I wonder what HE thinks is the sensible way to handle illegal immigration. It can't be much crazier than almost everyone else's opinion.
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on the legality of Arizona’s anti-immigration legislation, and in today’s Washington Post, columnist Dana Milbank, one of the Post’s house liberals who has the integrity to be up-front about it, presented us with a related column that reminded me how ideology can become indistinguishable from insanity.
Illegal immigration is perhaps the best (or worst) illustration of this phenomenon, a problem that requires essential and obvious measures to address, one of which—finding a route to allow current illegal immigrants to achieve legal status—is opposed “on principle” by the Right though there is no feasible alternative, and the other—taking effective measures to block entry by future illegals and to eliminate the benefits of breaking immigration laws through tougher enforcement—is opposed by the Left on humanitarian grounds, though it is irresponsible, expensive, and dangerous. In the middle of this absurd impasse is the government, which refuses to aggressively enforce the laws on the books, either because of unholy alliances with business interests that want cheap and exploitive labor (the Republicans) or because of a cynical strategy to court a large and growing demographic group to ensure future political power (the Democrats).
In short, Nuts, Nuts, Corrupt and Corrupt.
Milbank was in the nuts camp this morning, arguing that Justice Antonin Scalia’s questions and comments during oral argument proved that he was biased on the issue. “While other justices at least attempted a veneer of fair and impartial questioning in the highly charged case, Scalia left no doubt from the start that he was a champion of the Arizona crackdown and that he would verbally lacerate anybody who felt otherwise.” Milbank wrote.
I would submit that anyone who thinks Scalia’s comments quoted bt Milbank are anything but obvious statements of fact has allowed his ideological leanings to leach his brain of basic operating functions. The government was arguing that Arizona’s law was improperly impeding Federal immigration enforcement and policy, to which Scalia aimed these rhetorical questions:
- “The state has no power to close its borders to people who have no right to be there?”
- “What does ‘sovereignty’ mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?”
- “Are you objecting to harassing the people who have no business being here? Surely you’re not concerned about harassing them.”
- “We have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico?”
Milbank cites these as self-evidently outrageous, as if no further explanation is necessary. Which of those statements, in connection with the refusal of the Federal government to discourage illegal immigration, show bias by Scalia? What is Milbank thinking? Whatever it is, he is so far gone that he thinks everyone else must be thinking it too. Milbank, not Scalia, is the one whose objectivity has been turned into mush by extreme ideological bias. He proves it with his grand finish, in which he apparently believes he is delivering a deft coup de grâce to the Supreme Court Justice by comparing his comments derisively with the wacko, extremist, wing-nut sentiments displayed on placards and being chanted by those demonstrating outside the Supreme Court. What are those sentiments that Milbank thinks are so self-evidently radical?
“We Are a Nation of USA Citizens”
and
“What part of the word ‘illegal’ don’t they understand?”
Suuuure, Dana.
They’re the crazy ones.
Ethics Alarms 
The Federal government will never do anything about illegal immigration. It would be the state’s responsibility except for the fact that the Fed has been encroaching on states rights steadily. I sympathize with those who come here looking for a way out of crushing poverty and as I understand it the requirements to go about this legally makes it almost impossible for them.
But…I lived in a town in Washington state that was the extreme of what happens with illegal immigration,what happens to a community. This town went from a quiet,sleepy little bit of heaven to hell on earth. My son was harassed with racial taunts at school. Gangs roamed the streets day and night. The police force was corrupt,taking kick backs from drug dealers who openly cruised the streets.Stabbings,shootings,robberies and child killings in a place that had never known crime before. My beef is not a racial one and I resent being told I’m racist because I oppose this crap. I had to move my family away from a town I loved,the place I was born and where my grandparents had lived because of this.
What I’ve never understood about the immigration issue is why those in favor never question why it is Mexico that gets first say as to who enters the USA. I’m sure millions of North Koreans or Chadians or Congolese would love to hop a fence into the First World, but because of geographic good fortune, only Mexico gets that privilege. If the issue is fairness, why is it only fairness to Mexicans?
Americans who are found to be illegal immigrants in Mexico are charged with a felony and imprisoned if convicted. They certainly don’t look the other way. Friends of mine here in Japan were on news sites and Facebook bashing Arizona and making accusations of racism. When I got tired of it on a diaily basis 😀 I offered to create an activist group in Japan where we’d all overstay our visas in a show of solidarity to US illegal immigrants. As I expected, ***crickets*** They know they’d be imprisoned and then deported, so they don’t dare do it. Since then I’ve brought up the idea a few times on different sites (evil me) and as far as I can tell from the reactions of those actually in a position of needing a visa, when it comes down to brass tacks they KNOW it’s wrong to overstay a visa, or to never have one from the start, but the posturing is just so cool.
I sympathize with you KMR: My immigrant grandparents bought a house on Chicago’s south side – a gateway community – in 1918. My family lived there (5 generations) until 1997. There already was a Mexican population in the neighborhood for years and it was a great place to live. In the early nineties the new wave of legal and illegals inundated the area. Our original Mexican neighbors moved out before we did. By the time we moved the area was a shooting gallery and in two-three years the whole area looked like a Mexican border town: grafitti everywhere, all signage in Spanish, trash all over and new schools springing up like mushrooms. All the Anglo businesses closed for lack of business, replaced by small substandard businesses which opened and closed, leaving many empty store fronts. The crime rates, welfare, and food stamp use went up while tax revenue went down. The unemployment rate is unbelievable and please don’t tell me they take jobs Americans refuse to do – they take jobs from Americans, especially black Americans. There is no upside to this “invasion.”
oldgraymary,obviously people who don’t see a problem have never lived in areas where there is a problem. As Jack said it’s not feasible to try and deport them at this point and government is responsible allowing them welfare. American business owners are also at fault for hiring them. If these two things were withdrawn the influx of illegal aliens would come to a halt in my opinion. A simple solution which neither party will agree to.
Why would it be unfeasible to order the 82nd Airborne to remove the illegal aliens?
Ok Rambo , explain how they would do it. How do 15,000 soliders round up and deport 10 million people?
What? It would be like the Hebrews leaving Egypt, only in reverse. The Statue of Liberty would personally swim back to France. Rounding up 10 million would have people making comparisons to boxcars, and they wouldn’t be far wrong. Some solutions are impossible for a nation that cares about being the good guys.
“Why would it be unfeasible to order the 82nd Airborne to remove the illegal aliens?”
Either that or drones but that’s not a very nice thing to do.
Okay, so we really can’t deport 10 million people who are in the country illegally. I get that.
But we can definitely deport 1. We can deport 10. We can deport 100. We can deport 1000. 10,000? Maybe, maybe not, I don’t know.
Somewhere between 1 and 10 million is the largest number of illegals that we CAN deport. That, or very near to it, is the number that we should deport. It is the law.
Setting up the false dichotomy of “deporting all 10 million” or “none at all” as the only choices is a pretty good example of Unethical Rationalization #22: The Coercion Myth: “I have no choice!”.
–Dwayne
Spark: Jack Marshall (as always–and with my continuous thanks.)