The Politics of Contempt
There have been two remarkable episodes this week showing the contempt of two national political classes for their respective electorates and the former’s incredible distance from the concerns of the people they are supposed to serve. By now everyone is quite familiar with Brown’s gaffe referring to a life-long Labour voter as a “bigoted woman” for expressing vague concerns about the influx of eastern European immigrants into Britain. Pretty much everyone in Britain recognizes that Brown made a colossal blunder in saying this on the record, and the assumption is that Brown has likely cost himself huge numbers of votes in next week’s general election.
In fact, all that Brown did was say on the record what much of Britain’s political class thinks of disaffected British voters whose concerns, grievances and objections to the status quo in immigration policy are not addressed or taken seriously by any of the leading parties. That shared disdain leads many voters, many of them traditionally Labour voters, to vent their frustration by electing local councillors from marginal nationalist parties, and this in turn just reinforces the political class’ view that the voters’ objections are motivated mainly by racial resentment. As soon as Brown heard the woman mention immigrants, he probably concluded that he already knew everything about her and her views that he needed to know. He has since had to show contrition because the election is a week away and he has to contain the political damage, but he has already reminded many regular Labour voters what he thinks of them and their concerns.
What is remarkable is how freely Brownian contempt is being heaped on Arizona for its government’s attempt to get some kind of control on illegal immigration after the near-total failure of the federal government for twenty-five years to enforce the law and secure the southern border effectively. For decades, the federal government has failed the border states, and the border states have been left to pick up the tab for an incredibly poor regulated immigration system. In the absence of effective federal enforcement, border states have tried, mostly in vain, to cope with the consequences of mass immigration.
A few years ago, Michael Gerson and his former boss were chief among those proposing the world-of-both-worlds “reform” whose promise of enforcement was not to be trusted, whose guest-worker program was a transparent concession to corporations seeking cheap, exploitable, unprotected labor, and which would have made fools of anyone who went to the trouble to enter the country legally with its “Z visa.” Since that effort was derailed by significant popular resistance from across the political spectrum, Congress has so far not gone near the issue again because it is clear that the prevailing views in Congress are at odds with the views of much of the country.
Byron York has quoted the statute’s language to make clear what the law requires:
For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…
So Gerson believes it is “dreadful” that law enforcement officers would run a check on the immigration status of someone already stopped for some other reason. York goes on to make clear that there would be no check on immigration status if the person has a valid driver’s license:
The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver’s license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally.
Unless there is another undesirable provision that critics of the law have failed to mention, it would seem that the only people who have reason to complain about this law are those who are here illegally and those who believe that immigration laws should simply not be enforced. This is one reason why Gerson’s objections ring so hollow: he insists that he favors enforcement of the law, but objects vehemently the moment someone attempts to enforce the law.
Gordon Brown is a patronizing, smarmy little weasel.
Our political class has persistently failed to deal with the illegal immigration problem, which is partly our creation–NAFTA destroyed peasant agriculture in Mexico–and brands as “racist” and “nativist” anyone who is upset by the situation. These are the same people who (a) claim that race doesn’t exist; and (b) insist on affirmative action as amoral imperative.
Patronizing. Smarmy. Weasels.
Daniel will stop being the left’s favorite conservatism is he writes more posts like this.
The left, in opposing and demagoging the Arizona law, is showing that they will never be serious about enforcement, that any discussion about employer enforcement is not to be taken seriously, and that no one will believe any politican on the left who talks about enforcement.
I wonder if the media will be able to keep from laughing aloud if the Obama Administration mentions any form of enforcement as part of the proposed immigration reform.
Talking about immigration, or illegal immigration, tends to bring out stupidity even faster than most other political issues, and that’s saying something. Both the left and the right often forget that the “illegal” part of the term “illegal immigrant” exists.
I don’t share Daniel’s faith in the ability of the police to understand the term “reasonable suspicion” in a manner likely to respect Latinos. But at least he’s arguing like a sane person.
If Daniel really believe in a Jeffersonian foreign policy, Daniel would be supporting open borders and unlimited immigration. Immigrants are the last group who are doing to support nation building, military alliances, or involving the U.S. in other countries issues.
Of course, the problem would then by how the U.S. would function as third world and produce the economic output needed to sustain a growing welfare state.
