Trust is something that must be earned over time, not simply bestowed upon request — whether it involves your family life, or the adoption of a new national immigration policy.
I’m at the age in life when I’m thinking seriously about retirement.
I’ve been saving my money for the past thirty years with an eye toward the day when I’ll start making withdrawals from that big pot of money instead of the painful annual contributions I now make every April 15 to reduce my overall tax burden. So it wasn’t much of a surprise to my wife that I started fiddling last month with the various IRAs, SEPS, 403(b)s and other savings instruments we’ve employed to bring a final sense of order to the somewhat ad hoc way I’ve approached this subject to date.
To move a small IRA in my wife’s name to a bigger mutual fund I contacted the company holding these funds and was promptly informed that she, not I, would have to authorize the transaction. I gave the woman my wife’s cell phone number and told her to call her, and just tell my wife to “say yes.” She did, my wife did, and I thought nothing more about it until my wife returned home later that day.
My wife said that she and the woman talked for a half hour. The woman did exactly as I requested — request that she “say yes” with no further details — and my wife did exactly as I knew she would — say “yes” with no further request for details. The woman was shocked. “Don’t you want to know what I’m calling about?” No. “This involves your retirement funds. Don’t you want to know what’s going to happen to your money?” No. “Why not!” the woman was still incredulous. “Because,” my wife answered, “I trust my husband.”
I hadn’t thought much about the issue of trust between my wife and myself until that day. For all of our 30+ years of marriage it’s never been an issue. I’ve had dinner with female acquaintances just as my wife has had with male acquaintances with never a doubt about either one’s fidelity. If I, or she, had to work late or weekends, there was never any paranoia about what was really going on. The only time we ever hid money from each other was to carve out a few bucks a week from our normal budget to surprise the other with a gift of some sort. So it was nothing for my wife to agree to a request I made to change her retirement funds without knowing any of the details, just as I simply pay the monthly bills without looking at details of the credit card she routinely uses.
It’s all about trust. This is why our marriage works despite the battle of wills that routinely takes place over a variety of other issues, much like you’ll find in any normal household with an overly-opinionated male and a feisty Sicilian female. We have absolute trust on the fundamentals of life, even though living it can produce some rather dramatic (and loud) moments.
Which, of course, brings me to the subject of immigration. I’ve listened to a number of reasons being bandied around about why the American public is exorcised over the proposed new immigration legislation. I reject the simple-minded racist and xenophobic slurs that fail to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, and between amnesty for lawbreakers and a desire to reward only those who play by the original rules. As the son of an immigrant myself (my mother was not born in the United States), I welcome legal immigrants to our shores. But as the son of a legal immigrant who later became a naturalized U.S. citizen, I’m completely opposed to giving a break to those who took it upon themselves to make their own rules and sneak into this country or overstay their visas. This doesn’t make me a discriminator. It simply makes me discriminating on the side of right vs. wrong.
I’ve heard the arguments about the need for a guest worker program, and some of these arguments may hold water. That is, after we re-introduce order into the system and punish violators (corporate and individual) who abused the earlier system. I’ve also heard that this will in fact be part of the proposed new bill, along with more border security and enforcement — including building the fence that was previously authorized but not constructed. All this reminds me of the Three Big Lies in Life: Let’s have lunch, the check is in the mail, and the third involves a promise not to bring a certain sex act to fruition that decorum prevents me from repeating here. Now we can add a fourth — “trust me on the border; we’ll do the right thing.”
Trust, however, is something that arises first from a system of shared values, and then following this must be earned over time, not simply bestowed upon request. If I had a history of using my wife’s IRA to play the ponies, I doubt seriously that she would have given blanket approval to any decision I made about managing these funds. Since Hillary has already conditioned us to believe that we’re all part of one big village, and that government officials are just like the heads of our own family, then logic (if not self-preservation) requires me to apply the same standards of trust to Washington’s requests that my wife and I apply to each other’s.
When politicians show me they can be trusted, I’ll trust them to keep their word. I don’t need 30+ years to do this. A year or two would work just fine; say, something like announcing in 2006, and then authorizing in 2006, that 700 miles of new fencing would be built along our borders, and then completing more than 3 miles over the next 18 months. I’m not an idiot, and neither are the majority of other Americans who see through this charade. I’m in no mood to give Congress a blank check on changing immigration policy based on the promise that this time they really, really, really are serious about border security, unlike 2006 when they were just really, really serious.
