Resolved: That all national borders be abolished.
In a recent Atlantic article, Alex Tabarrok takes the affirmative on the proposition above. In the article he fails to produce facts or evidence. This is the entirety of his argument, such as it is, from the slug of the article:
No defensible moral framework regards foreigners as less deserving of rights than people born in the right place at the right time.
That is nonsense. It is a claim not a proof. He is using a rhetorical device (and fallacy) called “burden-shifting”, attempting to place the burden of proof which, as the affirmative, he must meet on those who oppose his position. Ultimately, I believe Dr. Tabarrok is confusing ends with means.
There is no universally recognized human right. There are extreme cases of that. For example, in some places same-sex sexual activity is considered a right; in others it may get you executed. The less extreme cases are simply too numerous to mention. In Mexico non-Mexicans do not have a generalized right to own real property; here non-Americans do. The English recognize a right to “cross the land”; here that is considered trespassing. In most countries of the world including England, France, and Germany there is no right to freedom of the press quite as expansive as ours. The list is endless.
Indeed, it is true for every right—free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, private property, the right of transit, and so on and so on. Notions of rights are portable; people bring them with them when they move from place to place.
The very notion of rights is culturally mediated. In some places rights are construed very expansively. In others they are practically nonexistent. That most expansive of explications of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, does not recognize a right of immigration (emigration, yes; transit within countries, yes; immigration, no). To the best of my knowledge no majority Muslim country recognizes the Universal Declaration—it is considered inconsistent with Islam. There is an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human rights. Far from inhibiting human rights, rights are secured by borders.
Borders do not cause these differences although the borders may reflect the differences. The differences are caused because of differences in preferences, differences among cultures.
A world without national boundaries would not be a world in which rights were expansive and every person was regarded as inherently possessing equal and high moral worth. It would be a world in which rights were reduced to the lowest common denominator, i.e. no rights at all, and persons would be considered as having no moral worth.
Borders secure my rights, particularly my right to freedom of association and my right to property. Indeed, the right to property only exists within national boundaries.
After failing to establish a first principles argument, Dr. Tabarrok is left with a comparative advantages argument and he fails to meet that as well. The Western world is quite familiar with the implications of a world without national borders. In such a world there were still governments, armies, and weapons. There was also war without boundaries, war without end. Thousands starved due to the war-induced famine; more were concerned with simply surviving than with asserting their rights. Far from being an economic parousia it was an economic desert.
Borders and the sovereignty of national governments within those borders brought peace, security, economic growth, and prosperity. In much of the world there are still no national borders or, more precisely, national borders are merely lines on a map and otherwise of little significance. Those are places of war, insecurity, poverty, and desperation.
Hat tip: Charles Cameron, Zenpundit
Your logic and reasoning are exquisite. This is one of your best posts. Hopefully, it will be nominated and win the Watcher’s Council weekly forum.
The Jesuits would be proud. I am sure that Sister/Mother Mary So-and-so would be amazed that little Davy Schuler did not end up in reform school after all.
No defensible moral framework regards foreigners as less deserving of rights than people born in the right place at the right time.
That settles it: I’m moving into Alex Tabarrok’s house.
Thus I refute Bishop Berkeley.
Thus I refute Bishop Berkeley.
I was thinking more along these lines, but yeah….
Excellent post, Dave.
Yes, a great post. This is a concept I have attempted to voice many times on blogs. The left is awfully good at pious notions of equality, lifestyle etc in the name of inherent human rights, without regard to culture and borders. It’s crap. To use my favorite whipping boys, the crew at OTB, not a one of the Reynolds, Clavins etc of the world would allow their own lifestyles to be diminished to the degree that their oft stated moralistic and absolutist invocations of rights and income equality for all really imply if applied without regard to borders and culture. They make their own convenient boundaries. They ought to just say it.
Ah bullshit, Drew. Tabbarok is a big L libertarian, which you would know if you ever read Marginal Revolution.
I think he’s more of an anarcho-capitalist but close enough, sam. He shares the illusions that many libertarians and anarcho-capitalists have. Our system requires a lot more maintenance and tending, i.e. government, and is more fragile than they believe. Human nature and culture are durable things and they interact with economics in societies in complicated ways. What is forebearance to some is intolerable cruelty and blasphemy to others.
