In theory, I am committed to the idea of federalism and limiting the power of the federal government. It seems, in theory, like political power should be devolved away from the federal government and sent back to the several states. The Tenth Amendment rather strongly suggests this; I have both theoretical and practical objections to the expansive reading of the commerce clause that prevails in modern jurisprudence; I understand very well the idea that state legislators, representing smaller and more focused constituencies, are likely to be more responsive to voter concerns than federal legislators are.
That sort of thing sounds great in theory until you get a look at the sorts of things that this process actually produces. When a political joke made in admittedly bad taste becomes reality, that seems to me to be a signal that something might be seriously wrong.
You see, I occasionally make jokes at the expense of those who would modify immigration policy to be more restrictive and punitive (which is going in the wrong direction in my opinion). I call such people “moatdiggers,” and my standard off-the-cuff and joke about them is that some of them will not be satisfied until the law authorizes the shooting of illegal immigrants for sport.
I mean this as an exaggeration, an obvious moral outrage meant to point out that when we debate immigration policy we are discussing the fates of human beings and that the note of cruelty that infiltrates the debate is inappropriate. But it seems that at least one state legislator believes it to be a serious policy proposal worthy of consideration and debate. Wow.
Me, I’d rather that these people registered with the government, got them signed up as taxpayers, and got them participating in and contributing to the economy. If they prove their economic value to the nation, in so doing, we should welcome them and eventually offer them citizenship. Existing policy drives these same people into the underground economy, teaches them to fear and disrespect the law, and eschews the receipt of taxes in exchange for the inevitable consumption of social and governmental services that their presence here requires. But Representative Peck would take it further and literally shoot human beings dead while hovering over them in a helicopter. If that’s what “just speaking like a southeast Kansas person” means in terms of policy proposals, southeast Kansas ought to be ashamed of itself. Hat Tip.
This is something of a tangent, but I think the reason America is so rife with “moatdiggers” (great term, by the way) is due to a variety of factors, xenophobia not the least of them. However, there’s also the economics to consider.
After all, if we as a nation continue to treat illegal immigrants as a pestilence and a nuisance, we can continue to pay them a pittance to wash our dishes and pick our strawberries and do all the other jobs “real Americans” claim to want but don’t really. If we acknowledge that these are actual human beings and try to treat them as such, allowing them to step into the sunlight and participate in our vaunted society, then we’ll also have to start paying them a fair wage, which means no more cheap lettuce at Kroger or housecleaning on a budget.
No, far better that we make appalling “jokes” and blame them for all manner of America’s ills while simultaneously allowing them to “steal” all the jobs our citizens wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot toilet scrubber.
Dan: Don’t forget how much money the farmer saves by not having to pay health insurance, not having to pay pensions or make retirement contributions, not having to stop work once everyone hits eight hours, not having to make sure that port-a-potties are provided…
I get what you’re saying, but I still favor federalization. I may disagree with the Arizona law, and it should be held to the same Constitutional standards as any, but to assume that Arizona can’t be trusted to make decisions about Arizona is to assume that the federal government is to be trusted to make decisions for everywhere. So while California and Montana decide that medicinal marijuana should be permitted, the DEA comes in and busts the storefronts for drug trafficking. I can’t defend Montana and California without also defending Arizona (not their decision, but their right to make it), so I’ll take the whole lot.
If my local laws become intolerable, I can leave. But without a semblance of local control, I had better hope that 51% of congress and the president agree with me, because I have nowhere to go.
Dan, I think you’re conflating two groups. While I’m sure that there are some people that hire immigrants of dubious legality and hate them, most of the harshest anti-immigrant fervor comes from those that generally can’t afford to hire illegal immigrants. In my experience, anyway.
My mother has some pretty unfortunate views on race, but she has (shockingly) come to the defense of immigrant workers. She doesn’t knowingly hire them, though she suspects that the company she hires to take care of her yards might be. But she knows that they come, they work hard, an so on.
My aunt, on the other hand, is a bus-driver (with similarly unfortunate views on race). The kind of person that can’t afford a yardman (much less yardmen), a maid, or anything like that. Get her talking about immigrants, and it’s an entirely different story.
Which goes to show that I do think that you might be correct that exposure would lead to more tolerance. But I kind of cringe when I hear people talk about bad people hiring illegal immigrants on one hand and then bashing them with the other when as often as not you’re looking at two different groups. Ask my aunt what she thinks of people that hire illegal immigrants, her response will not be flattering and will not give the employers any benefit of the doubt.
I don’t really have an argument with you. I think our national views on race and immigration are variegated, and people are motivated by myriad pressures, perceptions and prejudices.
My point isn’t so much about particular people as our national attitudes about immigrants as a whole. They are both a handy scapegoat and an important part of our low-cost service industry. I think our collective need for the former in some way contributes to the former (though not necessarily on an individual level), and certainly complicates it.