Reagan said it best when he was making deals with the old Soviet Union. Trust, But Verify. Unfortunately for us, when dealing with our own government, the watchword today is Verify, Then Trust.
Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
http://www.scifi-jackson.com/
Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson
They don't even need to build the fence. They could start by just enforcing existing laws. What's the point in passing more laws that everyone knows will not get enforced? Eyewash?
Comment by sedonaman | June 15, 2007
I agree with your trust analogy!
Trust could be demonstrated by setting objective criteria:
1. Border Security; say a very modest requirement that the border is considered secured when illegal flow is reduced by 90% over the equivalent month of the previous year for a 6 consecutive month period with the calibration period restarting if any month fails to achieve the 90% number (a really effective criteria would be more like 99% but government bumblers would have trouble computing anything not in round %). In addition this "trigger" should not allow ANY amnesty/regularization until this and other listed criteria are met.
2. National biometric ID establishment. When at least 98% of our citizens and legal residents have received their ID and a usable database has been established which incorporates SSA and IRS records with all hiring nationwide required to use the database and obtain copies of the ID.
3. Proof that employers are being reviewed for conformance with hiring of legal workers. Proof of this one could be done by changing IRS forms to incorporate a statement that all employees of this filer and subcontractors working for the filer are allowed to work in the US, and making it a felony with confiscation of assets for falsification of this statement.
I suspect that these triggers will be controversial but they are not onerous. We will then consider, on a case by case basis, any requests to jump the immigration line.
Take the pledge, I have:
I will vote for the opponent of any elected official voting for any form of legislation or proclamation offering illegal aliens sanctuary, any form of taxpayer funded benefits including tax funded contributions to organizations offering benefits to illegal aliens, police no ask policy, day worker centers, legal services, amnesty, earned citizenship, parole, or other politically correct name for amnesty UNLESS the opponent also voted for the bill or proclamation THEN I will vote for a write-in candidate.
Comment by Mickey G | June 15, 2007
Mickey G:
I'll bet the ACLU would have a lot of fun with Number 2.
Comment by sedonaman | June 15, 2007
I have to go with Sedonaman on this issue, or, not to be presumptuous, my interpretation of his comments. After almost 40 years in business, the “let’s have the business community enforce the law” approach leaves a lot to be desired from my particular knothole.
Any employer with more than a few employees knows what happens with these ideas: a plethora of federal/state/local agencies descend on you with forms to complete and written warnings demanding compliance and audit procedures, and etc. and more etc. That’s what government does, that’s all the government ever does and that’s what the problem is.
I know, I know, the various amateur plan designers mean the business community is only part of the solution, the government must also do the enforcement to make it work. What if we turned the question around and asked: What if the government first does some enforcement, just to prove they still know how and then we re-evaluate the problem? Would that be so bad?
Here in California, everyone knows who the illegals are and where they are. On any given day, just look around, get your car washed, swerve to avoid hitting an illegal doing landscaping next to the road, check out the housing developments and see who is replacing their roofs or having their sprinklers installed. Does no one know who the illegals are or where they can be found? Everyone knows.
Now, look around for the government enforcing the existing laws. Do you see any federal immigration officers, even in the donut shops? Do you see ugly buses painted gray or blue with wire over their windows, full of illegals heading south on I-5? And, if you don’t see that now, does that mean that once the new “blame the business guy” law passes, you will suddenly see enforcement?
When Senator Feinstein is giving a media interview in L.A. or San Diego, shout out a question such as: “Senator Feinstein, which do you hate more, knowing that many of the servants in your hotel are illegal immigrants or having to tip them?” The correct answer is having to tip them, but the good Senator will patiently explain that she specializes in legislation, enforcement is not her responsibility. Of course, she deplores anyone entering the country illegally or entering legally but staying on illegally. Right on, as my generation used to say, we all deplore that. But, if a United States Senator is powerless to enforce the law and still has to tip the illegals, what can a businessman do about enforcement?
