Here in California they have this proposal to let undocumented workersillegal immigrants get drivers licenses–documents that would allow them to tap into all kinds of social benefits . . . like . . . voting in U.S. elections.
A recent advertisement in Variety (of all places!) cast an unusual light on the matter.
In a responding editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle (of all places!), Debra Saunders was insightful:
THE AD THAT ran in Daily Variety last week — signed by the usual members of the "entertainment community," including Ed Asner, Danny Glover and Mike Farrell — asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign Senate Bill 60, a bill to allow illegal immigrants to obtain California drivers’ licenses.
Not that the ad ever used the word "illegal." Instead, it used Hollywood award-speak to tell the story of Rosanna Perez, "Nominated: Best Nanny in a Supporting Role," who, because of California law, has to take the bus from her home in East Los Angeles to her job in the Westside.
They should have dubbed the ad: Let my illegal nanny drive my SUV.
"We give them access to our homes. We trust them with our children. It seems absurd to me to not grant them the respect they deserve," Farrell explained to Copley News Service.
What’s this "we" business? Most people don’t hire nannies. Only rich people can afford nannies; they can hire legal nannies.
Farrell was parroting the familiar argument — that everyone benefits from illegal immigration, through cheaper food prices at the grocery store or the fast-food joint — so the law shouldn’t penalize illegal immigrants. But the logic doesn’t work. It also is true that everyone pays for illegal immigration — for their children to attend public schools or for emergency- medical care — and so this notion of a free ride is false. Then there is the paycheck problem: Some of the people who are paying more are less-skilled Americans who have smaller paychecks because they must compete with cheap illegal labor.
So when the "entertainment community" asks for drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants, it plays the leading role of Hollywood diva expecting stagehands and walk-ons to chip in and pay for her illegal help.
READ THE WHOLE THING BEFORE HOLLYWOOD EXPORTS THIS NUTTINESS TO YOUR STATE.
” and so this notion of a free ride is false.”
People don’t think we are somehow getting a free ride from immigrants, but that immigrants aren’t getting a free ride from us.
Whether or not this proposal is a good idea, the argument that “everyone pays for illegal immigration” is patently false. Illegal immigrants contribute far more to the economy than they take. A great example is the California agricultural industry–the largest of any U.S. state–which is largely fueled by illegals. Furthermore, the jobs they take (such as hired hands on farms) are typically those that most citizens would not take.
This should bring about some interesting discussion.
There are a number of Catholics who think that treating immigrants fairly equates to having no limits whatsoever on immigration, and/or not enforcing immigration laws, and expecting no cultural integration from immigrants
Granted, it would not be just to completely close the doors and say “sorry…full up.” But, I think Catholic social teaching allows for some reasonable controls and procedures for immigration, so that the country receiving the immigrants is not overwhelmed, or its citizens unduly harmed by the side-effects.
Fortunately, in the U.S., most of our immigration is made up of Christians, so while there is some pressure put on the culture, it is not as severe as what they are experiencing in Europe, where most immigrants are Muslim.
Here’s the Holy Father’s recent letter regarding immigrants and cultural integration:
MESSAGE OF THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II FOR THE WORLD DAY OF MIGRANTS AND REFUGEES 2005
If a nation is not careful, it can end up like the Netherlands:
Dutch flag “insulting to Muslim immigrants”, banned from Dutch schools
Tim,
The best work on this has been done by George Borjas (who is Cuban-American) who has has shown that immigration is probably a net minus to the country in economic terms.
Mr/Ms Knotts,
While most immigrants may be nominally Christian, let’s remember that the largest group of immigrants is Hispanics, who have a 40% illegitimacy rate and vote overwhelmingly for Democratic/pro-abortion candidates. Therefore, they are reasponsible for a good portion of the deChristianization of America (which was obviously in place long before they arrived in large numbers). For example, San Francisco is largely Hispanic and Asian and it voted 83% for Kerry. As even neo-con William Kristol admitted recently, immigrants are not making America more conservative.
“The author of SB60, state Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, …”
Gil Cedillo is called “One-bill Gill” as it seems that this is the only legislation he introduces. Wake up Gil, the third time is not a charm.
Steve,
(It’s Mr. Knotts, incidentally)
Anyhow, I did acknowledge in my comment that there is definitely some pressure put on the culture by the immigration we get in the U.S. It’s just not as severe a pressure as that experienced in Europe, in my opinion.
As far as Hispanic voting patterns: 1) they are partially a product of the region in which immigrants reside, and partially dependent on where they emigrate from; 2) the Hispanic vote has shifted away from Democrats in recent elections — somewhere around 40% of Hispanics nationwide voted for George W. Bush.