Don’t you see the problem with a law allowing officers to imprison people who can’t reproduce citizen-proving papers when officers stop them on a “reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien” (read: hispanic)? Like Rowan said, I think you have far too much faith in the police not to screw around with this power – this is the same state that produced Sheriff Arpaio. The whole situation is just begging for a racial profiling lawsuit when some latino citizen gets grabbed because he forgot to bring his drivers’ license with him, and then ends up in the bowels of our dysfunctional immigration system (or worse, deported – as the NYT pointed out in an article today, it actually does occur).
The root of the whole illegal migration situation is that the wages are much higher up here, and there are plenty of companies willing to employ them (the agricultural sector in the Southwest has been employing them for well over a century). If you want to crack down on it, trying to close the border is a joke – all it does is raise the cost of crossing, making it more likely that illegal immigrants will come and stay (before 1986, when the current round of enforcement began, most migrants came north to work, then went home).
You have to hit the companies employing illegal immigrants. Have fun trying to do that – it was politically impossible back when it was only the Southwest’s agricultural sector employing them. How likely do you think it is now, when illegal immigrants have basically become the backbone cheap labor of much of the US economy in some key economic sectors?
Daniel,
Of possible interest to you: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2010/04/ooh-data
A quick summary of % change in GDP per cap in some former Soviet countries. Interestingly, it looks like Freedom Revolutions bring with them significant economic loss.
If some of the below sounds garbled, it is because my tongue is in my cheek.
To Gavin Noisome in SF, please come down here to southern CA where I’ve been exiled by the economy. I used to be right near the international border where going south would place me in a foreign country – Windsor Candada, but I stopped crossing the border since the 9/11 Hysteria. But at least there wasn’t anything inter-state.
I like to take rides, mainly on my Harley, and it is really annoying to go through all those Border Patrol checkpoints on I-8, SR-94, including the apparently permanent one – you can find it on any map showing live traffic with a very long yellow slow section on I-8 at about mile marker 50. At a different checkpoint I have been stopped, forced to show ID, questioned, and had a dog taken around my trunk. I gently failed to give them permission to open my trunk.
So why don’t you fix your own state? Are you going to boycott San Diego and El Centro? Or better yet, why haven’t you yet? Maybe freedom buses from AZ and ram them right through the two or more checkpoints between there and the coast. Show you really won’t take this. Boycott California too! I know it won’t be easy, but perhaps there will be an earthquake and it will move you far enough out to declare your independence.
And what about the earlier court decision. It was out west, maybe in Arizona where someone simply refused to produce ID, wasn’t suspected of anything, and was arrested. The Supreme Court upheld the police. So the law now is that any local official can ask you for an ID for any reason and if you refuse you can be arrested. Today. And before the AZ law. When is that going to be overturned?
Finally, buried in the “immigration reform” is yet another attempt at “real-ID”. What is the point in having enhanced, secure, verified driver’s licenses or equivalent IDs when you aren’t going to allow police to look at them? If I come to SF, and gently refuse to show my ID to your Gendarmes, will be I treated like you wish the illegal aliens in AZ to be treated?
The statute: “For any lawful contact…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien.”
Larison: “someone already stopped for some other reason.”
Please, how does this differ from any of the original Patriot Act provisions that you previously found abhorrent? Any brown-skinned person outside their home (or within, under many innocent circumstances) may be “lawfully contacted.” “Reasonable” is left entirely in the police’s eye.
How can any Arizonian neglect to ever again have identification in hand, at all times? How is this not a clearly unconstitutional invitation for abuse?
The next time a twelve-year-old Arizonian has a grudge against a non-white classmate, what is to stop him from calling the police with the suspicion that the kid on the playground is “illegal.” What would stop the police from feeling obliged to seize the ID-less kid and hold him until his parents arrive to prove his innocence?
How many other simple scenarios can you imagine (the beach, the pool) where identification is not “handy,” and the innocent become “guilty until proven innocent.” And the police are positively obliged to pursue?
Yes, it is an impossible situation with regard to the “so how do we enforce the law” question. But how do you justify the claim that it is a “states’ rights” issue as opposed to a Constitutional issue?
Newsome’s reaction is a perfect example of how stupid people get over immigration. Seriously?
Not sure why there is any debate on this, or on US immigration in general. Capital wants cheap labour, so unless you confront Capital you won’t change anything. Everyone, including Daniel, knows this.
So why would support a law that not only won’t work, but is needlessly punitive? I don’t see how someone who is usually so principled in opposing state overreach can defend the sort of law that our modern states love to impose – populist, racist, ineffectual, and with the kicker of generally increasing the state’s ability to violate your person.
