Sunday, November 11, 2007

Immigration Persuasion

B-Daddy here. Immigration seems like such a hot button issue for this column, I thought I would try to break it down a little. Unlike your regular BwD host, I feel somewhat dispassionate about the issue. I thought I would take Deep Throat's advice and "follow the money," and look at the self-interest of the key players involved. Under most circumstances, political constituencies vote their self-interest, so analyzing it is necessary to understanding the problem and working towards a solution. (Also, we want to "Seek first to understand" and "think win-win" in 7 Habits terminology.)

On the Democrat side, I often wondered why the labor unions would favor amnesty. It seems that a steady supply of undocumented workers would cause competition for their members. However, if undocumented workers are granted legal status, then their pay would have to be raised to at least the minimum wage. This increase in pay would mean that the undocumented workers would have less competitive advantage on price than union workers. See the Cato Institute article on the union's relationship with the minimum wage. Further, bringing the undocumented workers into the legal world would make them available to be organized by the unions. For the Democratic Party in general, there is a belief that those granted amnesty would then vote Democrat because the illegal immigrant population is largely poor and Hispanic, a demographic (there's that word again) that tends to vote Democrat. Interestingly enough, it seems that the people who are harmed by an amnesty would be poor, Hispanic legal residents. However, one abstract of a study on this subject "suggests that Latino support for immigration is primarily a function of ethnic identify and symbolic politics" In simpler language, Latinos identify with the immigrants and cheer the expansion of their own group. Interestingly enough, listening to talk radio and reading other forums, this is also the reason cited by conservatives in opposing illegal immigration and for opposing increased legal immigration.

On the Republican side, the business interests that generally support the Republican Party see a steady supply of low-wage labor from continued high immigration illegal or otherwise. As a result, business tends to be on the side of working out a solution that doesn't stop the flow of workers, so the enforcement first, reform later concept is non-starter for them. However, there is a significant number of voters (mostly Republicans) who see illegal immigration as a threat to their way of life on a number of fronts. First, the widespread violation of immigration law is seen as a precursor to the general breakdown of law and order. A return to the crime rates of the 70's and 80's is not in the general public's best interest. And this theory has legs. It is akin to the "broken windows" theory of crime that Willy Bratton and Rudy Giuliani successfully applied to reducing crime in New York in the 90s. (As an aside, I trace a goodly portion of our current trouble in Iraq to the wave of looting that got out of hand after the initial victory. That created the same kind of "tipping point" from which we are only now recovering.) The second and more powerful issue appears to be cultural and linguistic. Seeing large numbers of immigrants who do not speak English and therefore seem incapable of taking part in the common dialog on what it means to be an American is threatening. Even if historically, the same charge was applied to Italian and Eastern European immigrants at the turn of the last century, this issue strongly resonates with those who have a certain cultural vision of America. And culture seems to dominate all political discourse these days, on both left and right.

So right now we have a stalemate on the issue. The anti-amnesty crowd has the passion and the numbers to prevent any amnesty legislation from being signed. (Remember that most big changes in American society require consensus.) But they are probably not a majority, (my opinion, not yet supported by research) and certainly don't have the power to get the kind of strict enforcement needed to stem the tide of illegal immigration. I continue to see hard liners on illegal immigration lose elections, even in places like southern Arizona in 2006, where illegal immigration has a high impact. Until a win-win solution is developed, I see no end to this stand off.

15 comments:

Road Dawg said...

Do you miss the point that we are already living in a "nanny state"?So now you would have my taxes pay for law breakers?

Where is the justification for the economical drain on our pocketbook? Health care, tuition, social security, nanny bennys? You can't let them in if the we have to pay for it.

I would agree with B-Daddy if we treated these people as second class citizens, but our liberal guilt mentality won't let us do that. THEY ARE SECOND CLASS, NOT CITIZENS!!!!

This does not mean that we don't treat them as Christians, however; maybe if there was no place to go, they would stay and change the corrupt country from which they come.

I am all for allowing all the immigrants this country can afford, to fill jobs citizens seem to find undesireable. But sign the guest book on the way in. Anything else is a slap in the face to the forefathers of those who came in legaly.

Secondly, how can you be dispassionate about the health of our county. You may have the money to send you child to a private school whereby you immunize you child from diseases carried across the border, but thanks for thinking about the rest of us that have to pay taxes to send our kids to public school.

And what about security, how can you be dispassionate about the fact that Bruno Mendoza looks like Saddam Hussain? You don't think they know that?

Fill in these three holes in you dispassion to have intellectual honesty.

B-Daddy said...

Road Dawg,
Dude, I wasn't advocating any of these positions. I was just trying to explain how we got to where we are at in terms of the self interest of the interest groups involved. Further, I have touched on some of the issues you raise. Anyway I agree that security and health are issues of concern that I did not drill into. But they definitely go hand in hand with my "broken windows" discussion. So my question for you would be, how do you craft a solution that puts together a majority out of these interest groups and meets their desires?

Road Dawg said...

We don't have an immigration problem, we have an enforcement problem. Enforce the law, plain and simple, enforce the law.

The fact that you are tryin to deal with the reality of pandering to the interest groups puts you in the same group with those who have brung us to this dance in the first place.

Hold the line, enforce the law. Let them all come in that we need, legally, no aids, hepatitis, plague, or STD's. No criminal records, check in with INS periodically.