1) I voted for a president and a governor, both of whom threatened, and in fact did, raise my taxes substantially. I continue to live in California and pay a top rate of 13% despite having the ability to move to a no income tax state (or indeed country.)
2) I have always believed in borders and have always maintained that we have a perfect right to decide who enters the country. I’ve also said we have a perfect right to pick those entrants who best suit our needs.
So, as usual, you’re wrong since I quite clearly “allow my lifestyle to be diminished” to the tune of about 50 cents on every dollar, and I have never supported open borders.
Finally, the term you’re looking for is probably not “whipping boys” since that refers to an innocent person wrongly faulted for the misdeeds of some other person. I know what you meant, but your imagined definition is also wrong, Drew, since you never manage to whip anyone.
@michael-
I thought I’d seen you post similarly about immigration in the past, but I am curious which politicians you have supported or will support, who espouse those views?
I have always believed in borders and have always maintained that we have a perfect right to decide who enters the country. I’ve also said we have a perfect right to pick those entrants who best suit our needs.
And you always vote for open borders candidates and will never do anything but vote for open borders candidates.
In other words, your actions are completely opposed to your stated beliefs.
Hmm, there’s a word for that. Actually more than one.
I read the “comment” section before reading the post. However, after reading Dave’s commentary I can see the reasons for the accolades. His thoughts were well expressed.
Ice, with our two party system I think it’s wrong to characterize people as hypocrites for not voting their values on l issues. It does show the subordination of some values to others though, and it’s not exactly beyond the pale to ask someone why this issue never takes precedence.
I think the situation is actually somewhat more dire than that, Cstanley. There are two distinct consensuses: the consensus of the people and the consensus of the party leaders—both parties. Those two consensuses are almost diametrically opposed.
Yes that’s true but I don’t know that it’s always been evident (the GOP used to be more believable in opposing illegal immigration, even if it was just posturing.)
And I do think the current Dems have taken open borders to new extremes (Obama’s executive orders on enforcement t policies for ICE, and sanctuary cities.)
CStanley:
Well, not being an extremist I don’t expect any candidate to mirror my views 100%. Voting is not a purity test, it’s like reading a menu: you may want sushi, but if you’re at an Italian restaurant you might want to think pasta. I’m having some rigatoni a la Hillary.
This is Hillary’s blather on the subject of immigration: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform/ You will note that there is no suggestion of open borders.
Indeed, as Sam suggests above, open borders is a policy of the Libertarian Party, those lovers of Ayn Rand. Here’s the LP’s platform on immigration:
You will not find similar open arms language at the Democratic Party site or in its most recent platform. In fact, as I’m sure we all know, the one president who has deported more undocumented aliens than any other is Barack Obama.
The critique you level against Tabarrok could just as well be leveled against the Founding Fathers and their Declaration of Independence, and neither of those declarations would have been improved by appealing to “first principles” in the Bible, the Koran or even Aristotle. (Ayn Rand, maybe)
Obama’s high deportation figures are misleading, as are so many of the stats provided by the current administration. It all depends on who you define as being deported. That definition has changed under Obama.
Ice, with our two party system I think it’s wrong to characterize people as hypocrites for not voting their values on l issues. It does show the subordination of some values to others though, and it’s not exactly beyond the pale to ask someone why this issue never takes precedence.
If you always support a certain position with your votes and money, you do not get to say you do not support that position. He always votes Democratic, always will, will always give them every bit of support he can, and Democrats will always be for turning the country into the Third World in the most direct fashion possible. He doesn’t get a pass on that, nor should any other Deomcrat, Green, or Libertarian. At least Republican voters can claim that they voted against immigration and had their leaders screw them over. (Repeatedly.)
It’s similar on any other big issue. If you claim you’re pro-choice but always vote for the pro-life slate, then you’re functionally pro-life and should be called out on it. Putting your party before your principles 100% of the time means you have no principles.
“If you always support a certain position with your votes and money, you do not get to say you do not support that position.”
Most of us set priorities. Mine are usually based on foreign policy. I vote against the party most likely to put us in wars we should not be in. I hardly look at immigration policy when voting. Besides, the only group with a true open borders policy are the libertarians. They vote Republican since they are really just conservatives who want to smoke weed.
Steve
Well, yes, one is rarely blessed with a candidate who is perfect on all issues. For someone like me that is pretty much impossible given the ideological incoherence and inconsistency in both parties.
