More wisdom from Thomas Sowell on immigration:
Of all the insults to our intelligence in the current discussions of immigration legislation, the biggest insult is the claim that border control legislation and legislation on the illegal immigrants already in the country must go together.
Why? What will happen if they are done separately? And who will be worse off?
The claim that the two pieces of legislation must be passed at the same time has been repeated endlessly. But endless repetition is not a coherent argument. . . .
Who would lose anything by this separate consideration of the two pieces of legislation? The country would not lose anything. Neither would the illegal aliens already in the country.
The biggest losers would be politicians. They could no longer be on both sides of the issue by voting for a package deal but would have to stand up and be counted on border control.
I wonder if Cardinal Mahoney is getting pissed if he reads this blog. I hope he does not excommunicate Mr. Akin.
Both the President and the Congress are aware that people have a very low opinion of how they are doing, Republican and Democrat.
This whole dog and pony show is just a convenient way for all of them to say “See? We are doing something about something! We are working together. We’re not ineffectual! We’re NOT!!”
Meanwhile, the immigration bill promises more spending and more bureaucracy to accomplish absolutely nothing but to maintain the status quo.
Just see if it doesn’t shake out like this;
“Well, there will be about the same number of illegals coming in, and about the same number will stay here… but now we’ll be keeping much better records.”
Sowell evidently wants to see no immigration legislation at all, else he would not make such a ridiculous argument. The reason issues like these are coupled is because that is what it takes to get legislationp passed. You have to negotiate. You have to compromise. You have to do package deals to get support from varied interests. It’s democracy in action. Maybe almost as messy as macking sausages but there you are.
WRY:
The problem is we went throught the same exercise in 1986 with Simpson-Mazzoli where 3-4 million got amnesty and we suppose to have enforcement. Guess what the enforcement never happened so now we have 10 – 20 million illegals. Won’t be fooled again.
But if you decouple borders and amnesty you don’t have enough support and thus no legislation. It’s a truth of congress that if only 150 reps want $100 million for dogs and only 150 reps want $100 million for cats, they’ll get together and appropriate $200 million for dogs and cats!
WRY, while you are correct that compromise and “compound legislation” are a big part of politics, that’s a different thing than the message being given in all the speaches.
It’s a different thing to say, “I really want the border secured and I’m willing to compromise on amnesty to make sure it happens, so I am proposing/voting for this compound legislation that will do both.”
Than to say, “American people: this is one issue. It must be voted on as one piece of legislation!”
I feel like option #2 is what we’re being told and as Sowell points out, it’s just not true.
Like the ‘compromises’ between north and south preceding the civil war, we may find that each piece has a better chance of surviving seperately than together, because although centrists will vote the same either way, extremists are more like to sabotage a piece of legislation in order to prevent ‘the other side’ from advancing their cause.
Regardless of whether the legislation needs to be coupled for pragmatic purposes (e.g. keeping it separate will make passing it hopeless and lead to a bunch of wasted time), the point that there are two separate issues at play is relevant and correct. And if it’s the case that the majority of the discussion thus far has proceeded in a way that assumes these issues are necessarily connected then something needs to be done about that.
If nothing else, this means that the debates that occur during Congressional sessions should address these issues separately. One cannot argue, for example, that enacting measures (say, building a wall) to keep illegals from coming in from now on is a bad idea because we can’t do anything about the illegals already in the country.
Wry,
If the lawmakers don’t want sausage,but the people do, some will pretend they want pork and some will pretend they want beef sausage and fight over it so we think they are doing something. But we really get nothing like what we wanted.
We need nothing other than increased employer sanctions to encourage attrition, and a closed border, then we can negotiate the rest.
Dr. Sowell is right again, as usual.
http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com
What really makes me mad is the way so many people act like it’s racist to say we need to send them home. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if huge numbers of employers have said in private conversation that immigrants are a great way to lower the labor costs because if anyone wants to cut off the flow, they just get called racist. I actually don’t think it’s racist to not let them in because they’re not white independent of all the other considerations. It’s not racist to want to avoid the conditions that lead to racial conflict in the first place. But that is a whole another issue.
Lucky Duck,
I’m old enough to remember when Hispanics opted to be counted as “white” in demographic polls. So I’m not too concerned about the “racist” accusations bandied about.