Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Immigration response followup

One reader (Sean) raised some questions about the immigration essay below. I thought it was worth addressing them here rather than in Comments:

1. Biometric ID--useless to bring up because it'll never be adopted. So "I feel that using this as an arguing point as a cure to illegal immigration is like arguing for the invention of cold fusion to solve pollution."

A: There's a humongous difference between cold fusion and biometric ID: the former is not possible with current technology (and probably never will be, for that matter); while biometric ID is not only possible, but is being adopted in other countries today.

Second, security experts seem to agree that sooner or later Islamofascists will succeed in carrying out another 9/11-scale or larger attack in this country. Biometric ID is the only way we can track everyone here, so while it's much more important for immigration control in the larger scheme of things, adopting is in the aftermath of a second 9/11 is more likely.

Third, Americans are in denial about the extent to which we're already being tracked--how many databases we're on today. The only people not on these databases are illegal aliens. It's possible that honest citizens will eventually wake up to the fact that the privacy enjoyed by our forbears in the 18th century is gone whether we get biometric ID or not, and today the only people whose privacy is actually being protected by not having biometric ID are criminals.

However, the far right has been fomenting antigovernment paranoia--at the behest of their billionaire patrons--for so long that it would be well nigh impossible to give up on this, even though it harms their constituents. This is just another example of how so many politicians serve their paymasters first and voters last.

And of course left wing demagogues also foment antigovernment paranoia, spurred on by people who belong to groups that have been the target of government plots against them in the past--especially blacks and Jews, whose ancestors had legitimate complaints.

Which leads to my fourth reason for championing biometric ID: it allows you to confront partisans with their own hypocrisy. I once lost the more or less friendship of a far right conspiracy theory type (we'd met scuba diving) when I pointed out to him that by opposing biometric ID he was supporting illegal immigration, since nothing less will stop it.

Right wingers are constantly prattling about how we need Law Und Order--yet they balk when doing just that actually includes them. It's hypocritical and worth pointing out to them when you're discussing politics with them.

And with left wingers it's a perfect example of the saying "A cat who's sat on a hot stove will never sit on a hot stove again--but he'll never sit on a warm one either." That is, the fact that the ancestors of many leftists suffered from government persecution doesn't mean that all governments always persecute everyone who's in any kind of minority. They're fighting shadows of the past.

And you can also point out to each that they sound just like the other--there's nothing a right winger likes less is being told he sounds just like a Lib-er-ul--and vice-versa.

BTW biometric ID doesn't require an ID card with a fingerprint that you'd have to keep track of. For example, for years Fujitsu has been marketing a palm reader. You hold your hand over it and it reads the unique, un-fake-able pattern of veins inside the palm of your hand. Link the reader to a database in the cloud and you've got something you could have in every police car, at the counter of every hospital and Dept. of Motor Vehicles office etc.

Lastly, I have to believe that at least some of the opposition to biometric ID stems from ignorance and letting its opponents frame the debate. So the more that sane people bring it up and champion it, the more likely it is of being adopted someday.

After all, e-Verify is in use today on a limited basis, in the face of ferocious opposition by Tea Party types and ACLU types--people I call privacy delusionists--and biometric ID is just an extension of e-Verify.

2. Blaming the Catholic Church for Mexican overpopulation. "Accusing the Catholic church of causing Mexicans to breed like rabbits isn't nearly as easy as accusing scientists and doctors for cultivating an environment where people don't die as quickly."

A. It's true that technology advances made population explosions possible. But that technology is even more available in the more advanced countries, from Japan to France to Russia--and in those countries middle class people aren't having huge families, by and large. And yes, some of them are Catholic--including France of course--but in these countries the Catholic Church is hanging on by its fingernails, with the majority of its nominal adherents not following its leader's dictates--particularly where birth control/abortion are concerned.

That's true in this country. The only sizeable group of Catholics in America who follow the church's dictates are Latinos--legal and illegal. The Catholic Church in North America has become rapidly latinized, in exact proportion to the dropping average educational level of adherent.

Mexico's small middle class doesn't follow church dictates either--hence Mexico City legalizing abortion.

So what you need is uneducated people with access to modern medical technology--and the Catholic Church telling them condoms are murder. That's the toxic combo you get in Latin America (and Haiti, for that matter).

For example, last year in the Mexican state of Quintana Roo a 12 year old girl whose stepfather had raped and impregnated her was forced to carry the fetus to term at the insistence of the Catholic Church officials there.