It is an error to equate a person “lawfully contacted” by police with “someone already stopped for some other reason”.
Sure, a driver pulled over for a moving violation has been lawfully contacted. Here are some other examples of ways a police officer might lawfully contact a person: (a) the person is in the backseat of a car that has been stopped for some other reason, (b) the officer spots the person walking down the street, (c) the officer is standing on a street corner (at the entrance to a convenience store, in a shopping mall, etc) and the person walks by him, or (d) the officer is going door to door in a neighborhood, just stopping by and knocking to say hello to the residents (i.e., “community policing”).
These are all examples of “lawful contact”. Combine this with the ability of “real Americans” to sue their local police force if they continue to see brown people walking the streets (i.e., the police are not diligently enforcing the law), and you have near-certain probability that this law will result in the abuse of American citizens and legal immigrants. To say otherwise is, to be charitable, wishful thinking.
This is willful misrepresentation and I have to say I’m surprised to find it here of all places. What Gerson believes is “dreadful”, and states this quite clearly, is that an American citizen can be stopped and likely imprisoned for not having their ID. The definition of “lawful stop” is not as cut and dry as York would make it out to be, and is still being debated even at the National Review itself.
I think the debate over this law has focused too much on traffic stops, whereas the real concern is over general contact. The police already have the right to check your license at a traffic stop or other infraction and if that license is not presented or valid (as it would be for an illegal) they can detain you until it’s verified. If this law simply allowed a police officer to check immigration status then it would not be effectively different from what is already in place. Rather, the concern that us libtards have is over the new authority that this law presents, particularly over individuals who have not committed a crime. It’s odd to see such a forceful defense of the law without a complete understanding of its repercussions.
Both austintx lawyer and trizzlor have articulated this more clearly than I did in my original comment. I really hope that Larison responds; I find myself using Larisonian arguments in conversations about the dangers of this new law, and I’m concerned that Larison himself doesn’t even see it as dangerous.
I also find it interesting to see “have a valid state ID!” used as an argument for the law on a conservative site. Granted, Daniel doesn’t seem to be in the “the government wants all a national ID for fascism!” camp, but I think those who are concerned with liberty in general should be wary of any law which demands that people always have the id of the state on them at all times.
For those to argue that having an government id is unworkable, please show how an electronic medical record is going to work without a government ID. If an illegal aliens can give someone else’s name when the illegal alien goes to the hospital, then the electronic medical record has zero benefit. If anyone can walk into the hospital and give someone else’s name and look at the medical record, then HIPAA means nothings.
So far, the pro-illegal immigration crowd has made the following points.
1. Any enforcement of immigration laws is inherently racist and thus, cannot be achieved.
2. Identify theft laws are inherently racist and thus, cannot be enforced.
3. Any government program and depends on an honest use of identity is inherently unworkable and racist.
4. Why even have government issued identities because to ever ask for them is inherently racist and the government should never be able to ask for an identity.
“I think those who are concerned with liberty in general should be wary of any law which demands that people always have the id of the state on them at all times.”
Everyone has a subset of state laws which they feel particularly strongly about. For most, increasing state power is a price worth paying for a supposedly urgently needed improvement in the efficacy of those laws.
In the case of most conservatives, in respect of state id checks, immigration is that issue.
The solution is to be able to step back, recognise when one is rationalising, and accept that if you are to oppose arguments for increases in state power in areas you don’t care about, without being a hypocrite, you have to accept that part of the price of true liberty is not having the state as effective as you’d like in relation to your particular bugbears.
Not many can do that, which is why we are condemned to facing ever increasing state power.
“showing the contempt of two national political classes for their respective electorates and the former’s incredible distance from the concerns of the people they are supposed to serve”
This was one way in which the “bigotgate” (sorry!) incident was a rare and welcome intrusion of truth into the pervasive dishonesty of democratic politics.
The other was the way Brown’s reaction reinforced the evidence of his own (and by extension, our entire political class’s) dishonesty.
He was dishonest when he smiled and nodded and pretended to take seriously this voter’s views (which, as his unguarded subsequent comments showed, he actually regarded with utter contempt). He was then dishonest again when he pretended, first, that he had misunderstood her and later that she hadn’t said anything particularly objectionable (when anyone who speaks to members of both the ruling elite and the ordinary people knows damned well that much of the former don’t give a damn about the latter’s concerns about immigration, and do indeed regard them as basically racist and worthy only of contempt).