I’m sure that sounds flippant, but the reality is the government is about pushing paper around their desks, including the law enforcement personnel, and going home promptly after an 8 hour shift. The local media here broke down into hysterics after the last raid on illegals, about 10 illegals were nabbed (and they’re probably back on the job) and that was several months ago. Hasn’t been a raid since in a state with over 2 million illegals.
We’ve lost something indefinable within this country, the will to take action and actually solve problems on the part of the government. We’re like fishermen; constantly discussing the best bait, techniques, ideal weather conditions, locales, rods and tackle, etc. But, to catch a fish, sooner or later you have to drop your line in the water. To paraphrase Phillip Jackson: Action, then trust.
Comment by Pat Skurka | June 15, 2007
Pat:
My own personal preference would be for the government to look first to the big corporations that routinely, and knowingly, hire illegals, and penalize them — i.e. the Tyson Chickens of the world. This would need to be accompanied by an augmented ID program of some sort so the business community isn’t solely responsible for verifying citizenship. But having said this, there’s enough in play already to make the system work. An illegal with a fake SSI number would have money deducted from his paycheck and sent to Washington, but it would be known rather quickly that the number is a fraud, and therefore the person attached to that number is illegal.
Make it so an employer has no incentive to just let this condition slide and you’ll start to send a message to the illegals that there’s a new paradigm in place. Then use this attitude shift to extend normal enforcement to other businesses, and pretty soon the gravy train will start to dry up. Illegals will stop coming across the border in hordes, and employers will stop playing a deliberate shell game by hiring under the table or otherwise dubious employees.
The new day starts with an attitude change that will have a profound impact on the present problem. What remains will be the hard core illegals who will be fewer in number, and able to be targeted more effectively. Combine all of this with a physical barrier that makes it less likely someone can cross the border at will, and pretty soon the problem will be fully manageable.
It all starts with trust, though. Trust that the government is serious; trust that there are real deterrents and consequences to breaking the law; trust that when the government makes a promise that 5 things will be done, all five will be put in place — not just the easy ones or only the ones the government really likes vs. what they were “forced” to agree to to get a bill passed.
This trust must be earned again, and there’s no better way to demonstrate that trust today than by dealing with border security first. After that, everything else is a detail.
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 15, 2007
Very well said.
Comment by PatrickW | June 15, 2007
Securing the borders at this point, even if a simple fence were capable of such, would be like buying an alarm after your car has already been stolen. Border security first is great and all, but the rest is much more than a "detail". As I've mentioned numerous times in comments, and in a recent article here, 40% of the people in the U.S. illegally never sneaked across the border. They came across with no fear of reprisal, because they came in legally! Since we have no system currently in place to keep track of who leaves the country, we have almost no way of knowing when visa overstays occur. All of the 9/11 hijackers who were here illegally were on visa overstays. No fence on either border would have kept them out. There's already a multi-level database in place (including Social Security data) called the Employment Eligibility Verification basic pilot program that is fully operational, fully funded, requires no new legislation, no new bureaucracy and no compromise legislation. If it were made mandatory and used by more than 1% of employers as it is presently, it would make it nearly impossible to be employed as an illegal alien. Making the program mandatory and giving employers a grace period of between 1 and 3 years to verify the work eligibility of all of their employees, you could cut the illegal population by probably 70% or more. And the great thing about people with no jobs is that they don't need to be forcibly rounded up in Nazi style raids and thrown over the border - or massacred, if you prefer Michael Chertoff's language - they will be inclined to leave. And those who would come in the future will be less inclined to do so without the prospect of an American job waiting for them. The border-security only mentality is far too narrow minded and narrow in scope. We need to ensure that even those who are capable of climbing over an 8 foot corrugated metal wall with everything but a ladder pre-included (the savior of American sovereignty, the fence that everyone is so jacked about, wouldn't even feature barbed wire, and would be one level thick so as to prevent injury to anyone sneaking over them. Minimum security prisons feature far more advanced fencing systems), are incapable of getting employed or receiving welfare when they get here so that their incentive for coming is destroyed. And we need to punish employers so that their incentive for hiring them is destroyed. To say that it is unreasonable to expect employers to verify the eligibility of their employees to legally work in the United States because that is the government's responsibility is absurd. It's akin to saying that it's unreasonable to expect companies to comply with accounting standards because that's what the SEC is there for. It is already illegal to knowingly hire illegal aliens to work anyway, so all that such a program would do is make it easier for companies to comply with a law that is already in effect! Instead of thinking, "the government is making more work for me" think, "the government is providing me with a program that may keep me out of federal prison". I guess my business college must be quite unique - we are required to take entire courses on business ethics. And business law.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | June 15, 2007
Pat, Phil:
Several points have been missing from the whole illegal immigration debate:
1) After a career in the government (DOD), I will wager that the reason existing laws are not enforced is because the responsible agencies are insufficiently funded to do their job as it exists now. That is one reason why passing more laws will be a useless gesture. Why is this the case? Because an agency's funding is based on the number of employees it has, and not its workload. (Congress probably doesn't realize this.) The only possible (though not assured) way around this is for Congress to put the funding in place whenever it passes a new law and to authorize additional personnel.
