Demanding the Government Enforces Immigration Policy Does Not Make You A Racist
August 16th, 2006 | by Ken Grandlund |In the latest issue of The Nation, I came across an editorial about illegal immigration, except that they never do say the word ‘illegal’ anywhere in the article. There is no author credited with this editorial, but perhaps that’s just as well, because after reading it, I’m not so sure I want to even continue with my free trial subscription, let alone pay for further issues. But I digress…
I think it’s fair to say that illegal immigration has been a pretty hot topic nationally for at least the last year, and longer than that along border states. Taxpayers and citizens who live along our southern border get the brunt of illegal immigration as well as the costs associated with it. Those costs are borne not only in prosecuting and jailing (or deporting) illegal immigrants, but also throughout the varius social services like schools and health care and food or housing assistance. And they are borne out in the costs needed to maintain and enlarge public infrastructure due to a rapidly increasing population. And they are borne out in an overall lowering of wages that trickles down to hurt the lowest wage-earners who work and live here legally. So despite the obnoxious politicking being paid to this issue by both political parties, it is fair to say that citizens in this country have a legitimate concern regarding illegal immigration. (And I never even mentioned the public safety factors- of which there are several.)
But according to The Nation, anyone who is anti-illegal immigration is little more than a racist xenophobe. No matter that a majority of people are not against immigration per se, but rather those who flaunt our rules and come here illegally. By never uttering the word illegal, they paint a rather dark picture of American attitudes. But it is they who are in the dark, having a conversatoin without accepting all the facts.
The essay then goes on to submit that much of the anti-illegal immigration crowd is really just a sheet and a shotgun shy of being militant white supremecists.
A militant grassroots nativism is gaining momentum, inspired by the idea that, as Minuteman co-founder Chris Simcox (see Susy Buchanan and David Holthouse’s “Locked and Loaded”) often says, private citizens must do “what the federal government refuses to do.” For the first time since the backlash against civil rights, white-supremacists are flourishing. So are the far more popular “mainstream” anti-immigration groups, like the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which has attracted roughly 200,000 dues-paying members and supporters with a coded message that often differs from hate-group rhetoric only in its more polite tone and style.
The fact of the matter is that groups like the Minutemen may indeed contain some KKK type knuckleheads, but the vast majority are just people who are sick and tired of empty government rhetoric. The don’t chase down illegal crossers, rather they call in the locations to Border Patrol agents. A great deal of these folks are retired for goodness sakes. They certainly aren’t going to give chase through the desert when they can call it in on the cell phone.
Illegal immigration is an issue that crosses party lines, at least when you talk to average citizens. With the exception of the wealthy, who prefer the cheap, poorly protected labor, most people want the government to find a fair way to solve the problem of millions of people slipping over the border illegally. They want a system that is fair to those who have played by the rules so far. They want a system that makes sure immigrant workers aren’t taken advantage with low wages and poor conditions, both for the sake of the workers and for the protections for their own jobs. And they want a system that does not reward those who have broken the laws of this country. They also want a better way to know who is coming into the country, whether they are wanted criminals in another land, or whether they pose a health risk to others. In short, the want to know who’s coming over for dinner and how long they plan on staying.
There’s nothing racist or xenophobic in asking your government to do it’s job. But there sure is a lot of elitist attitude in this editorial.
[tag]The+Nation, illegal+immigration[/tag]
8 Responses to “Demanding the Government Enforces Immigration Policy Does Not Make You A Racist”
By jh on Aug 16, 2006 | Reply
I would sugget to any readers to take a full look at this article. I think there is special concern about how it appear this faction of minutemen are basically a scam. After now logging close to 60 hours researching this I along with countless other tend to agree. No matter if you favor the comprehensive approach to immigration(such as I ) or a Tancredo line approach does not matter. This group is viewd as a conservative group and any financial problems will tar us all. Many conservative are becomig more alarmed by the day.
By chicago dyke on Aug 16, 2006 | Reply
i care about immigrants and workers in this country, i don’t care about gov’t paperwork so much. we are a nation of immigrants except for the First Nations, and it has always seemed ridiculous to me to talk about who should and shouldn’t be here. if you’re here, you’re here. the question becomes one of how you integrate into society.
my concern has to do with not holding employers responsible. from day care to lawn mowing to dishwashing to construction, the use of undocumented workers has brought down standards of living for all of us. here’s a thought: do you really believe people would be flooding our borders if they knew that every employer would demand proper documentation, and that government officials would regularly check businesses to make sure they were following the law? the ‘word on the street’ is clear: no one takes our employment laws seriously, least of all the government.
let’s drop the ridiculous game of militarizing our border. i’m sorry, but i’m not going to defend the militiamen- they seem racist and clown like to me. let’s instead just focus on the enforcement of existing laws, and start holding employers accountable. it’s a follow the money thing to me- take away the easy money and people won’t be as inclined to come. yes, this will mean paying more for your veggies and lawn mowing, but it will also mean a whole host of better paid people paying taxes into the system, and thus higher services for all.
