A recent thread on Dean's World induced this post, and I haven't even had the chance to read to read the Reaon Foundation article to which Dean originally linked, yet. Heh.
What sparked my post was bad reasoning, assumed beliefs about illegals (how they get paid, whether they "steal" jobs from Americans), blithering about what's "fair" or "right," and several magnificent posts by the inimitable Arnold Harris.
My thougts, as follows:
For those of you hyperventilating about "lost taxes," try investigating how hard it is to create and run a small business in the US today. Even a local drive-through has to take out fed, state, and FICA taxes before paying an employee.
Paul S. repeats a popular argument, but one that lacks force. I can testify from personal experience that -while there are jobs Mexicans will do that Anglos won't- the workers aren't paid less. Go to damn near any restaurant in America, and you'll find managers who will hire anyone willing to work hard at well above minimum wage. In fact, many Mexicans expect more exactly because they are willing to work so hard.
Paul is, of course, perfectly free to contradict my position by providing facts to the contrary. :)
Arnold (as usual) does a magnificent job defining the problem. While I don't agree with every word, the gist is inarguable.
Jeffrey: go back and read what Arnold actually said. Then read up on the coastal states (New York city especially comes to mind) who hire thousands of staffers just to print ballots in Spanish, or the bi-lingual teachers who psychotically resist English immersion techniques for first-generation kids. There is a large (and growing) group which expects to dispense with the tradition assimilation process. Ever hear of Aztlan?
In fact, Jeffrey really blows it later when he confounds the American expectation just to learn English with bigoted European attempts to preserve the "purity" of their culture. He obviously misses (or is unaware of) the tradition that one becomes an American by renouncing the old country. One chooses to become an American, which is exactly what the new-generation relativists are objecting to.
It occurs to me that Jeffrey is completely unaware of hoary old tradtion of native resistance to cheap immigration labor. Does "No Irish need apply" ring a bell? How about anti-China immigrations laws on the west coast in the late 19th/early 20th centuries? What about "a dollar a day is a white man's pay?"
So, no, the tradition has not always been open arms to new immigrants. But let us not confuse that with Arnolds (perfectly just) requirement that they become Americans first, and foremost. None of this "Aztlan," or "Europeans go home" crap.
And -apparently- Jeffrey believes laws of the United States are somehow optional. Tell me, Jeff, which laws do you follow? Do you do 80mph in a school zone? Or do you perhaps hump the underage high school girls you haven't killed with your car yet?
Or maybe you just gad about embezzling funds from honest citizens with get-rich-quick schemes?
Now, I don't think for a moment that Jeff does any of these things. The point here is that -while it is easy and emotionally satisfying to cavil about laws one doesn't approve of- this does not give anyone the right to summarily ignore those laws.
Yes, yes, I've heard of civil disobedience. I've also heard of the concept that one should be able to put forth a persuasive argument against any particular law before you start deliberately breaking it.
Even then, those who break a law in order demonstrate the moral, ethical, or legal bankruptcy thereof are obliged to face legal punishment, until such time as the law is changed.
Jeff seems to have trouble grasping the concept of sovereignty. In fact, his ignorance is breathtaking.
Just because Congress passes a law saying something doesn't make it something you have to agree with, or even obey.The citizens of the United States have assigned to the House and Senate the right to pass such laws they find fit. We, as citizens, are then obliged to obey said laws. If we find them onerous or objectionable, we (again, as citizens) are obliged to vote out the old scoundrels, and vote in a new set who would change said laws. Until then, those laws are, well, legal, hence one is obliged to obey them.
Thats one of the ways things get fixed in this country, from the Boston Tea Party on up to those who ignored Prohibition.Uh, no. The Tea Party was an act deliberately designed to inflame public opinion against the British authorities by a group of minority radicals. Also, those who ignored Prohibition (one assumes Jeff includes here the 20s gangsters as conscientious objectors) did not "fix" things. That was done by voting for FDR, who pledged to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment, which he did in a legal manner, not by ignoring it.
Voting rights for women? Passed new laws. Civil rights in the 60s? Passed new laws (and got old ones repealed or struck down). The pattern here is that legal action, taken in a court of law (or by passing new laws) is how one changes the status quo).
Neither you, nor any other citizen gets to ignore laws they find inconvenient, or with which they don't agree. You break the law, you suffer the punishment.
I hate to break it to you, but the fact that Mrs. Boser's little boy doesn't agree with the definition of "felon" doesn't mean a damn thing. A felon is one who has been convicted of a felony. If the representatives of the citizens of the United States passes a law calling illegal immigrants felons, then they're felons. QED. You want it changed? Run for office, vote for someone who agrees with you. Or shut up. There are nearly a third of a billion Americans, and they don't all agree with each other. The only way we avoid continual civil war is the (generally unspoken) contract that all citizens will abide by the law.
That's what the "rule of law" means. Defense of the sovereignty of this country is both ethical and legal. Please note that I have not expressed my own opinion about the poor buggers who've come north. That is to a great degree irrelevant, as is whining about what's "fair." "Fair" not an objectively arguable point; the concept is both subjective and analog. "Legal" is objective, and discrete. It is, in fact, binary.
I see Arnold has a follow-up post. I can add some specifics here. I won't mention the company I work for, but we do employ Mexicans. Apparently the rule is that holder of a valid green card who provides a SS# is assumed to be a valid immigrant. There is (again, apparently) no mandate to validate the SS#, and (perhaps more importantly) no mechanism to do so. FWIW, everyone -legal or not- gets city, state, and Federal taxes taken out, not to mention FICA and Medicare. As far as I know, this is true of practically any business in the United States which does not deal strictly in cash.
The irony here is that the statist liberals are the ones responsible for all the paperwork and regulations which help ensure that even illegals pay taxes... :)