2) Attempting to punish "the Tysons Chickens of the world" won't work because there's no doubt a lot of heavy lobbying by them on both political parties.
Comment by sedonaman | June 16, 2007
Bottom line is employers given the easy out and minimal penalties for hiring illegals will continue to hire illegals! Employers need some skin in the game and confiscation is about the only way they will listen. The day we start saying the government can do anything on immigration right is the day that we have been turned fully into a 3rd world country.
Comment by Mickey G | June 16, 2007
Sedonaman:
I agree with your points, but not necessarily your conclusion. We can overcome point #1 with sufficient funding and political will, just like we began the process of dramatically increasing our military capabilities in 1942 vs. 1941. As for point #2, I agree that The Tysons of the world will use everything in their power to resist (I worked for Cassidy and Associates on the Hill for 3 years, the largest lobbying firm in DC). But again, this too can be overcome with the proper political will. There's nothing like an election or two built around an issue like border security to help change the political landscape.
We can't solve the illegal immigration problem entirely by government actions (i.e. a fence), but this type of action nevertheless helps set the proper tone (as well as making illegal entry into the country more difficult). In this I agree completely with Micky G's statement, though maybe something short of confiscation will do just as well. Very heavy fines and jail time can be equally strong incentives. "Employers need some skin in the game and confiscation is about the only way they will listen. The day we start saying the government can do anything on immigration right is the day that we have been turned fully into a 3rd world country."
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 16, 2007
This is Nuts! This discussion has gone on long enough. They live in another country. They cross our borders illegally and we are not even supposed to refer to them as “Illegal Aliens”. The time for talk is over. It’s time to demand action from our elected officials who are responsible for protecting our borders and enforcing the CURRENT LAWS on the books.
A Fence? Are you kidding? When I was nine years old I could climb any fence in the neighborhood (and onto the roofs of most of the buildings – ok I’m obviously a city raised kid). I don’t know what the best approach might be but my gut tells me a fence would bring a good deal of laughter from south of the border.
Comment by cmmcginnis | June 16, 2007
Patrick:
My "detail" comment wasn't intended to be dismissive, just to say that without trust anything the government proposes is irrelevant. I'm not sure that we need an entirely new system of laws either — just better enforcement of current ones, plus some way to make it difficult for people to arbitrarily cross the border. A burglar will pass up a locked door if the neighborhood is full of unlocked doors; many toll toads have gates that rise only after the 50 cents is paid by the motorist, etc. Neither a locked door nor toll gate will deter a serious criminal, but both cut down dramatically on casual home invasion by curious teenagers and/or scofflaw toll-dodging.
More than the government is involved in this calculation, though a lot of our present problems flow from government inaction or outright duplicity on this matter. I submit that the attitude today of the average illegal immigrant is that “anything goes”, so we need to start with changing this attitude. Then we begin to focus on those who overstay their visas. You and I both spoke about how the present SSI system can be used to deny illegals (those crossing the border or overstaying visas) employment. The vast majority of these people will need to work, so just enforcing this mechanism will pay tremendous dividends.
But it all starts with a national attitude shift. Change the American people’s attitude about what the government will/won’t do by addressing the issue of trust; change the business community’s attitude about illegals by making it unattractive (or painful) to hire them; change the attitude of the illegals about sneaking into the US or overstaying their visas by closing the open door, and the rest of what we do (new, or just following present law), is a detail.