By Jersey McJones on Aug 16, 2006 | Reply
Don’t cancel your subscprition, Ken. The Nation is a grand old American magazine that is a must read for anyone who wishes to remain informed of our country.
I take serious exception to this post.
You said, “they never do say the word ‘illegal’ anywhere in the article.” To quote Howard Zinn, “No human being is illegal.” Period.
You said, “Taxpayers and citizens who live along our southern border get the brunt of illegal immigration as well as the costs associated with it.” I think the people of New Jersey, New York, Chicago and Cincinnati would beg to differ.
You said, “Those costs are borne not only in prosecuting and jailing (or deporting) illegal immigrants, but also throughout the varius social services like schools and health care and food or housing assistance.” Number one - what the hell are you on about? Crime rates among “illegals” are the same as US citizens. They pay sales taxes and property taxes, don’t they? That’s where the costs are culled from for all those services, right? Also, 2/3’s of them they pay payroll taxes and get NOTHING from them! YOU and I are STEALING from THEM, Ken.
You said, “But according to The Nation, anyone who is anti-illegal immigration is little more than a racist xenophobe.” I agree. But let me explain what I, and they mean. What we need are realistic immigration quotas as opposed to the ridiculously low, nonsensically universal quotas we have now. The system we have now is a reflection of the “dark picture of American attitudes.” “Dark” being the double entendre here.
You said, “The fact of the matter is that groups like the Minutemen may indeed contain some KKK type knuckleheads, but the vast majority are just people who are sick and tired of empty government rhetoric.” No. They are all “KKK knuckleheads.” You know how I know? Because “KKK knuckleheads” are cowards, and so are the Minutemen. That’s why they sit at the border. They lack the cojones to face the big agro and industrial employers that are the lure of these immigrants in the first place - let alone the military that recruits the children of the “illegals” for battle fodder fior the war these cowardly KKK Minutemen I’m certain endorse. They love killing “dark” people.
You said, “…they want a system that does not reward those who have broken the laws of this country.” That’s the kind of rhetoric that makes me ashamed to be an American. We have too much of this simplistic talk flying around these days. I have a saying - Right is Wrong if the Law is Wrong and the Law is Always Right. Fuck the law. The law is wrong here. If the law said, “Step on kittens” and some people refused, should they not be “rewarded?”
You said, “They also want a better way to know who is coming into the country,.” You said THAT right, and “…whether they are wanted criminals in another land, or whether they pose a health risk to others,” but if we had realistic quotas, the ONLY people sneaking over the border would be real criminals, and the cowardly Minutemen would run for their lives. “In short, the want to know who’s coming over for dinner and how long they plan on staying.” Yeah, like the movie, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.”
JMJ
By ken grandlund on Aug 16, 2006 | Reply
I knew there’d be some disagreement here with me on this post. That’s one of the great things about BIO. So here goes…
Jersey notes that ‘no human being is illegal.’ I certainly agree with that statement, but that does not mean that human beings commit no illegal acts. And that is the heart of the matter here. Not the people, but the flagrant refusal to play by the rules. It is the act that is illegal, and the word ‘illegal’ in ‘illegal immigration’ reflects the act, not the person. To throw the ‘no human being is illegal’ argument in merely masks the issue at hand. No offense Jersey, but that rebuttal holds no water with me.
jh notes that the minutemen may be some kind of financial scam. I don’t really know. But they have taken an issue that was largely ignored by government and brought it to the forefront. Advocates for both sides of the issue must agree that we have a problem with our immigration laws and practices that must be dealt with in a rational way. By forcing this issue into the mainstream, at least now politicians are debating the matter and the American public is joining the fray. If nothing else, they have that to their credit. We can continue to ignore the problem of unchecked immigration or we can craft a way to deal with immigration in an orderly and just fashion.