This divide is primarily a result of the fact that it is the ordinary people who have paid and continue to pay the terrible price of mass immigration, and the ruling elite who avoid most of the costs and reap most of the benefits.
I must admit, “bigotgate” brought a rare smile to my face.
I’d like to emphasize a couple of things:
First, the local police can (AFAIK) check one’s immigration status once they’ve arrested or detained a person. They usually don’t do so, for obvious reasons.
Second, this law (sorryfor the bold, but it really needs to be emphasized): allows anybody to sue local police ‘THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. ‘. This allows scum like FAIR (and probably Sherrif Arpaio) to run very profitable lawsuits against any force not stopping and checking the papers of any brown-skinned person they encounter.
When the GOP is passing bills which explicitly allow for massive lawsuits, one wonders what’s up.
Third, please notice people like Jeb Bush and (forget the name; a GOP sentor from Florida who’s of Cuban ancestry) are treating this bill as if it’d do for national GOP-latino relations what prop 187 did in California – are they stupid, or eager to court the enmity of talk radio, or perhaps they are onto something? IIRC, Karl Rove has come out in public opposition; he seems to regard this as damaging to his desire to bring latinos into the GOP.
Frankly, as a liberal and a democratic voter, I’m laughing. This law will hammer the sh*t out of the GOP and the right with the fastest-growing demographic in the USA, which is a good thing. It’ll probably hurt with people of asian ancestry, who will both be subject to additional harrassment, and who will get the message that brown-skinned people are Not Welcome with the GOP.
Daniel,
I am afraid you are on weaker ground on this. If Arizona wanted to get serious about illegal immigration, they should address the demand side, not the supply. Crack down on all those luxury resorts and golf clubs that actively recruit illegal immigrants. Go after retirees who employ illegals to do the housekeeping or act as nurses.
Not gonna happen. Just as we don’t realistically address American demand for illegal drugs, we will not address American demand for illegal immigrant labor.
The illustrative thing about this whole kerfluffle is that immigration reform SHOULD be a spectacular issue of conservatives. All middle and working class Americans have much the same concerns over our insane failure of an immigration policy, and that includes African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans.
Mike
Daniel,
Your argument goes off the rails at the outset when you try and distinguish Arizona politics from the national political situation. The same fundamental contempt of the two elite groups for the unwashed masses holds here in the desert, except that things are a little more skewed towards the Republican elite versus Republican followers dynamic. The AZ situation isn’t a rebellion against the elite, or the result of any sincere belief that existing laws ought to be enforced, it is an outcome engineered by the elite, with most followers being taken for a cynical ride, just as you see with tea-partiers and social conservatives nationally.The AZ Republican Party and the state legislature is totally controlled by specific financial interests (real estate/construction in metro Phoenix, big ag and mining elsewhere), interests that depend critically on the illegal immigration status quo. As you also see nationally, they quickly kill any efforts to sensibly, efficiently and humanely improve immigration enforcement (which would focus on the big users of undocumented labor). Under Democrats (also beholden to real estate interests) you tone down the overt hostility, but employer ID check and “border protection” steps are purely symbolic and have no real impact on cheap labor supply. Under Republicans, you totally gut any efforts to cut the labor supply, but unleash the talk-radio wingnuts to create the false impression of doing something. This law was specifically designed to fail on judicial review, so nothing happens on the cheap labor front, and the Republicans can blame everything on judicial activism and Barack Obama. Arpaio became powerful by exploiting this dynamic–maximizing popular but meaningless photo-ops for the talk radio folks, while he’s got a hand firmly planted on the nuts of the Republican legislators and elite backers. Play ball with me or I’ll expose your cynical games.
yeah I suspect Daniel had a rare knee jerk hate on the elitist moment. Any bill about illegal immigrants that doesn’t deal with their employers is not serious. I’d say most liberals are also anti-undocumented workers (or whatever you want to call it…) but what really peeves me is the people who have the money and resources – and they choose to hire illegal immigrants instead of legal residents.
“marginal nationalist parties”
By this I assume you mean the BNP? I have never understood TAC’s seeming vendetta against the BNP. The BNP is far from perfect. As a Southerner and a decentralist, I don’t have much use for nationalism. I actually have some sympathy for the Welsh and Scottish independence parties but they are totally leftist otherwise. But given that there is no party English party that represents American style paleoconservatism, who exactly would you suggest that patriotic Brits vote for? Labour? The Tories? The Liberal Democrats? The UK Independence Party is the only possible alternative I can see, but a vote for the BNP is not likely to be misunderstood. Get control of immigration before England is no longer English.