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 16, 2007
Phil:
Thanks for your response. In your comments to Patrick, you said, "You and I both spoke about how the present SSI system can be used to deny illegals (those crossing the border or overstaying visas) employment." I'm not sure how SSI can do this. SSI is a program to provide income to those over 65 who have very limited assets and basically no income http://www.ssa.gov/notices/supplemental-security-income/text-eligibility-ussi.htm.
Comment by sedonaman | June 16, 2007
Sedona — Saying "SSI system" was a shorthand for the assignment of a social security number and the collection of funds per paycheck to support it, not a reference to the programs coming from the SSI Act. Each person theoretically is matched to a valid SSI number. When the funds from a given paycheck flow to Washington they are matched against that account. If the SSI number is a fake (ie. it either doesn't exist, belongs to a dead person, or two or more people have the same active account), the fradulence could be known at that point — then the illegal is arrested. If I'm not mistaken, an employer would probably know this almost immediately from the SSI administration accounting system feedback. If they continue to keep that illegal employed, they should be penalized (stiff fines and/or incarceration). If they allow the same person to come back later with a new number, they should be penalized, etc.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 16, 2007
Phil, Patrick Mulligan:
There is nothing wrong with your logic, but there is a fundamental flaw in all these various plans and the business community will get stuck with the problem created by that flaw. The different plans I have read always contain two components: a border security aspect to prevent a constant flow of additional illegals and an identification aspect to find those already here.
But, whether you use a national database employee registry, social security data, national ID cards, harsh employer penalties, snitch reward programs, etc., I haven’t read what happens if these plans actually work. Normally, there is either a sketchy overview or a highly detailed plan describing exactly how the illegals will be identified. But then what happens? Most of these plans come back with a vague assertion that “then they’ll leave America and go back where they came from.”
The fundamental flaw is that they won’t leave America and go back where they came from – and, what’s worse, we won’t let them. Let’s assume the following scenario to test my argument. Juan and Jose are apprehended at a job site using one of the new illegal worker identification programs; the Feds then lead them off for deportation back to Mexico. Five minutes later, a Channel 5 News van arrives in Richmond, California and out pops cosmetically enhanced, blonde Melinda Cutee to interview Jose’s wife. Maria, Jose’s wife, is visibly pregnant and has two children in tow. Tearfully, she explains to Melinda in broken English that she has no money, Jose supports the family with his construction job and all her close relatives are back in Mexico.
Melinda is thinking to herself: “This is great stuff. Next, we’ll show her cute 5 year old, he was born in this country and obviously her next child will be also if we don’t deport her first. I’ll let the audience chew on those facts while gazing at that child’s angelic face.” Do you still want to deport Jose?
Californians are obsessed with avoiding confrontations that involve strong emotions so our version of that same scenario is we only fire Juan and Jose and levy a $10,000 fine against the employer – as a warning not to exploit anymore illegals, you greedy businessman. In the California plan, there is no tearful Maria; Jose gets fired but not deported – heck, we even pardon Juan for good measure and everyone gets to hiss the black-hearted business guy.
Phil, I don’t believe you are a racist, xenophobic person who hates Mexicans, far from it. If you’ll pardon the presumption since I don’t know you personally, from your writing you seem an intelligent, decent and compassionate individual. But, your plan would have a much better chance of working if you were a xenophobic racist. You know the media will make mincemeat out of any politician who deports Jose leaving Maria stranded with two kids and one on the way. Americans won’t tolerate bullying a mother with children and any threat to a child leaves us so incoherent with rage we temporarily lose control – you can’t interview a fetus, but if you could, abortion would cease immediately. Do you still want to deport Jose?
The forced evacuation of millions of people will involve strong emotions, regardless of how computerized or high tech we make the process. And, it will put the politicians in an impossible position; either the media will crucify them or they offer amnesty for anyone with a clean record and a family, which will anger their constituents who don’t want millions of illegal immigrants in our country.
