question for you, which of these points are you actually denying: that the left supports massive wealth transfers to the poor in the form of government entitlement programs; that a large segment of the left believes “diversity” is incompatible with “assimilation” and sides with “diversity”; that many Americans are worried about immigrants taking not their jobs but their entitlements; or that these last two points play right into the hands of the nativist enemies of immigration?
Many on the Left do indeed loudly support immigration, but the policies they champion have transformed us into a society where open immigration is no longer feasible. In the name of the poor here, they have slammed the door of opportunity shut on millions of even poorer poor elsewhere.
June 5, 2007 at 12:18 pm
It seems it is you that have issues with critical reading (maybe also critical thinking?). Play actors like Sean Hannity mention the cost of immigrants so that they can seem like jack asses with souls, while at the same time slamming humanitarian efforts.
Yes, the Democratic party supports helping the poor live a better life, they actually follow the teachings of Christian charity and believe that helping others live a better life is a noble goal.
The Liberals have also not been complaining about Immigration breaking the social system, nor have they complained about the other social problems.
The issue here is that the Republicans are crapping under the Christmas tree, and then trying to blame the Democrats for the smell. Immigration is feasible in an open fashion, Republicans would just rather keep the Country Club closed.
June 5, 2007 at 1:41 pm
If the Democratic party actually supported helping the poor “live a better life,” they would be as concerned at getting people off welfare as supporting people on it. “He who will not work, he should not eat” is as critical a component of Christian charity as any other.
Slavery to anything on this earth, be it the company store or the government dole, is anathema to Christian anthropology. “Great Society” style welfare exchanged one servitude for another, worse one. Worst of all, it locked entire subpopulations into poverty and need. The product of a vast liberal conspiracy? No, just the result of misguided good intentions.
The liberal need to see everyone who disagrees as evil is a serious blind spot. You should do what you can to overcome it.
Open immigration, or anything even approaching it, requires a society where people are free to hire out for poor wages, live in poor conditions, and hustle their asses off to scrimp enough together so their kids get a slightly better start. That’s why, in history, successful sustained immigration goes hand in hand with economic liberalism, not socialism or heavy welfare capitalism. To put it crudely, societies with expensive citizens are closed societies. Societies with cheap citizens can afford to be open ones.
In any event, things are hardly as nicely divided as you’d like. For a look at other perspectives among liberals, here are some links (the product of 5 minutes of Googling, I’m sure you can find many more):
http://perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=137703&forum_id=6
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/3/211737/2722
June 5, 2007 at 3:47 pm
The Democratic party puts a lot of work into getting the poor off of welfare. While Republicans like to dream up scenarios of welfare queens who love sticking it to the man by taking money and never lifting a finger, the actuality is far from this truth.
Democrats work with labor representatives to improve the working environment and the availability of jobs. They have in numerous municipalities instituted work training programs for those on welfare.
Welfare has not in fact created conditions of welfare slavery. Your average recipient of welfare is only a recipient for a short period of time, often phasing into a period of chronic recurrent welfare if the job market has been particularly destabilized by the Republican agenda, or if they suffer mental illness.
The fact is, most welfare programs in America have a work requirement, such as TANF (the primary welfare source), which requires that the adults in the household participate in a minimum of 30 hours of work each week or have the benefits terminated, it is meant to supplement income when the income cannot meet the needs of a family.
Republicans love to paint welfare as if it were free money from a single program, with no strings attached. In truth welfare is a system of programs, all of which have requirements, many of them requirements for work and work training.
Republicans need to learn the facts and stop demonizing the poor of this country by suggesting they are lazy slobs. Most poor people are simply down on their luck, and will not be on welfare for very long. For those who are mentally incompetent and will remain in a state of poverty and misery forever, they need our help and support.
June 5, 2007 at 4:55 pm
The fact is, most welfare programs in America have a work requirement, such as TANF
Sure. Since the welfare reforms of the 1990s—championed by Republicans and, to their credit, President Clinton and other farsighted Democrats. And opposed, quite fiercely, by many liberals who wanted welfare to continue as it had since the 1960s.