How can the Arizona law, or the Federal law which it mimics, be enforced without disproportionately affecting Hispanics? It can’t, its impossible; its not so much racism that drives the disproportionate impact as it is who the violators are.
“Get control of immigration before England is no longer English.”
You mean the United Kingdom? A disparate group of ethnic heritages only vaguely assembled together because of the political machinations of a long-since powerless royal family and a now non-existent empire? You mean that place?
First, we love calling these folks “illegal” immigrants, because it makes them sound like criminals. But immigration law is not criminal law, and violations of immigrations law are not criminal acts. Immigration law is more akin to zoning regulations. Building an addition to your house without the proper permits can be called an “illegal” act, but it’s not a criminal act, and you aren’t to be thought of or treated like a criminal for it. Illegal immigrants are not criminals who have broken criminal laws. They are for the most part very law-abiding people who are just trying to find work by cutting a few corners.
Second, the issue of enforcement is not terribly important outside the workplace. Having undocumented immigrants in the country is not itself the problem, it’s employers who are committing the more serious crimes by illegally hiring people who haven’t got work permits. And that’s where the enforcement issue should be raised, not on the streets and highways and playgrounds where people are just minding their own business. The state does have a legitimate interest in enforcing the laws regarding workplace hiring, and if the state wants to step up that kind of inspection, I don’t think liberals or libertarians would much mind. Citizens and residents all have to produce valid SS cards to get work, so that’s not really an issue. It’s this totalistic intrusion into the everyday non-work lives of people that is very offensive and threatening to our liberty. If undocumented workers can’t get work, they won’t stay around long. It’s the employers who need to be cracked down on, not the guy on the street.
KXB,
Arizona has the toughest law in the U.S. on employers hiring illegal aliens. All employers are required by state law to use E-verify and if they hire illegal aliens, the business could lose their licenses to operate a businesses in Arizona.
The illegal aliens just starting paying residents and citizens for the use of their identities. Since the Social Security Administration does not participate in enforcement, then people will show up working several jobs. In addition, the illegal aliens have resort to door to door solicitations and or crime to make up.
Of course, the racial activist in Arizona had been screaming racism the entire time. To the left in the U.S., any border protection or immigration enforcement is automatically considered racist.
Unless you want to define non-racist border enforcement and illegal immigration control, then the left should admit that it will never suppose immigraiton control and actually supports open borders and unlimited immigration.
If undocumented immigrants are just using other people’s identities to find work, what would stop them from using such IDs to get around this new law? Isn’t the proper solution to find a better way to verify work identities than to turn the whole of society into a police state? Unless you either really like police states or really hate mexicans? Should we just stop everybody on the street, and if they don’t have fully verifiable citizenship or immigration papers on them, put them in jail until they can prove otherwise? I know a lot of whitem black, brown and yellow citizens who’d be in jail a long time trying to prove their bona fides. But hey, anything to stop them mexicans from working at low paying jobs here, right?
“You mean the United Kingdom? A disparate group of ethnic heritages only vaguely assembled together because of the political machinations of a long-since powerless royal family and a now non-existent empire? You mean that place?”
Sean, I said I support Welsh and Scottish independence, but a nation of Christian Celts and Anglo Saxons is not the same thing as a nation of West Asian Muslims and Hindus with a white minority, and you know it.
“Having undocumented immigrants in the country is not itself the problem”
Yes it is because their kids that are born here become “citizens” because of an absurd misreading of the Constitution. And the illegals utilize public resources (such as medical) that they aren’t contributing to and are turning sections of many cities into little Mexicos.
Superdestroyer,
You say that Arizona has some of the toughest laws punishing employers who hire illegals. Well, here in Chicago, we have some of the toughest laws against handguns. It is just as effective as the Arizona law against illegals.
“And the illegals utilize public resources (such as medical) that they aren’t contributing to and are turning sections of many cities into little Mexicos.”
Given the large number of white retirees who move into Arizona, and physically alter the landscape, so they can have the greenery they left behind in Northern climes, like lawns, you have greater wastage of water, more sprawl, more pollution. And, given that they are retired, they are enjoying the Social Security paid for by an increasingly non-white workforce, while contributing little.