My point was not to “initially” make business people the official scapegoats for the problem, which I’m sure the politicians are secretly contemplating. The government has the authority currently to deport illegals, why not test the emotional resolve of the American public first? When the media goes to work on our heart strings with the first batch of deportees, will we remain steadfast in our resolve? Or, will we look, as Californians are prone to do, for a no-fuss, no-muss plan that avoids guilt and remorse, but hasn’t a chance of working. Common sense tells us the long term results of blanket amnesty are continuing waves of illegals, but if we really want a plan that works we’re in for a rough ride in the short term.
Comment by Pat Skurka | June 16, 2007
"I haven’t read what happens if these plans actually work."
Pat:
What happens is the ACLU will stop anything that works. They got their start as a result of the Palmer Raids (google) c. 1919.
Comment by sedonaman | June 16, 2007
Pat —
A couple of points. First, if the climate is changed, a lot of the illegals will “deport themselves” because there would be no work for undocumented aliens. Part of the climate change is to make it physically harder for people to get in the country. The other is to discourage employers from hiring undocumented workers. If it was just the rare example of an illegal alien being accidentally hired, this wouldn’t be an issue. But unfortunately many major corporations not only deliberately look the other way, they actively encourage illegals to apply. They can pay them less money or fewer benefits by paying them under the table. Cut this off by holding employers more accountable than they are today and you’ll see an attitude change begin to sweep through corporate America. From this foundation smaller employers will also begin to get the same message, with equal results. The key is a serious application of the law for serious offenders, paving the way for a other less-egregious offenders to get the same message.
Even with this, there will still be a residual element that remains within the US that may have to be deported, and yes it will be politically difficult to do so today. But things have a way of turning on a dime. On September 10, 2001 Alan Dershowitz wasn’t talking about issuing “torture warrants” to authorize the government to beat information out of suspected terrorists. And yet three weeks later he was leading this charge. All it will take is another domestic terrorist attack to change the climate again. In the meantime, we can begin to address some of the mechanics of increased border security, such as making it physically more difficult for people to simply walk into this country.
Nothing is going to happen, though, unless elected officials get serious about these issues. It will take more than their words of support or passage of legislation that is never implemented. The public, through the electoral process, must hold them accountable, and punish (i.e. not elect, or re-elect, or support in primary battles) those politicians who don’t hold a similar commitment to doing the right thing. Success, therefore, will not happen over night; but neither must it take 20 years. We can see real progress toward changing the paradigm in less than two years, and measurable progress in less than 5. That will leave only the hard core offenders (both the illegals and those who enable them), and they can be addressed on an individual basis the way anyone who violates our laws should be.
Again, I say “should be”, because all this is about changing the way we do business, beginning with rebuilding public trust in our elected officials. Don’t judge what is possible by what is possible TODAY, any more than allow me or anyone else to offer pie in the sky solutions to real world problems. If my solution was to just pretend the illegals were really legal and only start getting tough with the new ones, or on the opposite extreme, advocating concentration camp sweeps of the general population to hunt down all illegals, you’d be correct in discounting my solutions. But physically strengthening our borders, while at the same time disincentivising lawbreakers from continuing their actions, falls well within the realm of the possible. That possibility is greatly enhanced once we elect officials who are serious about addressing the issue, which ultimately brings all this back to the central theme of my article — Verify, Then Trust.
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 16, 2007
Phil, you're right on here, as are Sedonaman and most of the others offering comments.
For me to trust someone, they must first prove themselves trustworthy. This is not a difficult concept, but an amazing number of people seem to think it is judgemental and harsh - even "un-Christian." Perhaps those who like to pull Christianity into the fray and insist that we reverse the order (trust first, verify later) have never read or understood the implications of Proverbs 26:10 where it says "Like an archer who wounds at random is he who hires a fool or any passer-by."
Think about that for a minute. It's pretty profound, and directly applicable to the issue of whether we trust without first insuring that the object of our trust is worthy of it. The potential results are like something straight out of The Three Stooges.
Perhaps the best advice I ever received regarding interviewing job candidates was simply the practical application of that Bible verse: to look at past perfomance, not future promises. Past performance is the single biggest determinant of future behavior. And the older I get, the more I realize that this axiom is rarely wrong. If it is true for humans in general, it is doubly true for politicians.