WRT to immigration neither party seems to disagree much on the fundamentals – both want to allow a large number of people to enter the country. Both want to allow more H1-B visas. The only real difference is implementation and what to do about all the people who are already here illegally.
There are two viable political parties. I agree with one 70% of the time and with the other 10% of the time. To assert that I am without principles for supporting the party that gives me 70% rather than 10% is absurd on its face. On the contrary, choosing the 10% over the 70% would demonstrate lack of principle, not to mention a lack of basic logic.
Michael:
After reading Sec. Clinton’s statement on her immigration policy, I’m curious about how you reconcile her views with your own. I can see how you could support her despite her policy views but not because of them.
Dave:
I don’t see the problem.
Setting aside the fact that anything we pull off a campaign site is likely to be largely focus group tested b.s., which part of that is in conflict with my position?
I should add that immigration is not one of my high priority issues except when someone like Trump proposes a massive ethnic cleansing project.
Reading the whole thing I would infer the following:
1. She thinks that the emphasis and enforcement under present law are about right.
2. She doesn’t believe that paths to citizenship or automatic legalization create moral hazard.
That appears to me to be a formula for increased immigration with the immigrants deciding who will be allowed to stay in the country which is inconsistent with your stated views.
Another reasonable interpretation is that that she’s trying not to aggravate voters in her base for whom immigration reform is the single issue on which they vote. Their position is in essence one of open borders.
As I’ve said here before I think that Trump is an egomaniacal dope.
Alex Tabarrok does not believe recent immigrants should enjoy all of the rights of existing citizens. He has specifically stated that their welfare benefits, particularly health-care, need not be available to immigrants or can be delayed for a period of years. Let’s cue Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
Some rights (economic) or more important than others (life and health).
But what about voting rights? A quick google doesn’t confirm my impression that Alex supports restricting voting rights for immigrants, at least for a period, as does fellow-traveler Bryan Kaplan, who goes so far as non-enfranchising non-immigrating descendents. Obviously there is an uncomfortable issue here. On the one hand, Alex wants people to vote with their feet, but enfranchised, they may vote for a whole range of policies that they were promised in their original country. They didn’t learn good policy from leaving, at best they learned what is bad policy, often based on the simple fact that promises were made that weren’t delivered. On the other hand, if the concept of voting with one’s feet has any salience, why can’t their feet vote or their future children’s feet?
Alex signed on to the Open Borders Statement that argued that “Border controls should be minimised to only the extent required to protect public health and security.” So governments can prevent immigration of those that test H.I.V. positive and are not cleared by their national security apparatus.
It’s puzzling, PD. If you believe in abolishing borders, you necessarily believe that all voting should be at large.
@michael:
Which combinations of drugs and alcohol are you enjoying this evening, michael?
For those of you who don’t like OTB anymore, you may want to scan the comments.
That appears to me to be a formula for increased immigration with the immigrants deciding who will be allowed to stay in the country which is inconsistent with your stated views.
First, that’s your inference based on, again, blather on a campaign site. But let’s accept your inference.
You’re assuming that I believe illegal immigration is a big problem (I don’t) and that I want less of same (I’m largely indifferent). My position is that we have a right to control our borders and to decide who gets in and who doesn’t. Hillary agrees. As to immigrants deciding to let in more immigrants, you’re assuming every fresh Mexican to swim the Rio Grande wants another 10 to follow, and I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. We’re a nation of immigrants who have at various times had no objection to locking the door behind themselves.
If we want fewer undocs it’s really not hard: national ID card, e-verify for all jobs, serious penalties for employers who violate. Mexicans and Central Americans come for jobs. No jobs = no one wading the river. Hillary is calling for comprehensive immigration reform which in just about every version I’ve seen calls for e-verify.
That won’t stop 100% but it will seriously reduce the numbers which is a fine solution as far as I’m concerned. And it has the great advantage of being something we could actually do in the real world, as opposed to various Republican proposals to turn this country into Serbia.
That would be my approach. I think that fortifying the border is largely a waste of resources.
Serbia would be an improvement. The Serbs are shipping their illegals to Hungary as fast as they can, largely with the agreement of the illegals.
You know, PD, I’ve asked you and others repeatedly to explain why arresting and deporting 11 million men, women and children, many of whom have spent almost their entire lives peacefully working in this country, and all of whom are of one ethnic group, is not ethnic cleansing. But rather than do that you prefer to accuse me of being high or drunk.