Which brings us to the question of employer enforcement, which CD addresses and which I completely agree with. Too little is being done to ensure that employers follow the laws already on the books. This is a failure of government plain and simple, and a stark reminder of who it is that really rules in the halls of power. Publically elected officials are so beholden to their puppet amsters with the checkbooks to take a serious and sane approach to immigration, instead preferring to draw things out and pander to their benefactors as long as possible so that every last dime and drop of sweat can be drawn from the employee base, illegal or not.
Jersey, I doubt I’ll be cancelling my subscrtiption any time soon, Although I’ve only gotten my 2nd issue, by and large I enjoy the thoughtful articles and hope to continue to do so.
Now onward…
California, Arizona, and Texas absorb the largest number of illegal immigrants. Period. Sure, other states have large numbers too, but it is simply not true to say that somewhere like Vermont has the same problems as border states. As such, they also bear a disproportionate cost of dealing with all aspects, costs that the federal government should bear and does not come close to reimbursing. Simply put, I stand by the statement that “Taxpayers and citizens who live along our southern border get the brunt of illegal immigration as well as the costs associated with it.”
Next- I said nothing about illegal immigrants being more felonious than average citizens. The statement about ‘costs of incarceration’ are wholly referring to the interdiction, apprehension, and temporary incarceration of people whose sole crime was illegal entry. I did not infer that illegal immigrants are more likely to be killers or thieves. That assumption on your part, JMJ, is just that- an assumption. The fact is that to find and put illegal immigrants through our legal system for the offense of being here illegally is expensive. That’s it. As for the other things you mention, not many newly illegal immigrants pay any property taxes (which fund schools) although the do pay a sales tax for purchased goods. (Sales taxes are usually general fund revenues or targeted revenue streams, which do pay for a variety of services.) And only the ones being paid above the table have payroll taxes deducted. Yet the use of medical emergency rooms (because of no health insurance) alone makes the difference a near wash. Don’t get me wrong…I want every worker to be treated fairly, and I also advocate for universal health care, but under the current system, the use of public services vs. the influx of tax revenue may be a wash at best. Again, I don’t blame the illegal immigrants for this matter, I blame our laws and the lack of enforcement. That doesn’t make me an evil racist though.
I have spent years working with people from the other side of the border. I have had many good friends who entered this country illegally and worked here for years. I have had illegal immigrants sleep on my couch as they moved from South America to Canada. So don’t tell me that I am a xenophobic racist simply because I want our government to establish and enforce rational and fair immigration laws.
I want those things not to keep ‘dark’ people out of America, but to make sure that when they get here they will be treated with the same dignity I expect for myself from an employer. I want those things so that everyone who works for a living isn’t getting screwed by depressed wages caused by under the table workers.
By Jersey McJones on Aug 16, 2006 | Reply
Ah, I love a good debate! But I’ve got you on this one. ;)
Ken, “As for the other things you mention, not many newly illegal immigrants pay any property taxes (which fund schools) although the do pay a sales tax for purchased goods.”
Of coures they pay property taxes. They have to live somewhere, right? Many of them own, but the vast majority pay rent, so either way ther are all paying property taxes, right?
“And only the ones being paid above the table have payroll taxes deducted.”
No Ken. You, my good and sincerely respected friend, have to get your facts straight. I too worked with many illegal aliens in my days in Los Angeles and Passaic. I’ve seen it and have been involved in it first hand. This has nothing whatsoever to with “above board” employement, either.
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. PLEASE urgently read this.
Look, I was intimately involved with this myself. Employers need to state overhead, like salaries per man hour, etc. They process the “illegals” so as to ostensibly appear that the employer believes they are hiring documented workers on good faith. They have to. They gain from this as well, through tax benefits and investor relations. This goes on at least 2/3’s of the time. But, to do so, they must deduct the FICA et al. The trouble is that the poor workers never benefit from their contributions. We do. It is not “a wash.” We are gaining from their misfortune.
They should ALL be immediately legalized - or - all the employers rounded up and deported themselves.
JMJ
By D' Middle View on Aug 16, 2006 | Reply
I agree with the folks who advocate abortion rights. Problem is they don’t go far enough. From here in D’Middle, it sure would be nice if we could “abort” folks who break the law by hiring illegals. Don’t see why we should have to deport them. Can you imagine how many more lawyers we’d need to do that? For the illegals themselves, I think we ought to treat them the same way their country of origin would treat us if we did what they’d done. See what I mean? Tit for tat! Back to the issue of those who don’t abide by our laws, I’d love to see G”HW”B, BC, and G”W”B serve some time at hard labor –along with every cop and judge who’d not enforced the laws of the land for the past 30 years and who had let this problem get as big as it is today. Think we could get a contract with some nice Mexican Prison Company to entertain them all for 20 years of so? That’d be fair, wouldn’t it? You know? When you’r own Law Enforcement and Legal System is currupt ya’ jus’ don’t have many options now, do ya? Guess we’re up a gum stump.