The problem I have with passing yet another bill is that legislators don't have to worry about implementation or enforcement or funding or all the other "devil is in the details" nuts and bolts. They'll just do what they always do: preen for the cameras, lust for more votes, and then piously cry, "we did what we could do…we passed a law!" I would prefer that they deal with the funding/enforcement side of the issue rather than adding to the Federal Code. As far as I can tell, we have adequate laws already, we simply lack the spine and funding and coordinated effort to enforce what is already on the books.
What we have here is really no different than the occasional plumbing problem in my house when a drain gets clogged. I have to deal with two things simultaneously: First, make sure I'm not adding to the problem by turning off the spigot. Then, dealing with the drain.
We DO need a fence, but it will do nothing to deal with the already over-full bathtub, as Patrick Mulligan has pointed out in his essay elsewhere on this site. Frankly, there is really no practical reason for this country to be allowing any immigration, regardless of nationality, at this time - with exception of marriages and adoptions and job transfers. So-called "anchor babies" are just one of many forms of "working the system" that have emerged.
We are a totally different country than we were in the era of Ellis Island. It really is time to not only close the gate, but to expel those who have no right to be here. We have to deal with both the spigot and the drain simultaneously.
Comment by Steve Sabin | June 17, 2007
Steve Sabin Brings up the interesting point of looking at past performance, not future promises. Although probably a topic for a whole different essay, appeasers (Chamberlain, Carter, and liberals in general) rely on future promises in spite of failure after failure after failure of despotic regimes not living up to their past agreements. They place so high a value on a diplomatic solution that one is tempted to think their objective is negotiations for their own sake and not a solution to some problem. They demand the "highest" standards from America while dismissing totalitarian violation of international human rights laws. Think about that for a moment. Appeasers don't expect outlaw regimes to follow existing, established international law; but they have convinced themselves, and try to get us to believe, that those very same outlaws, through some miracle, will be good and live up to their agreements THIS TIME if only we can just get them to promise it – AGAIN. What kind of an ego does it take for Carter (for example) to believe that, he and only he, can pull off such a grand miracle like that?
As they were at Munich in 1938, the liberal democratic nations will have been stuck once again with a "Peace of Paper" which is nothing more than a guarantee of a larger future war. And who will pay the price of this repeated folly? Certainly not the appeasers.
Comment by sedonaman | June 18, 2007
I am amazed at the quality of the discussion that has gone on above. Seems to me that an organized political bloc is needed, which will punish elected officials at all levels for their actions, before we will see any resolution to this issue.
Comment by Mickey G | June 18, 2007
Phil:
I agree the business community must be part of the solution, but I disagree that we start with the large corporations and work down to the small ones. Actually, the order of precedence must be reversed. We must start with the small company and, most importantly, we must deal with the illegals remaining within the country as the pressure builds to divest illegal employees.
To understand this, let me offer the following observations. In the American business hierarchy, the government is the sheep dog and the business community are the sheep. Large corporations, particularly publicly traded ones, are the most obedient of sheep; their assets are highly visible (they even erect large signs to point out their physical assets), their senior management the most vulnerable and with the most to lose financially, their lenders easy to identify and they are the most heavily regulated. At the opposite end of the spectrum are the small local businesses and the independent contractors, particularly those operated by the illegals themselves. These sheep are the least obedient and most likely to flip the sheep dog the symbolic finger.
Illegals aren’t great employees because they work very hard for very little, that’s a myth. They are employees solely because they work cheap in jobs with low barriers to entry (no education, simple skills) and Americans can and will better perform these same jobs for an adequate wage. The problem is actually a “going concern” issue fundamental to all business enterprises. For a business, remaining a going concern is like breathing to you and I; it’s a basic condition of life we seldom think about
unless we’re drowning. But, businesses are constantly mindful of going concern issues; for publicly traded companies, their auditors are required to report warnings about their client’s ability to remain a going concern and, once a public warning is issued, it’s like a doctor informing you a serious cancer has invaded your body – it changes everything.
Among some of the large American corporations, the competition posing a threat to going concern are foreign companies in low-wage countries. A large corporation can either out-source their operations to a foreign country or operate within the United States, but, if they do, they must rigidly control their costs. The fabric weaving businesses in the mid-Atlantic states are good examples, they have consistently lost market share to foreign corporations that can weave the same quality product at cheaper costs. Hiring illegals is very risky for large corporations and the sheep dog finds it easy to keep them in line.