I would like to see some serious immigration reform, which would put reasonable limits on the numbers of immigrants, and a serious effort to control the borders. Unfortunately, it seems that there are business and government interests which seek to undermine these laws, which hurts both legal immigrants and the poor who already live here.
In both Europe and America the huge, underlying issues are really artificial birth control and abortion, which are depopulating much of Western Civilization, combined with social welfare and pension programs which require a growing labor force to pay into the tax pool.
Hollywooders need nannies for their children?
Children? I thought they just had pets.
Mr. Knotts,
Bush got approximately 38% of the Hispanic vote. His increase in Hispanic vote was roughly the same as his increase in the general vote in 2004 vs. 2000. To get 38% of the fastest growing population group is nothing to celebrate.
Steve Sailer discusses all of this:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/041209_myth.htm
Whether or not this proposal is a good idea, the argument that “everyone pays for illegal immigration” is patently false. Illegal immigrants contribute far more to the economy than they take.
Tim: This statment is interesting. Where do you get your data to back this up? I have always wanted to look at the facts and data on this issue but have not been able to find it. Thanks!
One comment: This isn’t about “Western Civilization”. The Japanese and Chinese have all the problems with abortion and contraception that we have and more, particularly in China’s case. This is something that threatens the entire world with almost no exceptions.
I suggest that it’s a bit simplistic to focus on the illegal part of the immigration issue, and to focus solely upon the perceived faults of undocumented workers.
This bishops’ document provides a corrective:
http://www.usccb.org/mrs/reform.htm
Why 20th and 21st century Catholics have swallowed and parroted the very same 19th century nativist and anti-immigrant rhetoric that was used to bar Catholics from immigrating to the U.S., I’ll never understand.
The morality around immigration is interesting. The situation that is stuck in my mind is the Catholic position that if someone that has no other means to obtain food and takes a loaf of bread from someone, he is not stealing. The competing moral interest is the security of those present. Personally, I find the latter a cannard particularily when discussing Mexican illegal immigration.
The economics of illegal immigration are a little more complicated. Those opposed often cite health and welfare benefits. Seems simple, but it isn’t. An oddity of our laws is that a person born on this soil is an American citizen. So, a child born of two illegal immigrants here is a citizen and is entitled to benefits. Those opposed cite payments for the child, under law a citizen, and his caretakers, illegal immigrants, as a cost of illegal immigration. These payments would go to any other American citizen though regardless of their household situation.
As far as industrial production, it really depends where you make your assumptions. The prevailing assumption in economic circles is that the illegal immigrant would be replaced in agriculture, for example, by a similiarly paid person. This seems ridiculous, but has proved true in ‘real world’ studies. There is an increase in labor with any immigration though, and anytime you add resources you get increased production (GDP). This already is getting to be an encyclopedia length entry, so I’ll end it here.
Well, the Mexicans aren’t exactly starving.
Waaait a minute. When a starving person steals bread, it’s not considered stealing? What kind of moral principle is that, to obey commendments only when obeying is not too difficult? What is someone denied Christ because if he didn’t, he’d get killed? Under that principle, he wouldn’t be guilty of denial.
I understand the impulse to think this way, Paul, but the position you are contesting is traditional Catholic teaching affirmed by St. Thomas and Catholic moral theology.
Some moral laws are absolute and some are not, and moral laws regarding property rights are not absolute in the way that the law regarding bearing witness to Christ even to death is. Moral laws regarding property rights are predicated on and subordinate to the principle of the universal destination of goods, i.e., all the world’s goods are for the benefit of the entire human race.
The principle of private property serves the good of all humanity because people do a better job of developing the world’s goods when every man works for his own living, with room for correction through the charitable redistribution of wealth from those who have to those who have not.
However, when and where those who have not fall through the cracks of other means of redressing inequalities, so that the only alternatives left to a person are starving or what we would ordinarily call stealing, the principle of private property hinders rather than serves the principle of the universal destination of goods, and the latter trumps the former.
As a result, I literally do not have the moral right to withhold goods I can live without from one who cannot live without them, and if he takes them, he isn’t stealing.
Motor Voter needs to be eliminated, and certainly the 10 million or so illegals per year who come into this country (and swamp the less than 200,000 new jobs) and who are helped to vote Democrat, should have their votes subtracted from the Dem totals in the elections.
I just don’t know where it is in the Bible that the governing authorities have the ius gladii(Romans 13) but no authority over borders. Huh??