“Sean, I said I support Welsh and Scottish independence, but a nation of Christian Celts and Anglo Saxons is not the same thing as a nation of West Asian Muslims and Hindus with a white minority, and you know it.”
It might be, but who really cares? Honestly by your logic the very cultures you are arguing should be “preserved” wouldn’t exist if they hadn’t themselves moved in, assimilated, conquered, or whatever you want to call it, the territory they now live in. One doesn’t need to be a PC, immigrant loving liberal to recognize the fluidity of cultures over the span of history.
Could it be argued that the faster, and arguably larger migration of people across the globe now represents something profoundly different than previous migrations in the past? I think there may be a good argument for that, but its not immediately apparent that this would be a bad thing in and of itself. Arguing for preserving in stasis a culture that itself would not have existed without a significant amount of change seems either futile at best or delusional at worst.
Sean S.,
I hope that I’m not drilling too deep into this thought by making it personal, but I wanted to at least offer the idea that the culture Red is “arguing should be preserved” is the culture that many of us identify with.
You’re right, if our forebears hadn’t moved in, assimilated, conquered, or whatever, our culture wouldn’t exist as we know it. But it does exist, and we conceive of it as it is now, not in flux but, like you say, in stasis, and what we’re conceiving of as our culture at this moment, we like.
There were cultures, who lprobably iked themselves very much, that we pushed out when we moved in, that we conquered, and even if we incorporated something of theirs, there were things of theirs we did away with, and naturally we don’t miss or even really remember those things. Possibly these were some pretty big things, like gods, or social classes, or some such. And maybe there’s no one left to miss those things. So, in a way, those people in that culture who lost those things, lost. Like “loser” lost.
I guess I’m arguing that we just don’t want to lose. We like our things and we don’t like the thought of any of it going away. Is that really “futile at best or delusional at worst”? I’d say that at worst, it’s defensive. Maybe just self-interested. Anyway, I think it’s pretty natural that from the perspective of the “we” I’m talking about, it is, as you say, “immediately apparent that this would be a bad thing.”
Also, maybe I could make this argument more inclusive by going at it from the sci-fi angle:
So the human race in general, like you were saying, is a culture that “wouldn’t exist if [it] hadn’t … moved in, assimilated, conquered, or whatever you want to call it, the territory they now live in.” In other words, it evolved from something different, it changed dramatically over time with its environment, it used tools to get ahead of animals, neanderthals, etc.
And possibly we’re still growing, in terms of tool use, with computers and such, and we’re changing still to incorporate our tools more and more into the way we live our lives. It’s possible that (stolen from an Arthur C Clark book) we can’t ever reach our potential until we get away from the biological human state that we’re in. I’m stretching and saying that maybe this means incrementally incorporating computers with our biology until we kind of “evolve” into something else, like a man-computer capable of living aeons and travelling long distances. This would be the kind of “cultural” change that would happen to humanity, when it’s depicted as a culture.
But maybe when we become computer-men, which, I suppose, could be inevitable, in exchange for the benefits of that cultural change, which could be access to greater information or reasoning capabilities or whatever, we have to lose certain things that we treasure as a part of human culture now, like maybe love, joy, fear, music, make-believe, etc.
I think a lot of people, viewing that change from today, would view it as a nightmare, something to be totally fought against. And I would hope that it wasn’t a futile fight.
Well, I’m glad the cards are being put on the table in the name of “preserving culture.”
But then, I have to say, have you been to England? I mean, they speak a language we can understand. But the food is terrible, they prefer soccer* to any other sport or entertainment, their jingoism puts ours to shame, and their “journalism” is little more than celebrity gossip the majority of the time. The Beckhams are treated like royalty.
*I personally like soccer as well, but on this count they’re closer to the Mexicans than to most Americans.
Sure, there’s history and literature and all kinds of things that can be learned from the study of English culture, but on its own? It really ain’t all that great, and the study of all the things that we may “identify” with can continue, regardless of how many immigrants they have.
And here’s the thing, Daniel. Every culture loses things. The English have lost things over the centuries, regardless of immigration. They’ve also gained things. Cultures change, often from external influences such as immigration or outright conquest, but also from internal forces. If you think that an aspect of your culture is worth saving, then save it. Write a book about it. Take pictures and put it on a blog. Go to school and get a masters in it. Donate money to it.