As you say, providing support for those who find themselves temporarily poor through bad luck is a noble goal. But that goal must include providing both the means and incentives to get back to work. As someone who was between jobs for months at one point (living off the severance package), it is all too easy to start to lose the will to search for a job. Especially if the job at the end of that search is going to be a mediocre one at best.
Clinton also expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, a brilliant idea, and a great way to support the poor without the job-destroying effects of mandating high wages and without the incentive-destroying effects of the dole.
But both the EITC and TANF raise the “cost” of each poor citizen to society, and therefore make large-scale immigration more problematic. It does us no good to pretend that this isn’t the case.
June 5, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I think there are some issues being missed here and that this issue is much bigger than AOC’s (and other conservatives) hated welfare state. A lot of the opposition across the political spectrum, it seems to me, is essentially visceral and isn’t really based on a calculation on the part of opponents, but instead mixed up with a lot of the other uncertainties of life in the modern age: economic dislocation and the accompanying social instability, fear of the culture of immigrants and loss of social identity, etc. It’s also important to remember that we’ve just come through an enormous wave of immigration (legal and illegal), and thus some “pushback” is probably to be expected. Much of this is legitimate fear, but the temptation is to kick the guys on the ladder just below you and hunker down, which is a bad thing to do, but FAR from a new practice in this country. (See Scorsese’s Gangs of New York for a cinema portrayal of the issues in the middle of the 19th Century.) In other words, a lot of what’s going on out there is, in my view, “hot” and emotive, not “cold” and cognitive. Fear makes for bad policy.
I’m a pretty firm supporter of immigration. IMO a system like what Quebec has makes a ton of sense. After being the poor cousin of the Canadian federation for a long time—in no small part due to the policies of the late Maurice Duplessis, who ran Quebec from the 1930s to the early 1960s like a 19th Century agrarian despotism, with business left to Anglos, an educational system left to the state-supported Catholic Church, etc.—the province decided that rather than being brain drained itself for decades like it had been, it would make an attempt to brain drain other areas. To this end, there are big incentives for educated people to move there, including a points system like what is being proposed here, as well as a way for employers to say essentially “this guy is desirable, we want him,” which provides some nice flexibility.
There’s still time to botch the points system or it might die under egalitarian pressures, but it’s one of the ways we can continue to be successful in the future. Let’s hope not, but we ARE talking about a deeply divided Congress and a tactically inept lame duck Administration, which SHOULD have made the immigration push in 2005, when they had some political capital to spend, rather than wasting it on the stupid “red meat” social issues they did consider…. The stars aren’t right, I fear.
Anyway—equally important IMO—Quebec also has a pretty clear “you will integrate” mandate. It can sound unfair, but you CHOSE to move and they tell you right up front what you’re going to have to do. Your kids will be bilingual. You get the same law as everyone else (unlike some other areas in Canada or Europe, where there have been pushes in the direction of sectarian-based law), etc. As an important part of this, there’s a huge push for higher education, ranging from trade school to university to upgrade people’s skills.
I know this because I was a candidate for a job at McGill, though in the end I did not get the job and picked a different job the next year )in no small part due to the timing of events). They were VERY clear about the issues and took about two hours (in a two day long interview) to explain this as per policy, so there aren’t any claims of “I didn’t know….” I don’t want to portray Quebec as a utopia. It’s not, but it’s got a pretty smart policy, and one that I wish we in the US were able to emulate. The Australians have some similar policies built into their immigration code.
I know A LOT of very smart and hard-working foreign grad students, many of whom WANT to stay here in the US when they finish. Many of them won’t be able to and many live in fear of even visiting their home countries in the event they’re denied a return visa. Making these people into Americans is a good thing for us to do.
June 6, 2007 at 8:35 am
I think MPA is right about a lot of the opposition being emotive rather than rational, but I think the welfare state enhances that opposition. Disliking the next guy down on the ladder is normal, but it can only get worse when there’s the significant chance that he’s going to tip the whole ladder over. Open (read: massive) immigration can’t work in the presence of a strong welfare state—you just can’t “afford” to add so many people on the low end of the scale.
That said, reforming and reducing the social entitlements can lower that “cost” of new poor immigrants.