It strikes me as unintentionally humorous. When you lose a fight I’m not quite sure why it’s helpful to allege your opponent was drunk. Isn’t the obvious conclusion that you’re unable to prevail even against a drunk?
But whatever, dude. If it makes you feel better to imagine me drunk, stoned and shooting heroin in my eyeballs, go for it.
Dave:
Yeah, in fact it’s really so easy and obvious one has to wonder why it hasn’t happened yet. Opposition from the Left? Hardly. That’s Chamber of Commerce work, there. The Republican establishment doesn’t really want to stop Mexicans coming across the border, all that wall-building, mass-deportation talk is just red meat to throw to the Tea Party types.
This scam’s been running forever, same as it ever was. Only now the yokels are waking up to the fact that they’re not really getting any of the presents the establishment keeps promising them. Proving, I suppose, that even the dumbest folks can see through a scam given several decades.
Hi Michael, nice to see you around here again.
A couple points:
First, I don’t think anyone knows what Hillary believes. I think even her supporters realize that a lot of her policy “evolutions” are calculated. Her voting record and policy statements on this topic are a mixed bag.
Secondly, this is not an immigration policy:
That’s actually naturalization policy – one that deals with what to do with the people who are already here. It doesn’t address future immigration, it doesn’t address people who aren’t interested in a “path to citizenship” (ie. economic migrants), much less details like how many people should be allowed in the country annually. But it does have a lot of nice sounding buzz phrases.
And to be fair, I don’t think the GoP is any more coherent. They seem to believe that building something akin to the Berlin Wall along our southern border is wise and necessary, but in reality it is just stupid.
Ethnic cleansing would mean getting rid of everyone of a certain ethnicity, or people of several ethnicities. Definitionally, it is about making a territory ethnically homogeneous. Trump, for all his faults, hasn’t proposed deporting everyone with Latin American ancestors. Not to mention Blacks, Asians, and whatnot. Therefore, it isn’t ethnic cleansing.
I’ve asked you and others repeatedly to explain why arresting and deporting 11 million men, women and children, many of whom have spent almost their entire lives peacefully working in this country, and all of whom are of one ethnic group, is not ethnic cleansing.
Alternately, it could be called enforcing the laws of the land. Hardly surprising you are opposed to that.
How is it possible to be in favor of borders while denouncing the enforcement of the borders?
And how can someone believe it is a heinous thing to use the process of deportation, but favor policies that would starve the people who choose not to leave the country?
I think the drug and alcohol references to @michael reynolds should cease. Even if they are meant as jests, they have been used to attack him, and even if he has admitted to having a problem past or present, it has no bearing on his argument. It is either logical or not.
(“Are you crazy?” “Have you lost your mind? “Are you stupid?” “You must be smoking crack.” “You must be high or drunk.” These may all be innocuous, but they can also be used as ad hominem attacks.)
I could list several perjoratives against @michael reynolds, but he is not that much different than his peer group.
Yes. Let’s discuss issues rather than persons.
The 11 million illegal aliens are not all Mexicans or hispanic. We have been assured that they are mostly people who have overstayed their visas. If so, it is a little difficult to call deporting 11 million people from diverse ethnicities “ethnic cleansing”. We have one nonsense idea being countered with another nonsense idea, and supposedly rational people taking both ideas as reasonable.
If @michael reynolds knows as much history he claims to know, he knows that what he is calling “ethnic cleansing” is no such thing. He is simply taking an “advocate’s license” (my creation) to extend the argument to the extreme, and he will extend any counter argument to its extreme end.
He will either force his opponent to cede ground or into an irrational positions, or his opponents could just quit.
Donald Trump is a businessman, and if he is as good a deal maker as he claims, he knows your starting position is your best position. You will not get anything better from what you initially propose. His opening bid is to deport all 11 million, and he will negotiate down from there. When he is finished, it is likely that the deal will be one that @michael reynolds likes more than the Trump supporters like.
The reason he does not have many specifics is because there are no specifics until the deal is completed. He may have some non-negotiable points, but most of it is flexible. He does not want to let the other side know what is flexible, and so, he cannot state specifics. Unlike politicians, his plans are opening bids, but few of his supporters or detractors understand this.
Tasty, are you a Trump supporter?