On the other hand, the small local contractor competes only with other small local contractors and service providers. A business that provides landscaping, constructs decks or pools, etc. will find themselves consistently under-bid by contractors using cheap labor, particularly illegal immigrant labor. When that happens, their cash flow dries up and they can either employ illegals themselves or go out of business. If they refuse to employ illegals, they don’t receive civic awards; they’re shunned like lepers at a nudist colony. Their customers will quickly desert them and their suppliers won’t extend credit terms. Their financial lenders react to them like Superman does to kryptonite and their future is bleak indeed.
Sure, nobody tells them they should get with the program and also employ illegals, but the message, while unspoken, is obvious. So, there was a gradual shift to employing more and more illegals as cheap labor drove out more costly labor. It didn’t happen overnight but it transpired just as your college economics professor said it would.
But, what happens if these contractors are forced to divest the illegals among their employees? Actually, the process will reverse and prices will rise as labor costs go up. That sounds great in the classroom, but in the real world it won’t be that pretty or that theoretical. Illegals will more than likely quickly form groups that solicit sub-contract work, rather than as direct employees. Businesses using sub-contractors won’t know whether the sub-contractor is employing illegals, or it will be difficult to prove they do know.
Timing is critical, also. The idea that illegals who lose their jobs will pack up and immediately return to Mexico won’t work if other jobs are available. Therefore, you need a well-publicized deadline and you definitely need enforcement when the deadline is reached. As Sedonaman warned, government agencies better have the needed funding to flood certain areas of the country with enforcement officers to ensure the terminations are occurring on schedule.
If the goal is to punish the business community, a government administered program without adequate enforcement is just the ticket. Some businesses will go under if they comply but their competitors don’t. The illegals will scramble to other local industries or other parts of the country looking for alternate employment. Coordinating a nationwide “fire the illegals” process sounds good on paper, but is extremely difficult to pull off. I just don’t see the invisible hand of Adam Smith’s imagination working to send illegals obediently packing up and driving south to the Mexican border. It will be messy and the law abiding firms will suffer the most, as usual.
Comment by Pat Skurka | June 18, 2007
Hey Pat – good conversation. I’m not sure we’re that far apart in our core beliefs, just our strategies.
I think you need to start at the top to set the new national mood, which is why egregious corporate violators are the logical place to begin. Not only is it more difficult and less practical to go after Joe’s Lawn and Grass company than Del Monte or Tyson’s Chicken, the impact would take much longer to be felt. What’s needed most is a change in public attitude about hiring illegals, so they’ll get the message and begin to leave. There’s no need to coordinate a “fire the illegals” program. Just toss a few corporate abusers in jail or fine them heavily, and everyone will get the message to dis-hire illegals. No work for illegals, no reason to stay, particularly as the message starts to trickle down to smaller employers whose actions will be looked at next.
Once the playing field is leveled among the major corporations (i.e. it’s no longer a realistic option to hire illegals for their cheap labor), a lot of the economic issues you pointed out will go away. Some commodities will be more expensive as a result, but this will be offset by less need for tax revenue to educate, house, and give medical care to illegals.
It’ll take a few years for everything to completely readjust. But it won’t be as bad or as long as everyone thinks. Add to this more border security to keep new illegals out, and some targeted programs to go after illegals that remain in the US, and pretty soon the problem is completely manageable.
Of course, all this depends upon our elected officials doing the right thing. This is where primary battles and punishment at the ballot box for offenders comes into play. I believe that enough people have become aware of this as a problem, and are following the comings and goings in Washington carefully enough, that 2008 will be a good test of whether the country will indeed get serious, or whether both parties will plunge head long into pandering for the illegal alien vote.
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 18, 2007
A third-world invasion of the West is taking place. And as Jean Raspail said in Camp of the Saints, "the best conservative novel ever written," we can rise up and repel the invading third-world hordes, or we can sit back and watch the West crumble.
Check out the newest article in the American Conservative Magazine: La Raza’s Lapdogs: Why the elite press won’t report seriously on immigration (http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_06_18/feature.html)
Comment by OldRepublic | June 23, 2007