May 4, 2010
Immigration Department
So What If It's Illegal?
A couple of years ago, I wrote about an immigration analogy I read on another site. I don't want to repeat the whole thing, but here's the key part I didn't like:
Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.
But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).
...
It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house.
I thought this analogy was pretty flawed, and I offered one of my own:
Let's say I own a house, and I've hired you to tend my lawn. It's a great deal for both of us. You get money and I get a great lawn.
However, my neighbor doesn't like you, so he forces you off my property at gunpoint, and just to teach me a lesson, he steals some of my stuff.
The point, in case it's not clear, is that the United States of America is not your house. It's our house. Actually, it's more like a neighborhood of houses, and you're complaining about who your neighbors have as guests. Which is none of your business.
A couple of days ago, somebody named Phil left a comment that illustrates a fairly typical response:
The first analogy makes some sense, but the follow up analogy is absurd, since it ignores the fact that the person is in the country ILLEGALLY. Why is that such a hard concept for some people? Unless of course you feel that laws are only meant as guidelines, and you get to pick the laws that you will follow.
Well, I am a libertarian, so just because what they're doing is illegal doesn't mean I hold it against them. I may not get to pick the laws that I will follow, but I sure as hell get to pick the laws that I respect. And I think immigration laws are too stupid to respect.
Like many other people who complain about illegal immigration, my commenter here would probably insist that he has nothing against immigrants. Advocates of strict immigration enforcement usually insist they're only opposed to illegal immigrants.
Frankly, I doubt their sincerity, because you never hear them arguing for more relaxed immigration rules that would make it easier for people to immigrate legally. To get an idea what's required of legal immigrants these days, check out this diagram published in Reason magazine.
As near as I can figure it, every year about 800,000 people immigrate legally. Most of those 800,000 got green cards under some sort of special rules for skilled workers sponsored by employers or people with family members already resident in the United States. But unless they were some kind of superstar or the spouse, parent, or minor child of a U.S. citizen, they probably had to wait five years or more to get a green card.
If you're an unskilled laborer, or a skilled laborer who can't find someone to sponsor an H-1B visa, you have almost no hope at all of entering the country legally. Only about 10,000 non-skilled, non-family immigrants are allowed to enter legally each year. By comparison, each year about 500,000 people enter the country illegally, down from 800,000 a few years ago. I think we can safely assume that most of those people are unskilled workers. That means that unskilled workers want to enter the country at a rate 50 to 80 times higher than is legally allowed.
Or to put it another way, we can eliminate the problem of illegal immigration with an 80-fold increase in green cards for unskilled laborers. This would roughly double the legal immigration rate. I wonder how many people of the "but they're illegal" crowd would support such a measure. My guess is not many, because when you suggest reforming immigration law, they usually respond with some variation of "let's deal with the illegals first."
What's so bad about illegal immigration anyway? Yes, I know it's illegal, but lots of things are illegal. Just because something is a law, doesn't mean it's a good law. I'm pretty sure all of us can think of a few laws that are unimportant or just plain wrong. Between federal, state, and local laws, I'll bet there are a million defined crimes in this country, and we all probably commit a couple of felonies and a handful of misdemeanors every day (and several traffic violations per hour while driving). Again, the real question is not whether illegal immigration is illegal, but how and why it's a bad thing.
The problem can't just be that illegal immigrants are living and working here in the United States, because hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens are doing the exact same thing. All illegal immigrants want is what people like me already have, and if it's not wrong for me to have it, why would it be wrong for them?
I suppose the answer is that they're born in other countries. I'm not entirely sure why that makes them less worthy to live here, but lets accept it for the sake of argument. That still can't be the complete answer, becase we do in fact let in hundreds of thousands of people from other countries every year. There must be some additional difference between people from other countries that we let in, and people from other countries that come here illegally because we don't let them in.
As far as I can tell, with the exception of people who are explicitly prohibited from entering -- serious criminals, terrorists, people with dangerous contagious diseases -- most of the people who come here illegally would be allowed to come here legally except for one thing: Immigration quotas.
Understand that these quotas are arbitrary by definition. They're not based on the qualities or behavior of the people they apply to. The only difference between the immigrants we let in and the ones we don't is where they were in line.