The average social progressive’s hyperbole, surrounding many social issue conversations, seems to be a reflexive tool applied to underline their ideological POVs. Oftentimes their “facts” and talking points are selected from only intellectually-approved leftist media (i.e. Media Matters, NYT/LAT, Slate, Salon) while other more moderate/conservative sources are viewed as tilting right and consequently devoid of substance.
That’s why the comment section @ OTB has become predictably boring, as it has devolved into an echo chamber of ultra liberal perspectives. Anyone who attempts to break through their spitballs, sarcasm aimed at political outsiders are pounced on and layered with “thumb’s down” rejections. The blog has actually turned into a “funny factory” of ditto heads on the left!
@jan
You should know I am for None of the Above. I think his tax policy is the best, and her foreign policy is to die for.
I do not think Trump understands politics from the inside. There is a lot more to it than deal making. The vast majority is managing egos and feeling, and it is not enough to put the right people in place.
He is tapping into the people who feel like they have been ignored, used, and abused. (I realize that they are not the only group that feels this way, and they may or may not be correct or the most correct.) He is using their prefered methods of “leveling the playing field” as his campaign rhetoric, but he will not be able to deliver what they think he can. He may be able to obtain forgiveness after the fact.
A politician would do something more like Bill Clinton. “I feel your pain.” Trump’s position is basically a variation of, “you’re fired.”
Being successful in one area does not guarantee success in another. The president does not negotiate deals, and anything that he may get any leader to agree to verbally will be subject to Byzantine legal language.
Governments are large bureaucratic nightmares, and there is not much real world experience to prepare you for political positions except previous political positions. Military officers, large established corporations, and maybe some large scale project managers have non-government experience for a US president. This does not mean that nobody else is qualified to do the job. A neurosurgeon may be be the best person.
Tasty, that was a diverse and diplomatic answer.
We are certainly, though, in a “different” era of candidates, especially those in the GOP field. Usually I feel the dems have the most exciting, unusual choices. However, this time around their bucket of candidates seem drab, boring and “unfit” for the job. The two top vote-getters are old, white people. And, the other three are mere placeholders with scant name ID and little going on for them.
At least on the other side of the aisle you have a variety of people with different skill sets, accomplishments, genders, cultural backgrounds, and temperaments to consider. Since you brought up Ben Carson, I think he is one of the most fascinating, ethical and plain-spoken ones of the group. When you compare him to HRC, she seems like a parody of deceit and ambition to his long resume of good works, successful run of 15,000 plus surgeries with a mere six malpractice suits clouding his professional record. The fact he is being so shrilly discredited by the chattering class at OTC, gives his quiet discourse more credibility, respect and a listening ease when considering his ideas. .
OTC —-> OTB
Tasty:
Thank you, but I should point out that I have if anything the opposite of the addictive personality: I can scarcely form a habit without soon rejecting it, let alone an actual addiction. If there’s a present danger to my self-control it is neither booze nor weed but Ben and Jerry’s. Magnum bars also not helpful. (Despite that sad weakness I’m at my lowest weight in something like 30 years.)
There is no authoritative definition of ethnic cleansing, the term only arose from the Yugoslav break-up and has been retroactively applied to past events like Turkish actions against the Armenians and our actions against the Cherokee, resulting in the Trail of Tears.
The rough-and-ready definition supplied by Google reads:
Other definitions I’ve found are essentially the same. You’ll note the term “unwanted.” Those other definitions, too, rest on the intentions of those in a position of power. Mass expulsion, unwanted ethnic group.
Of the anti-illegal sentiment out there on the Right, how much would you suspect is directed at Canadians living here illegally? How much directed at Europeans or Japanese who overstay their visas? Half a percent?
The hostility – the demand for laws to be enforced, ahem – is entirely directed at brown people, in particular Mexicans and Central Americans. The ostensible reason is that they “take our jobs.” Of course Indians and Chinese and various other immigrants also “take our jobs” and indeed take jobs Americans might actually want to do. As opposed to the jobs being done by undocs, which no one wants to do.
Yet, the hostility, the urgency, is all about brown people.
Is that just a desire to enforce laws? Of course not. The hostility is ethnic and political. We must build a wall because “those people don’t speak our language,” and “those people can’t assimilate like Europeans,” and “those people vote Democrat.”