David,
The question isn’t what arguments people used 100 years ago about immigration, the question is what are immigrants today doing to our culture.
The fact is that immigrants vote more socially liberal than other groups. The average immigrant is more likely to vote for pro-abortion candidates (who also support multi-culturalism, etc.) than not.
If you think California is a model for America, then let the immigrants come. If you think California isn’t a model, then restrict immigration to a more reasonable level.
As a result, I literally do not have the moral right to withhold goods I can live without from one who cannot live without them, and if he takes them, he isn’t stealing.
It’s not stealing to steal bread if you are starving and have no other way to eat — AND if you don’t steal it from someone who will starve without it.
Ok, even taking into account this stealing bread example, illegal immigration is still wrong. A nation is more than just an economic unit; it’s a a country sharing a culture, a language, and all the cohesive elements that bring about national unity and patriotism and peace. Illegal immigration damages those things. The Catholic view on border control is simple wrong-headed.
Mary, and that is the result of out-sourcing to India on my former job, and upon the lawn-mowing and other jobs I might have had during the IT depression, due to immigration from south of the border. The President mentions the under-200,000 jobs created, but not the 10 million or more illegal immigrants per year that more than swamps the job creation.
Circuit Rider, I didn’t realize you were a fellow IT has been. Outsourcing is another issue I agree has to be addressed. Border security needs to be addressed.
But, we are talking about human beings that have been here in many cases for decades. Many came over illegally before they were aware of their origins. The illegal immigrants are always blamed for economic problems, yet they have let people enjoy a standard of living undreamed of several generations ago. The average family in this country enjoys a fully prepared and served mealat least once a week; 60 years ago there wasn’t even close to the number of restaurants there are today. This isn’t even including the number of Hamburger Helpers and everything else substituted for cooking. Many people today travel over 20 miles one-way to work not via public transportation, but by personal vehicles. How many out of state vacations do people enjoy? The number of Americans travelling abroad is amazing. What has happened is that we’ve become used to a certain standard of living, to a certain extent subsidized by illegal immigration, that is incredibly expensive.
Our economic problems are caused in this country via both political parties deciding that 1) economic self sufficiency is an inferior good to economic expansion and 2) the environment needs to be preserved for its own sake. If the mideast oil supply were cut off tomorrow, this country would be in trouble. If textile workers overseas demanded equitable wages, there would be no clothing in this country. The government is the single largest land owner in Neveda and many other states. I could build a steel mill in Russia for far, far cheaper and far, far easier than in these United States.
I’m probably re-joining this discussion at a late juncture, and I haven’t followed all of it since I posted. I just wanted to post a response to Steve Jackson and StephenL. I get my assertions from the RAND Corporation, which did a study on the effects of California’s immigration. The report states: “Although the characteristics of immigrants have changed over the past three decades, the state’s economy continues to benefit from immigration.” It notes increasing costs to the welfare state that California holds so dear and stiffer competition for lower-paying jobs, as well. Still, “California’s employers, and its economy more generally, have been the primary beneficiaries of this recent immigration.”
I do not mean to gloss over the problems “caused” by illegal immigration. I do not think, however, that denying underpaid and overworked maids driver’s licenses is going to help matters. What needs to happen is a sweeping reform of both the labor and immigration departments, in California and elsewhere. If corporations (particularly agricultural ones) were forced to pay minimum wage, then the playing field would equalize. Illegal immigrants aren’t invading our country; they come here to work and build better lives. It would be nice if we gave them a hand instead of painting them as the bad guys all the time.
I also want to address Steve Jackson’s complaint that Hispanics “are reasponsible [sic] for a good portion of the deChristianization of America.” Looking at the broad statistics like that gets us nowhere; this is why I was reluctant to cite a study in my previous post. My experience is largely anecdotal; it is the result of being the sole Anglo in my wedding party (my bride included). Hispanics happen to be some of the most pious Catholics in the country. We shouldn’t blame them for even “a good portion” of American secularism when they didn’t cause the problem or do something extraordinary (i.e. more than other Americans) to advance it.
Tim,
But if you want to talk anecdotes, I could point out of that the several hispanics I know or work with, not one is a social conservative or particularly pious.
The fact is that Hispanics have a higher rate of illegitmacy than other Americans, vote for pro-abortion candidates, have higher rates of crime, etc. Do you dispute this?
Interestingly, according to one article I read, Hispanic protestants voted for Bush. In addition, Hispanics are more upwardly mobile than blacks. These facts indicate to me that if we were to restrict immigration, Hispanics who are here would improve their lot quickly. However, when we flood Hispanic areas with more immigrants, it just pushes the wage rate down.