What illegal immigration amounts to is taking your turn when you're not supposed to. It's the moral equivalent of fishing without a permit, or running a red light when there's no other traffic. I just can't get worked up over it.
11 Comments
Leave a comment
.
Is it wrong to just leave a comment saying I love you? Cause I do. For making so much damned sense.
Aw shucks, Mirriam. I'm almost blushing.
Actually, I had you in mind as I was writing it. Mostly because I figure you know about a thousand times as much as I do about the immigration process, so I hope I didn't get anything too far wrong.
Thanks for the kind words.
Good article. I can't understand how the right (which I would guess that I'm on) can distrust Congress, the courts, the BATF, the IRS, the SEC, and whatever government healthcare superstructure will emerge in the coming years, but would dare not question our immigration quota or mix.
"Arizona is the busiest entry point for illegal immigrants. State and federal investigators estimate that their fees generate between $1.7 billion and $2.5 billion for smuggling rings." The Arizona Republic (azcentral.com) July 2, 2008.
To me, this is a far cry from running a red light.
The comment from mahsto confuses me. The Arizona newspaper said that Arizona is the busiest point for illegall immigration and something about immigration and fees? That's fine. But I just wonder how an explicitly racist law helps us in the Free World. Are we saying its okay to continue to infringe upon our rights as law abiding citizens because there are people who break the law? That is just dumb. Where is the tea party when I need them?
And Mark, you are, as usual, spot on.
To clarify for mirriam:
My comment was intended to respond only to the blogger’s opinion that illegal immigration is the moral equivalent of running a red light when no one else is around.
The Az Republic story shows that illegal immigrants are paying an estimated $1.7 to $2.5 billion per year to smugglers in fees to be smuggled into the US. (Other stories in the Republic show that many of the smugglers are vicious thugs.) I do not see this large-scale criminal enterprise as morally equivalent to running a red light.
I posted my response to mahtso's comment here.
Oh, now I get it. And now I will read Mark's response. Are the smugglers also undocumented? Or, are the folks who are responsible for this huge criminal enterprise paper carrying US Citizens?
Thank you for adding a constructive and interesting piece on immigration.
This is why it is so hard for the 2 sides of the isle cannot see eye to eye. Its not just 2 differeing opinions, but 2 completely different ways of thinking about basic rights and entitlements.
First I am conservative in AZ and am completely pro-1070, but I also do agree that immigration policies and procedures need to be changed to allow those immigrants who want to come here legally and CONTRIBUTE to America, can speed through (after a background check). And those with criminal records can be kept out. And those who come in and immediately hop un the welfare lines can be kicked right back out.
And just saying "I'm sure we can all think of a few unfair laws" is an argument straight out of a 9th grade debate club. Give some support to your argument. As for the "red light" example, or even speeding, okay fine I get it, it can be a victimless crime. However here in AZ we hav photo-radar and red-light-cameras. So even at 3 am with no one else on the road, it is illegal to speed or run a red light. Then if I get a ticket in the mail, should I refuse to pay it on th basis of "I ddint hurt anyone and only endangered myself" Ridiculous.
Enforce the laws that we have rather than wasting money on a frivolous lawsuit against the state. If the law is no good, then rewrite it.
And how is 1070 "blatently racist." Have you even read it? It specifically states that race IS NOT a factor and prohibits racial profiling. All it was supposed to allow is for local law enforcement officers to enforce Federal laws (that the Gov't refuses to enforce themselves). Its not like officers are standing in front of the County hospital asking for ID cars. Its only if they are already interacting with an officer for some other reason (like seat-belt laws, it is not the primary reason for being pulled over, but you can be ticketed secondarily).
bned, you touch on a lot of points, so let me just pick what I see as a key issue. You say,
As a practical matter, you should of course pay the ticket. But I don't think you were a bad person for going through a red light at a time and place when it was safe to do so and did not interfere with other drivers. I think it is a waste of limited police time and resources to enforce these laws in that situation (albeit not much with automated enforcement). And if you proposed changing the law to allow people to, say, treat red lights as stop signs if there was no conflicting traffic within 1000 feet or increase the speed limit during times of day when traffic is light, I would support it.
There's an analogy to my ideas about immigration law in there somewhere.