What Trump and others in the GOP are talking about is removing large numbers of a particular ethnic group from society. They would move us from a condition of more brown people to fewer brown people. Their motive is not saving fruit-picking jobs for Americans but keeping this country and our culture from becoming more Hispanic. The Trump approach would require a massive ramping-up in the number of law enforcement officers and would result inevitably in every Hispanic person in the US being treated as a suspect.
We would of course need concentration camps. Now, before someone starts screeching about Auschwitz, note that I do not say death camps, but concentration camps. There is simply no other way to manage the process of arresting 11 million people.
I submit that a plan which grows out of ethnic hatred and contempt, and out of a hoped-for political advantage for the white GOP, and that requires a huge increase in police power, and would involve police violence on a large scale, and would require us to build and guard concentration camps, and would serve to intimidate all Hispanics regardless of legal status, is ethnic cleansing, a mass expulsion of an unwanted ethnic group.
@TastyBits, fair enough. FWIW, that was the only time I’ve referenced drugs or alcohol like that and it was simply a response to a comment that showed such poor judgment that their use would be mitigating. Admittedly this time I was more annoyed that I had just wasted my time writing a lengthy comment while the thread was being Godwin’d.
@michael reynolds
I used the “… even if he has admitted …” to caveat any actual usage. I did not want to fall into the, “let’s not be mean to the drunk by calling him a drunk” type of defense. I can barely keep track of my problems. I have one or two issues with you, and beating up Republicans, pushing for progressive causes, or overblown rhetoric are none of them.
If you are limiting yourself to the brown folks, you need to adjust your numbers. 11 million is supposed to be the total, and only a portion would be included. (The 11 million number seems like it should be adjusted at this point.) You are doing the opposite of what the other side does. By using the total, you all both conflate the numbers.
Ethnic cleansing goes back millennia. It takes several forms. The entire population can be slaughtered, and the land rendered useless – Rome / Carthage. The entire population can be slaughtered, and the land taken – ancient Israelites. All males or of military age slaughtered, and the women and children sold into slavery. The land can then be re-populated with your people. Entire populations can be uprooted – Cherokee as you noted. There are variations also.
It may have a new name, but it is not a new phenomenon.
Michael, I don’t know where you get your assumptions about people’s motivations for wanting border enforcement. I live in a red state in a town that has gone from nearly all white to almost 25% Latinos. The old timers aren’t exactly progressives, and there is still racial animus toward blacks but I don’t see that toward Latinos. What part of their culture do you think they are rejecting? Tacos? Quinceañera parties? Mariachi bands?
I really don’t know what percentage of the local conservatives are Trump supporters or hardliners on immigration, but to whatever extent that sentiment exists I don’t see any reason to suppose that it is based on race or cultural fears.
@PD Shaw
From what I saw, he was just being his usual over the top self. He did start a little down the “they came for the …” road, but it is really no different than any other slippery slope argument. I was informed that because I was advising people that they presently had nothing to fear from Russian nukes this makes me a traitor.
He is the equivalent of a Welsh soccer hooligan, but his sport is politics. Actually, the soccer hooligans would probably think twice before getting into it with him. As long as he is not shiving anybody with the racial crap or getting personal, I do not see the problem.
He is a writer, and he has a tendency to be melodramatic and overblown.
CStanley and Tasty:
The fact that people have committed similar acts down through history is no refutation.
The notion that this is nothing to do with ethnicity is laughable. You’d honestly have to be deaf, dumb, blind and thoroughly dishonest not to see it. Shall I dirty Dave’s site with any of a 100 or so links I can find to white Americans expressing contempt for Mexicans? Or are you prepared to concede that I can find them in abundance? You figure all those, “Speak English!” signs are about Quebecois speaking French?
A substantial portion of undocs are people from countries other than Mexico/Central America. Show me the many places that Trump has mentioned them. His rhetoric is entirely about Mexico. Who is it he keeps accusing of ripping us off? Who is it he denigrates as criminals and rapists? Who is it he says he’ll force to pay for his wall?
Answers: Not Canada. The only other group that comes up regularly is of course Muslims. The “wall” is about Mexicans and Muslims. The “deportation” ditto.
And neither of you, nor PD, has actually offered a refutation beyond, “You’re over-the-top, Michael.”
No, I’m not over-the-top, I just figure things out a bit quicker. Like when I said five years ago that the Tea Party faction was not about policy but nihilism and you all raged at me. You know who agrees with me now? John Boehner. Kevin McCarthy. Michael Steele. I think even Jeb is starting to get it.