That's typical where the Catholic Church dominates.

Islam is just as bad, in general. Muslim countries are famous for gigantic families--which fact give Israelis heartburn every day.

But our illegal immigration problem isn't with Muslims--as it is in Europe--it's with devout Catholic Mexican (and some Salvadorean and Guatemalan) peasants with less than an American high school education moving here in droves, illegally (and legally too in large numbers, due to our culturally suicidal legal immigration policies).

If Mexico weren't Catholic it would still have had a population explosion, though I'm guessing not as big as it's been. And the Catholic Church in Latin America has gotten laws passed that general ban abortion, condoms, the pill--everything you can use to stop procreation, along with a church-dominated government that actively interferes with any kind of family planning (any kind that works), even where some forms of birth control are nominally legal.

As a consequence Mexico's population has exploded from 20 million in 1940 to over 100 million in 2000, and is continuing to explode. Moreover, that explosion is occurring disproportionately among the poverty-stricken bottom half of Mexico's demographics.

Today technology makes it possible to have vast numbers of babies--but also to not have any babies, if people so wish and the law allows. Technology is as good and as evil as a hammer--it depends on what people choose to do with it.

And the Catholic Church, which has trended rightward over the last several decades, has chosen to ignore the dire effects of its policies on this planet.

So I do blame the Church and not the technology the Church uses selectively to pursue its unintentionally ecocidal goals.

3. "Repatriation isn't easy." Actually repatriation is a snap. You don't have to round up illegals who aren't committing felonies. You just have to make it impossible for them to make a living here and to access the social welfare system. Then many will leave the same way they came--on their own hook.

A. It's true that both parties are terrified of the swelling Latino vote. But it's equally true that a solid majority of Americans are dead set against any kind of amnesty--not just crusty old Republican men, but a substantial portion of Democrats (like me) as well. That's why the Republican leadership's attempt to pass an amnesty "reform" that Bush vowed he'd sign never got to him--the voter reaction was so powerful they didn't dare.

I agree that no one should be "living in the shadows." But I argue that the solution is to eliminate the shadows--with e-Verify to start with--and to try to get our very right wing Supreme Court majority to agree that the 14th Amendment doesn't cover the offspring of illegals (personally I think the Constitution's language does legalize them, but the Court's right wing majority is so activist and so indifferent to stare decisis that they might go for such a ruling).

The trick is to keep banking of the Republican leadership to listen to its constituents' powerful feelings on this topic, and for Democrats like me to confront the internal contradictions between Democratic Party founding principles and its hypocrisy in trying to help citizens of other countries grad the American Dream that they're taking away from their own Democratic constituents (including Latino Americans) in doing so.

Always work on making people live by the values they themselves espouse. I can argue for shutting out illegals from both a Democratic and Republican perspective.

And that's the take-away. Whoever you talk with, tell them why their own values mandate opposing illegal immigration. As long as they believe in nations, and in a nation's first obligation being to its own citizens, you can make this argument.

Especially in a massive, drawn-out recession with no end in sight and the worst-hit being the working class Americans whose earning power has been sapped by competition from citizens of other countries.

A job given to an illegal is a job shipped abroad.

3 comments:

Sean said...

Ehkzu,

It's always great to hear your full response. On such a wide variety of topics in a single entry, I have a hard time being able to completely cover an issue from all sides - but it's always fun to try.

On Biometric ID's, I agree that they're useful and even incorporated in all kinds sectors. My fingerprints exist in many databases, and in practice, I think that they could do some good towards identifying illegal aliens. The trouble with this (that I tried to point out), is that we haven't managed to come up with a good way to approve the use of these tools. And if these tools can't ever be used, they're useless to the point of being practically non-existent. If California is approving state-discounted college tuition to illegal immigrants and New Mexico is giving drivers licensees to illegal immigrants, under what circumstances would biometric ID's ever be used in conjunction with a database of valid residents? It's not the technology that I question, it's the practical application. Arizona got a public flogging by taking a measure against illegal immigration that isn't nearly as intrusive as biometric ID's, and we all know how well that one went. I personally worry about Bio-ID's usefulness or safety, it's just that I don't foresee its political viability for National Security.