And all of this is really focused on immigration of poorer folks. In the cases of the people MPA is considering (highly educated and skilled applicants), there’s no argument: these people should always be admitted—as long as they sincerely want to assimilate to the system.
MPA is spot on about both of those, and he should note that, in theory, we already have a point system in place—it’s just that it’s far more heavily weighted towards family relationships than job skills, etc. Which means, given the very limited number of applications allowed per year, that those winning the genetic lottery of family ties swamp the highly skilled. The current legislation will indeed try to address that.
Finally, in case MPA or anyone else reading this knows somebody smart and capable who’s having trouble staying in this country, let me mention a program that few people are aware of:
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present the Alien of Extraordinary Ability:
http://www.pengweber.com/greencards/achievement-based/EB-1A/FAQsExtraAbility.html
Difficult to qualify, but a quick path to permanent residence and citizenship. [Yes, this is the shameless “brain drain” path, but strangely not touted much.]
Most grad students won’t qualify, though if they’ve already published or are rising stars in the field they may well. A post-doc friend of mine qualified while still quite early in his career—the recommendations of very highly respected members of his field (Physics) was probably key.
But I heartily agree with MPA, anybody who would could serious consider applying for AEA status should really be automatically accepted. In fact, really, anybody who wants to assimilate and will be paying more than around $3000/year in taxes should really be welcome 🙂
June 6, 2007 at 9:33 am
I really don’t know what is more sad Mr. Catholic, the fact that you are so horribly wrong, or the fact that you continue to beat the same dead horse once you’ve been shown it is quite dead.
I think MPA is right about a lot of the opposition being emotive rather than rational, but I think the welfare state enhances that opposition. Disliking the next guy down on the ladder is normal, but it can only get worse when there’s the significant chance that he’s going to tip the whole ladder over.
Only if you are a rich conservative who has demonized the poor and demonized the welfare system (largely because you don’t understand it in the slightest, despite having been educated about its state in the modern world).
Liberals don’t worry about welfare toppling the country, or even the welfare program. You see, unlike the Evil Republicans, we don’t hate poor people and automatically assume they are lazy good for nothings who will just sit happily taking government money.
Is there some opposition to immigration from some liberal demographics? Of course, mainly among poor blacks. But it isn’t what you suggest. Instead it is the age old worry that new immigrants will take their low wage jobs for even lower wages, with a two pronged attack on their standard of living, the first being that with more immigrants their unemployment chances are higher, and the second that it will drive down their already below living wage wages to unfathomable levels, forcing them deeper into poverty.
So no. It isn’t about welfare. If Republicans would stop demonizing the poor, and start acting like decent human beings, maybe this country wouldn’t have so many problems.
June 6, 2007 at 11:16 am
Yes, yes, we all hate the poor because we won’t admit that we live in a magical world where scarcity of resources doesn’t exist and economic realities don’t hold. If only we would stop hating the poor long enough to visualize wealth for everyone it would simply come to be. No hard work, no dumb luck, no long decades to build industry, innovation, and the rule of law…
Sigh. If only that were true.
Here’s the difference between us: I don’t have to think the poor are lazy, evil, or depraved to think that welfare and other social entitlements are problematic. I just have to assume that they’re human, with the same needs, fears, drives, strengths, and weaknesses as myself or anyone else.
Whether or not the poor are “lazy good for nothings” isn’t the point. The point is, “How many people, contributing what level of taxation, can we absorb with which level of social spending per person?” And “Are the contributions of those people to our society worth the price?” The poorer the person, the less paid out in taxes and the more consumed in programs. We spend more than $2500 per person, excluding Social Security, education spending, and many health care expenses, and even $2500 is far more than the poorest folks pay in taxes.
You don’t have to be a ravenous hater of the poor to be worried about whether the society can bear that load for another 10, 20, 40, or 60 million people.
And note we’re not talking about “lazy do nothings” here, we’re talking about people who may well be working very hard, but who aren’t paying enough in taxes to cover their share of the entitlement pie. Again, the worry isn’t that immigrants will all kick back their heels on the couch and collect the check, it’s that they can’t work hard enough to pay for all the goodies we’re going to give them. That means massive tax hikes or benefit cuts and that means everyone else is being asked to pay for the new arrival’s goodies.