Have you seen the immigration policy of Mexico? Let's adopt and enforce that law.

Anonymous said...

Sorry about blogging while angry, love you guys and the opportuinty to vent
The Dawg

B-Daddy said...

Road Dawg,
Enforcing the law is generally a good thing, I agree. However, not all laws are equally enforced. The cause for uneven enforcement tends to have political roots. For example, if we did a 100% crackdown on speeding on Southern California freeways tomorrow, you can be sure our elected officials would hear about it and if it continued they might not continue in office. Is there a legitimate purpose in our speeding laws? You bet, but the fact remains that they are widely violated.

So if we desire to mitigate the negative impact of illegal or undocumented immigration, we need to understand the reasons for the lack of political will to enforce the law. That is all I am saying. I agree with you that we should know who is entering the country, it is a real security concern. But ask yourself this, are we better off with the current laws not being enforced due to politics or would we be better off if we found a consensus that resulted in laws that elected officials saw fit to enforce because it would aid their re-election? So I am asking those of you who are the most vocal about the issue to explain what might work for you. Are you willing to allow almost unlimited legal immigration? Would it help if we deny welfare benefits to immigrants? Which interest group's demand can you live with in order to put together a coalition that will solve this problem. Because right now we have a stalemate and that won't change until such a coalition is formed. Nobody has the votes to get their way completely, and like it or not, that's life in a constitutional republic.

Anonymous said...

test. I'm being denied my constitutional right to comment so I'll try doing it anon.
dean

Anonymous said...

B-Daddy, G#d knows I will be writing about this again so I will try to keep this short...

I'm not sure the speed limit law is applicable because we are not talking about merely violating a single law or set of laws but rather a violation of the entire concept of national sovereignty.

Also, there were many competing interests to preserve/eliminate slavery in this country and no amount of "compromise" addressed the core issue of the immorality of slavery.
Dean

B-Daddy said...

Guys,
I feel like no one is really listening. I am not looking for compromise, I am looking for win-win. Those are two entirely different concepts. (See Seven Habits of Highly Effective People by Covey.) What I hear you saying Dean, is that a win for you preserves national sovereignty. OK, I get that. But what can you live with that might be a win for someone else? For example, agribusiness and other businesses might want an almost unlimited guest worker program. Can you live with that? A win for organized labor might be that all these guest workers have to be paid a minimum wage, is that doable? See where I am going here?

Road Dawg said...

Enforce the speeding law, fine, I can live with that. Bring the fines to the county coffers, ok, the people will decide. Do it, do it, do it.

I get email from my SocioPath-Demicrat sister-in-law about how sick and tired of this coddling of the aliens, so what is up with the elected officials on both sides of the isle??

This issue is not a matter of finding a coalition, but of what is right an wrong.

There is something deeper than what is on the surface, and I cant put my finger on it, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

Why would Democrats throw their support to those who viamently oppose their position? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. (polarization)

It is the same way the Church has divided the youth away from the scientific community. Science is bad, Dems: "Republicans are bad...... etc.

Tancredo demigoging the issue? This is an issue of our time, history will look on you as we look at the French. Where did you stand on this issue, or did you pander to what is convienient?

I can't readily identify the word, but it is used to describe those who throw in the towel? Similar to those that would give up Poland in WWII. My G&%d man, this is America, and you are dispassionate?

Anonymous said...

B-Daddy, so there is this thing... this thing called a worker-visa program run by the State Dept. Its a program designed, in part, to provide temp labor for this country and whose laws are already on the books.

This very State Dept. site provides a link to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that gives information on how to... get this.. become a bona fide, red white and blue U.S. citizen.

Chalk it up to the cost of doing business all around that Agribusiness and Labor might have to hire some help to navigate these sites on behalf of their potential labor pool but... hey, if it makes business sense then I'm sure they'll pony-up, because it should be a market-driven process, right?
Dean the Anon

K T Cat said...

Guys, you've already got a win-win. Do you think the immigrants are coming up here because it was a toss-up whether to stay home or not? Hardly. They're getting what they want, work. The employers are getting what they want, low-wage labor. If we legalize these guys, most of those jobs will go away because they are predicated on low-wage labor.

All I want is some control over the situation. Build the fence and stop the anchor babies. After that, I agree with road dawg. They really are second class. But like Super Chicken said to Fred many times, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it."

B-Daddy said...

K T Cat,
Who the heck is Super Chicken and how is he relevant?

Anonymous said...

http://lumerkoz.edu Perfect work, http://barborazychova.com/members/Buy-Cleocin.aspx pioneering http://www.ecometro.com/Community/members/Buy-Cephalexin.aspx renal http://barborazychova.com/members/Buy-Lexapro.aspx usasho http://soundcloud.com/prevacid ceded frommers http://riderx.info/members/Buy-Doxycycline.aspx usesa cdbgone

Buy Guild Wars 2 Gold said...

thank you with regard to revealing. i was searching for the like. Cheap Diablo 3 Gold



Buy Runescape Gold

Unknown said...

I. Require. To. Buy. This.Amazing, you might be remarkable! I like everything about it.Sony L36h cases
I love all of your have missed internet connections much :) Continue the fantastic function!I like the polka dept of transportation environment. :)