None of you has bothered to give any thought to what Trump’s plan would actually mean on the ground. Did one of you bother to walk the concept forward and look at it in terms of police power? Costs, both direct and indirect? Did any of you get as far as recognizing that we would need massive holding facilities – concentration camps? Obviously not. When you have thought it through, you’ll do a Boehner and agree with me. Of course by then it’ll be conventional wisdom and thus safe enough for you to digest.
Did one of you take a look at this from the perspective of a 12 year old kid who came to this country at age six months and speaks only English, and has friends and a school and a life that Trump and the Republicans want to tear apart?
No, of course not. You’re self-satisfied white men who tell yourselves you’re being reasonable and discussing “policy.” Right. A policy that would involve American law enforcement dragging children out of their schools, parking them for months or years in a concentration camp, before forcing them into a country they’ve never known. Have any of you bothered to think about the effect on American standing as thousands of tragic scenes of cops physically tearing families apart are broadcast all over the world? Yes, let’s all discuss that in a calm, unemotional, not ‘over-the-top’ way.
Put it this way: Republicans who get hysterical at the prospect of background checks for guns because that would be “big government” are largely in favor of breaking up families, arresting children and pushing them into a strange country. Because: law. Right.
Before you decide to call me over-the-top, do me the favor of actually thinking through the real world effects of this policy. Because I have, and I’m right.
“but to whatever extent that sentiment exists I don’t see any reason to suppose that it is based on race or cultural fears.”
I could copy and paste some comments from my long running Tea Party email group. For a number of people, it is clearly based upon both.
Steve
You’re right, Michael. My experience living in a community of people, some of whom favor deportation, means nothing when there are people saying mean things on the internet.
I think in getting worked up you are missing the fact that none of us posting here favor deportation, and in fact think its stupid. But it’s no more likely to happen than any number of other policies that politicians feed as red meat to their bases, or that extremists salivate over on blogs. For a similar example with parties reversed, I happen to think that if Democrats were to push for gun confiscation, there would likely be bloodshed….but I have absolute confidence that no Democrat is going to push that far and so I don’t get in a lather over people musing about it and don’t feel the need to liken such people to evil monsters. I also don’t need to egg on other conservatives for a daily three minutes of hate against liberals by stoking fears that such things might happen.
For the record, I’m not a white man but you’re half right (wrong on gender.) I am probably to the left of everyone here, perhaps even you, on immigration. I can easily imagine the scenario you described of a boy here since 6 months of age, because that’s my son. We adopted him and brought him home from his birthplace in Guatemala at precisely that age, going through a legal process. I have too much compassion for the families and children who weren’t lucky enough to be born here, and parents who left a place where they couldn’t feed their children, couldn’t provide safe homes and education for them, to care whether or not our friends and acquaintances here have come legally or not.
At the same time, I acknowledge all of the points that Dave made in the post and I don’t know the answer. All of your blather about the focus on Mexico being racist is nonsense- the focus is there because the government of that country as well as Guatemala and El Salvador, have completely failed their citizens which led to a massive influx of economic refugees. If Canadians had faced those conditions in their homeland, they’d have flooded across and we’d have a lot of our citizens pissed off at them. I have no doubt there are racist people who hate Latinos, and also people who aren’t really that way but get angry and say nasty things. But again in my experience, in my community, this isn’t the majority.
@michael reynolds
I did not specifically address the topic. I addressed the number you used and the way you used it. You have now expanded it to include Muslims. Since September 12, 2001, we have been informed about the racist Americans taking revenge on innocent Muslims. I am still waiting for this to occur in some number above the average.
The logistics of physically shipping 11 million people to the Mexican border is silly. It is a Wile E. Coyote deportation scheme, and while it works great in cartoonland, it will work as great as running without falling. It ain’t gonna happen, and the majority of the elites calling for it are in it for the money or power. (Yeah, the right wing elites are just as hypocritical. None of the big mouths would live in the world they propose.)
All of this presupposes actually finding the 11 million illegals. Many of them will not be located for years if ever, or to locate them, the INS or some other law enforcement agency will need to start searching houses. Most of the identification schemes will require assuming everybody is guilty, and the right wing is usually complaining about government power.
Donald Trump specifically will begin negotiations with his opening bid being deporting everybody, and he will eventually work down to some type of work program probably without any path to citizenship. He is in the building industry. I doubt he is going to deport all his labor.