Wishful thinking, good intentions, and cosmic vibrations don’t change that. More entitlements = less welcome for poor immigrants.
June 6, 2007 at 11:33 am
Whoah… sorry, a little dizzy there. The 180 you just did on your argument was a bit faster than I had anticipated! I mean you did spend your whole essay talking about “welfare drones” and described immigrants as “coming here and either sucking off the welfare teat”.
Now all of a sudden it isn’t about welfare? Ah, yes, you learned from the master liar himself, GWB. His strategy of dropping arguments and switching to new ones in under ten seconds is what you consider logic, rather than making well reasoned arguments.
Yes, yes, we all hate the poor because we won’t admit that we live in a magical world where scarcity of resources doesn’t exist and economic realities don’t hold.
Well, scarcity of resources actually isn’t a problem in the USA. In case you haven’t noticed lately, we’re all fabulously wealthy. No we don’t all own a yacht, but we all own multiple cars, dump thousands of dollars into them a year, maintain expensive computers, pay subscriptions to frivolous games, and entertainment providers, feed our gluttonous appetites on expensive food made by professional chefs outside of our home… in short, we’re living the high life. We have the cash to spare to help the poor.
I don’t have to think the poor are lazy, evil, or depraved to think that welfare and other social entitlements are problematic. I just have to assume that they’re human, with the same needs, fears, drives, strengths, and weaknesses as myself or anyone else.
Well unlike Republicans, most people aren’t lazy, evil and depraved, so don’t assume all humans are like your favorite politicians.
Are the contributions of those people to our society worth the price?
So the people exist to serve the needs of the state? How utterly facist of you! Very Republican, bravo!
The poorer the person, the less paid out in taxes and the more consumed in programs. We spend more than $2500 per person, excluding Social Security, education spending, and many health care expenses, and even $2500 is far more than the poorest folks pay in taxes.
Well maybe if the uber rich spent less money on whores and excess, and more on trying to help people live a decent life, we wouldn’t have so many problems. Me? I see $2500 as a really cheap price tag for the life of another human being.
Ask yourself this, how much do you spend per year on entertainment, computers, eating out, and other unecessaries? Do you really hate the poor so much that you couldn’t spare some extra cash to help them survive?
And note we’re not talking about “lazy do nothings” here, we’re talking about people who may well be working very hard, but who aren’t paying enough in taxes to cover their share of the entitlement pie.
Ah, the “entitlement pie”. Entitlements like… what exactly? Education that benefits society as a whole? Police coverage to keep down crime and death? Wow, didn’t know things like the Cops were “entitlement” now. You Republicans really are getting evil.
Wishful thinking, good intentions, and cosmic vibrations don’t change that. More entitlements = less welcome for poor immigrants.
So what you really mean is, “Republicans hate it when they have to spend less money on hookers and blow, and would rather have a poor person die of treatable diseases than pass on their daily BJ. Additionally, Republicans believe all other people are as heartless and selfish as they are.”
Sorry, some of us would rather pay more taxes if it meant more people would could make a better life for their kids, have enough food on their plate to survive, and get a decent education.
The older influxes of immigrants also placed stresses on our tax system… until they became the rich American upper middle class that they are today.
June 6, 2007 at 11:58 am
Since you are either unwilling or unable to read an argument and comprehend it, I see little point in continuing. But, as a last-ditch effort to improve the national I.Q. significantly, allow me to plead with you to go back, read the article again and answer these questions:
1) What is the thesis of this article?
2) What role does this article assert that entitlements play in the immigration debate?
3) What does this article say about the desires and habits of immigrants?
As for the rest of your piece, thank you for serving as an exquisite example of the hypocrisy and arrogance of the Left. I’m sure your fellow American taxpayers will be happy to be schooled in their duty by you.
First, however, you might wish to read some basic works in economics, so that you can avoid making a fool of yourself as soon as you start speaking. May I recommend the excellent “Undercover Economist” as a starting point (available at: http://www.amazon.com/Undercover-Economist-Exposing-Poor-Decent/dp/0195189779 and other fine capitalist enterprises).
Now, farewell, sir, and have a productive and happy day. And give my best wishes to all the poor I am certain you will be donating all your income above the poverty line to.