By ken grandlund on Aug 16, 2006 | Reply
Jersey- I lived in Oregon for about a dozen years, but their situation, not being a border state, is not the same as elsewhere. For instance, where the report estimated up to about 150,000 illegal immigrants in Oregon, the numebr in California runs into the several millions. The two states situations are not necessarily analogous.
You say they pay property taxes. Okay, sure some do if they rent. But how about the many thousands who live in ramshackle conditions along canyons and riverbeds? Where do their property taxes come into play? There are a great many who live in those conditions too.
As for payroll taxes and the like, we can agree that they do pay in, but only if the employer is operating above board too. And since a great deal of the problem is with the employer side of the equation, I have a hard time believing that those employers (especially the bigger ones who seek every way to avoid paying their rightful share of taxes) are all following the letter of the law to a tee. And for all the illegal workers who use false ssn numbers, the real owner of that number does not get any of the money paid into their account by workers not themselves. They actually end up with a real identity fraud mess on their hands. The employers who pay into FICA while knowingly employ illegals with stolen numbers only exacerbate the problem and contribute to the plight of their slave workers.
I don’t think it would be fair to all those who played by the rules (immigrants who came here legally) to just invoke a mass legalization of those who came here surreptiously. That’s no way to promote following the rules. Similarly, I don’t necessarily think a mass deportation is the right answer either. But clearly we need to have some kind of control and some rationally thought out and consistently enforced regulations in this matter.
D’middle- I’m more with you than against you here. I think the first step is in enforcing the laws against employers right now, while the debate about how to handle immigration continues. I’m not so sure about following the lead of other countries exactly, but it is a good rebuttal to those who say America is racist or xenophobic for acting just as our neighbors are acting. I don’t recall much cry about Mexico being racist or xenophobic for their severely strict border policies at their southern end.
By Jersey McJones on Aug 16, 2006 | Reply
Ken,
“You say they pay property taxes. Okay, sure some do if they rent. But how about the many thousands who live in ramshackle conditions along canyons and riverbeds? Where do their property taxes come into play? There are a great many who live in those conditions too.”
The vast, vast, vast majority, by far in a long ways, pay property taxes by virtue of paying rent. This is not Mexico, or Brazil. We don’t have massive, lawless, taxless shantytowns in America. They do pay property taxes and they pay lots and lots of them. They have to. That’s just plain reality.
“As for payroll taxes and the like, we can agree that they do pay in, but only if the employer is operating above board too.”
2/3rds of undocumented aliens in America pay payroll taxes - three quarters pay SSI. None of that is above board in any way. It’s just made to look above board and that’s why they do it - well, that and labor overhead is a write-off. Now, that said, even less above board are the undocs who work in agro. That’s where it’s just the opposite. 2/3rds of the agro workers do not pay payroll taxes. But most of the undocs are not agro workers. They are in industrial, retail, and hospitality jobs. And most of them do pay the taxes. They have to. The employers have to. I worked for 5 years in two big all-undoc maufacturing shops. One in L.A. and one in NJ. The employers needed to and had to state the labor (hell, the second one had a friggin union!). So they had to deduct the taxes. That’s just the way it is.
“…I have a hard time believing that those employers (especially the bigger ones who seek every way to avoid paying their rightful share of taxes) are all following the letter of the law to a tee.”
They benefit from stating the overhead. This is to their advantage. The employer is not paying the taxes - they are deducting the taxes from the pay. So they have nothing to want to avoid. They benefit from looking above board, by deducting taxes from what would have to ostensibly be “legal” workers, and they look better on their taxes and to their investors. It’s a win, win, win for these large employers. That’s why they do it. That’s how it was explained to me. And that’s what I’ve consistently read and heard.
“And for all the illegal workers who use false ssn numbers,”
Read this. The SS numbers, no one knows how many, do not nor have ever belonged to anyone else. They’re bum numbers. But SSI doesn’t care. They don’t investigate. Nor does the IRS. Or the state agencies. This gets to your point about the gov’t being in the pocket of these corporate interests.
We. You and I benefit from this. It’s not that any one person gets more or less SSI. It’s that SSI stay more solvent.
JMJ