I have no illusions or delusions about what Trump is doing, and I have no doubt that a substantial number of his supporters want the non-white immigrants out. There are a number of them who would throw people into concentration camps, but a lot of them are just frustrated. As things get worse for most people, most people get less tolerant. You may be the exception, but it was FDR who had the Japanese rounded up and tossed into internment camps.
I also have no doubt that most of the non-racists, especially millennials, have little to no experience around lower income and poor people, and if they had to spend a majority of their time being a minority in a poor community of minorities, they would begin to change. I have seen it several times, and they will say the most racist things while calling other people racists.
My plan would be to lock up employers with the violent criminals, and any illegal who turned in their employer would get immediate citizenship for themselves, spouse, and children. I would build a wall and/or increase patrols.
Once this was completed, everybody in the country could be documented and issued a permanent visa, but felons could be deported at any time. After some time span (10, 15, or 20 years), they would be eligible for citizenship. I would propose a 20 year period starting when they arrived, but that would also be the time fines would start.
I would cut down on H1B visas, and the guest worker program would be reworked. None of this makes much difference in the financialized economy, but nobody cares about what would work anyway.
The Tea Party was never a political party. If it were, it would have been the Tea Party Party. It was brought together by fiscal concerns, and the bank bailouts begun by that progressive black president George W Bush is what got it started. He is a wily one that GWB. You cannot trust those black folks. They pretend to be white just so they can piss off white people.
Attempts to co-opt the Tea Party were begun as soon as it began. In my opinion, one of the most egregious was Dick Armey. It was his shithead bill that allowed the whole mess to begin, but like everybody else that decries Keynesian economics, the Tea Party has no understanding of sound vs unsound money.
The Republican Party is presently in turmoil. Good riddance, I say. They started with the ending of the Whigs, and they can go the same way. The Democrats can follow.
In addition to being a traitor (somebody else’s accusation), I can add to the list “self-satisfied white man”, but I am not really known for spouting the conventional wisdom. Usually, I have been accused of taking the contrarian position just to be a pain in the ass.
Like the soccer hooligans, you think it is all about winning and losing on the playing field. I thought you had more sense. This is simply one more bit of nonsense to keep you distracted while the grownups conduct business. It is all an illusion. This illegal immigration nonsense has been going on for how long?
The Republicans are supposed to be all about laws, security, and according to you racism, but when they had all the House and Senate under President Bush, they somehow conveniently forgot to establish the concentration camps. After 9/11, Republicans had to decide whether they wanted greater security against terrorists smuggling nuclear bombs across the border or having more low wage and less troublesome workers, and they picked their income over their safety.
You might think you are playing the game, but in reality, you are being played.
Michael,
Since you keep repeating the theme, I’ll take your challenge and answer the question: “why arresting and deporting 11 million men, women and children, many of whom have spent almost their entire lives peacefully working in this country, and all of whom are of one ethnic group, is not ethnic cleansing.”
First of all, you’re factually incorrect – all 11 million people aren’t from one ethnic group unless, you define what you called “brown” people to be an ethnic group.
Secondly, I think the foray into the debate that deportation of illegals – ethnic cleansing is facetious and rhetorical on your part, but I’ll play along.
Despite the lack of a codified legal definition, the authoritative definitions (from the UN and US Govt) have the same key elements. As a preamble to those elements, here are a couple of definitions:
“The planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogeneous.”
“A purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”
There are more, but all have the same elements (using the ends-ways-means construct) :
The ends: Removal of a specific ethnic group from a specific geographic area.
The ways: Violence, force or intimidation, but not extermination (extermination would be genocide – violent forcible removal is ethnic cleansing).
The means: The act is carried out by the organized action of a coherent political community (ie. it’s a group effort, not just a collection of random individuals).
The deportation of all 11 million illegal immigrants doesn’t meet those elements. It’s not intended to remove a specific ethnic group. Now, if the policy was to remove the 35 million Americans of Mexican descent then you’d have an argument. You could even say that FDR’s Mexican Repatriation in the early 1930’s was ethnic cleansing, but deporting illegal aliens doesn’t meet the definition.
Consider the implications of what you’re suggesting – if it is ethnic cleansing, then deporting Mexicans is a de facto war crime, one step removed from genocide.
But I bet you know all this since, after all, language is your profession….