I'm not necessarily discounting the Catholic church as a contributing factor to Mexico's huge population, but I simply don't think that its influence is so large as to be eligible for the lion's share of the blame. Condoms came into use around the same time as the Green Revolution. In many other countries, it looks like birth control may have counterbalanced lower infant mortality rates and better nutrition to keep birth rates low. But it's also fair to consider that Mexico's culture is also very family oriented and rural. Is the Catholic church 100% responsible for this existing culture? Perhaps the Catholic church is only one of many catalysts to this high birth rates. Households with less TV's in the house tend to have a higher birth-rate. Rural households have a higher birthrates. Poorer families that rely on agricultural economies tend to have higher birthrates. I know that attributing a cultures habits to a religion is a fiery topic, and I'm aware of the controversy here. You have some great points on the topic, and I'm not trying to be a Catholic apologist. This would be a neat topic to analyze more deeply in a very non-partisan freakanomics style approach.

"You just have to make it impossible for them to make a living here and to access the social welfare system." I disagree that this would be easy to implement. We already tried this is the 1930's: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5079627

(here's one for my home state also) http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/pqmyk

Combine history such as this with the points I mentioned earlier (Drivers licenses and subsidized higher-education for illegal immigrants), and I think I've made my case clear. I agree that it's in the interest of Americans (and our elected officials) to prevent a Latino takeover of our elections, but we're helpless against ourselves. Any sort of real immigration reform will likely die in gridlock (again). The crazies on both sides are robbing the centrists out there a long-term viable American culture in the South West. I applaud your efforts to "confront the internal contradictions," and I certainly do my part to point out contradictions to my right-wing-leaning friends. However, I guess I've become disenfranchised with the possibility of such a contentious topic ever being properly addressed.

It's too bad we can't discuss these issues over a beer. :)

Sean said...

Ehkzu,

It's always great to hear your full response. On such a wide variety of topics in a single entry, I have a hard time being able to completely cover an issue from all sides - but it's always fun to try.

On Biometric ID's, I agree that they're useful and even incorporated in all kinds sectors. My fingerprints exist in many databases, and in practice, I think that they could do some good towards identifying illegal aliens. The trouble with this (that I tried to point out), is that we haven't managed to come up with a good way to approve the use of these tools. And if these tools can't ever be used, they're useless to the point of being practically non-existent. If California is approving state-discounted college tuition to illegal immigrants and New Mexico is giving drivers licensees to illegal immigrants, under what circumstances would biometric ID's ever be used in conjunction with a database of valid residents? It's not the technology that I question, it's the practical application. Arizona got a public flogging by taking a measure against illegal immigration that isn't nearly as intrusive as biometric ID's, and we all know how well that one went. I personally worry about Bio-ID's usefulness or safety, it's just that I don't foresee its political viability for National Security.

I'm not necessarily discounting the Catholic church as a contributing factor to Mexico's huge population, but I simply don't think that its influence is so large as to be eligible for the lion's share of the blame. Condoms came into use around the same time as the Green Revolution. In many other countries, it looks like birth control may have counterbalanced lower infant mortality rates and better nutrition to keep birth rates low. But it's also fair to consider that Mexico's culture is also very family oriented and rural. Is the Catholic church 100% responsible for this existing culture? Perhaps the Catholic church is only one of many catalysts to this high birth rates. Households with less TV's in the house tend to have a higher birth-rate. Rural households have a higher birthrates. Poorer families that rely on agricultural economies tend to have higher birthrates. I know that attributing a cultures habits to a religion is a fiery topic, and I'm aware of the controversy here. You have some great points on the topic, and I'm not trying to be a Catholic apologist. This would be a neat topic to analyze more deeply in a very non-partisan freakanomics style approach.

"You just have to make it impossible for them to make a living here and to access the social welfare system." I disagree that this would be easy to implement. We already tried this is the 1930's: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5079627

(here's one for my home state also) http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/pqmyk

Combine history such as this with the points I mentioned earlier (Drivers licenses and subsidized higher-education for illegal immigrants), and I think I've made my case clear. I agree that it's in the interest of Americans (and our elected officials) to prevent a Latino takeover of our elections, but we're helpless against ourselves. Any sort of real immigration reform will likely die in gridlock (again). The crazies on both sides are robbing the centrists out there a long-term viable American culture in the South West. I applaud your efforts to "confront the internal contradictions," and I certainly do my part to point out contradictions to my right-wing-leaning friends. However, I guess I've become disenfranchised with the possibility of such a contentious topic ever being properly addressed.

It's too bad we can't discuss these issues over a beer. :)

Ehkzu said...

My answer was too long. Putting it in the blog proper.