Unless, of course, “culture” in this case is some ambiguous, too-general term which might be better defined with other words?
“It might be, but who really cares?”
Oh I don’t know … Christian Celts and Saxons maybe.
RedPhillips, on April 29th, 2010 at 7:02 pm Said:
“Yes it is because their kids that are born here become “citizens” because of an absurd misreading of the Constitution. And the illegals utilize public resources (such as medical) that they aren’t contributing to and are turning sections of many cities into little Mexicos.”
You lie. The words and meaning are quite clear; anybody born in the USA gains citizenship.
And I note that I’ve never heard this lie used against anybody except the children of latino immigrants, and black (by the real hard-core KKK types). If anybody really believed such an argument, they’d apply is to everybody, which would probably strip citizenship from a huge chunk of the population.
superdestroyer, on April 29th, 2010 at 5:00 pm Said:
“Arizona has the toughest law in the U.S. on employers hiring illegal aliens. All employers are required by state law to use E-verify and if they hire illegal aliens, the business could lose their licenses to operate a businesses in Arizona. ”
Could you please direct me to a list of large employers who’ve been shut down due to this? Say, large farmers, hotel chains, resorts, golf courses, and other people who are not Joe ‘Very Small Business Owner’ Peon?
An excellent column by Mr. Larison.
That’s an argument to get the Federal government more involved in employer prosecution (since they can go full-press on issues with social security IDs and the like), not one against going after the employers.
You just need to raise the costs of employment for illegal immigrants enough so that it percolates through the familial networks back to the main Mexican sending states that “it’s too hard to get a job up there”, and you’ll see illegal immigration die off. Hell, that’s what happened in the economic downturn last year – the number of suspected illegal immigrants coming in to the US dropped drastically, because the jobs weren’t as easy to find anymore.
“You lie. The words and meaning are quite clear; anybody born in the USA gains citizenship.”
I do not lie. The purpose of the citizenship portion of the 14th amendment was to ensure that the children of former slaves were not denied citizenship. The key phrase is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That they intended everyone who just happened to be born on US soil to be a citizen is nonsense. Few other countries operate this way. My son was born in Italy courtesy of the USAF. It is absurd to think that that somehow entitles my son to Italian citizenship since neither his mother nor I is Italian, we have no inate loyalty to Italy, etc.
“The purpose of the citizenship portion of the 14th amendment was to ensure that the children of former slaves were not denied citizenship. ”
(a) Then they wrote it funny.
(b) For the past 100 years, it’s not been interpreted that way; making sure that freedman and their children were citizens was merely *one* purpose.
(c) “Few other countries operate this way. [and stuff about Italy]” No sh*t, sherlock. And that affects the US constitution and law how?
(d) The key phrase is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” From the text of the Constitution: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,…”. Just in case you haven’t noticed, (1) illegal immigrants are in fact subject to the jurisdiction of the USA – go ask any illegal immigrant who’s been imprisoned or deported; (2) Anybody born in the USA is also subject to the jurisidiction thereof.
Any more lies?
“Oh I don’t know … Christian Celts and Saxons maybe.”
Yes, the all of 5 people attending their local parish of the Anglican Church on Sunday. You don’t have to see a minority-white Britain to see a fundamental change in attitudes amongst the white British population, nor the fact that much of what makes up “tradition” for the BNP and other similar nationalist parties elsewhere, is vague nonsense, not unlike the new found love for colonial garments that Tea Party protesters have found, or waving flags around. It’s simplistic jingoism that the BNP promotes, not unlike many of the vague, sweeping generalizations made by people when talking about “preserving culture” on a national stage.
First of all Barry, if you and I have a difference of opinion on something that does not make you or me a “liar.” It means we have a difference of opinion. It is then up to each of us to marshal the historical evidence that supports our side. Try to be civil. Daniel runs a civil blog here.
I agree that the 14th amendment is problematically worded, but what is the purpose of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” phrase if it simply means you have to abide by the laws of the country you happen to be in at the time. Every person anywhere has to abide by the laws of the country they are in at the time. If that is the meaning then the whole phrase is simply a meaningless redundancy akin to “…in the United States and required to breath air to live.”
The amendment was a post war Reconstruction amendment intended to make citizens of former slaves. It really was not intended to address the citizenship of immigrants and their children at all.
Of course how other countries operate has nothing to do with how our Constitution is to be interpreted, but unless you are a consistent Constitutionalist, as I am, your appeals to the Constitution ring hollow.
The point of bringing up Italy and other countries was to illustrate mindset. What on earth could possess someone to defend a position that anyone who happens to be born on US soil is a citizen even if their parents are here illegally and “subject to the jurisdiction” of Mexico. How could you value the gift of US citizenship so lightly?
“Yes, the all of 5 people attending their local parish of the Anglican Church on Sunday.”
This is an unfortunate but true situation. England needs Christian revival even more so than the United States. But to think England can be preserved while bringing in massive waves of East Asian Muslims and Hindus is absurd.
If millions of Anglos were pouring into Zimbabwe no one would think it at all strange that the native Zimbabweans were objecting. But if the English object to their displacement they must be haters. Only white Westerners are supposed to celebrate their displacement in the name of diversity. We’ve been over this before Sean. There is a name for that mindset. It’s call Cultural Marxism.
You are aware, RedPhillips, that much of the immigration into England is from areas of the world which was colonized by the UK (specifically England, of course), and that it’s a general rule that colonial and imperial wars lead to a reverse immigration wave?
Or perhaps more simply – you reap what you sow?
Well, on the matter of waves of the wrong religion pouring into nice little Christian countries, I’m not sure what that has to with Mexicans in the US, unless their Catholic brand of Christianity is the problem. Is that the problem?
Maybe, RedPhillips, but it’s still hard to argue that going by the obvious, plain meaning of the 14th Amendment as written is an absurd misreading. If anything, it’s just the sort of judicial restraint conservatives pretend to love.
“Well, on the matter of waves of the wrong religion pouring into nice little Christian countries, I’m not sure what that has to with Mexicans in the US, unless their Catholic brand of Christianity is the problem. Is that the problem?”
The reference to Hindus and Muslims had to do with the primary source of immigrants to England, although as a conservative America I wouldn’t welcome that demographic change either. But as a Protestant, I wouldn’t much welcome becoming a minority behind Catholics here either. Why should I? This is really quite simple. Conservatives seek to conserve things. (Go figure.) Immigration does not conserve. Immigration transforms, and the massive unprecedented levels of immigration we have had since 1965 transforms radically. No authentic conservative could support such a thing.
And intelligent conservatives have to constantly ask themselves, what exactly am I conserving here? How many wingers want to conserve the New Deal ethos, which has been with us for a few generations now? Is your particular brand of Protestantism worth conserving, and more to the point, should anyone outside that brand give a damn if it survives? Or is it better to step back from that particular argument and conserve, instead, the Jeffersonian idea that government should be serenely indifferent to the disputations of priests and preachers? And should we actually conserve the very American tradition of constantly allowing immigration to transform us, even allowing in such exotics as the Greek Orthodox who hosts this site?
I’m playing around and snarking, but I’m actually curious what your hierarchy of the things that need to be conserved and the expendables is. Is religion at the top?
“And should we actually conserve the very American tradition of constantly allowing immigration to transform us, even allowing in such exotics as the Greek Orthodox who hosts this site?”
I believe the host of this site, the estimable Daniel Larison, is a Russian Orthodox, not a Greek Orthodox. The story goes that the barbaric Russians who were pagans were trying to decide which form of Christianity they should adopt and were persuaded to adopt Orthodoxy after visiting the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and were so overwhelmed by its beauty were convinced they had ascended to Heaven.
BTW, I don’t know whether you are aware of the fact, but, for a 40-year period, from 1922 to 1965, the U.S. placed severe restrictions on immigration both in terms of numbers and place of origin. That changed with the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, part of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society program, which greatly increased the numbers admitted and expanded the quotas from Asian and African and South American countries. Despite the cap on immigration from 1922-1965, the U.S. was able to successfully wage a two-front war during WWII. I would also suggest that a lot of assimilation took place during that period, made possible by the fact that most immigrants were white and came from Europe. It is not coincidental that the black civil rights movement was able to achieve success during that period. Of course, the U.S. came to achieve world domination in economic and technological spheres. Some good things can result from restrictions on mass immigration.
I thought Tom Schaller was unusually respectful towards supporters of the Arizona law.
RedPhillips, on April 30th, 2010 at 1:46 pm Said:
“First of all Barry, if you and I have a difference of opinion on something that does not make you or me a “liar.” It means we have a difference of opinion. It is then up to each of us to marshal the historical evidence that supports our side. Try to be civil. Daniel runs a civil blog here”
Then please muster evidence, as I have.