There are many, including a lot of liberals, who see illegal immigration as a problem, but do not see a solution in destroying the lives of those already here or in being "anti-immigrant" in general.

It has been clear from the get-go, however, that a lot of the grandstanding and vitriol on illegal immigration in the Republican debates comes from opposition to non-white immigration in general. Moreover, much of the rhetoric has been based either on the unworkable "solution" of deporting all illegal immigrants, or, more workably but no less immoral, depriving them of all education and services. Amazingly, many advocate punishing the children who had no choice but to come here.

McCain, Huckabee and Brownback once represented a voice of moderation and integrity in these discussions. However, Brownback dropped out and Huckabee lost credibility on the issue by parading his endorsement from the extremist group the Minutemen. That leaves McCain, whom many on the religious right like to say isn't "religious" enough for their temperments (read: doesn't pander enough to the basest instincts).

I am disgusted, ashamed, but not surprised. It is perfectly legitimate to be concerned about the fact that millions of people come here and live here illegally. It is not legitimate to apply a new "Southern strategy" that preys on people's racial prejudices and xenophobia in order to get votes.

Posted by: I and I | December 19, 2007 12:02 PM

It seems to me that Sojo's biggest problem with the illegal immigration debate isn't that it's so heated, but that you appear to be losing it. You focus on Republicans who are turning away from "comprehensive immigration reform", but the ugly truth is that Democrats, especially at the Congressional level, are losing their enthusiasm for the plan as well.

The awkward truth is that the American public is rejecting broad legalization of illegal immigration. You may wish they weren't, you may think them unwise for doing so, but the "shouting match" is already "shifting" away from you. There's no guarantee it will shift back.

In the famous words of that great 1960s philosopher Mick Jagger "You can't always get what you want." If Sojo wants to remain relevant on this issue they should start considering alternatives to legalization.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | December 19, 2007 1:02 PM

What part of "illegal" is so difficult to understand? Posted by: Dan

The part where it dehumanizes people, Dan.

Posted by: JamesMartin | December 19, 2007 1:19 PM

When will folks stop equating the enforcement of the law with racism?

Maybe when it stops being a reality.

Illegal immigration isn't limited to non-whites. But we never hear anyone complaining about the northern Europeans who are living here illegally (and yes, they do exist), only the Mexicans.

What part of 'illegal' is so difficult to understand? How fast do you drive, Dan? Do you make full stops at every stop sign, every time? Remember, Dan, that St. Paul wrote that if we are guilty of breaking any part of the law, we're guilty of all of it. I know he was speaking of God's laws, not human laws, but isn't the principle the same? We're all lawbreakers; that's why we need a redeemer, correct? Fact is, if your situation were anywhere near that of many of the undocumented immigrants, you would be trying to come here to work, too.

What part of 'Christian compassion' is so difficult to understand?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 19, 2007 2:13 PM

Don appears to think that because people get away with speeding and "rolling stops" that we shouldn't ever enforce any law.

Something tells me that if we all drove the speed limit and came to a complete stop at every stop sign, Don wouldn't change his mind about illegal immigration.

I'm also willing to bet that Don violates speed limits from time to time himself, but if his car got stolen he'd still consider the theft of his car a "crime" and report it to "law enforcement".

C'mon Don, this kind of argumentation is L-A-M-E. What's your real beef here?

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | December 19, 2007 4:06 PM

OK, let's see here, the article at hand is something about 'stopping the shouting match'.

Any ideas?????

I've got one. Government.

The old policy either did not work--or was not enforced. The new policy will not be perfect.

I don't see the enemy as the illegal immigrants, or the extremists on any of the sides of the issue.

I see fundamental political dysfunction and failure. We can't govern in the modern world, with rapidly changing societies, economies, and environments; with the populations of the world on the move; and constantly avoid fundamental governance. I do not see any reason why there should be one Federally elected official that is content on going home without passing a broad policy that is sane, in accord with our highest principles, just, and enforceable.

We are being suckered by shouting at each other in response to politicians willing to demagogue this issue in any direction.

If they can't govern they should not be re-elected; and I don't distinguish between the many hard-working federal officials who have tried and those who don't care. There is some point at which the entire group is responsible together and our playing into their partisan maneuvers lets then off the hook for governance.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 19, 2007 4:43 PM

Don wrote:

C'mon Wolverine, this kind of argmentatOin is I-N-H-U-M-A-N-E. What's your real agenda? To hurt the kids?

Don, there's no such thing as an inhumane argument. There are stupid arguments, but arguing as such hurts nobody.

There are inhumane policies, and if I read you right, expecting Mexicans to live in Mexico rather than the US (or El Salvadorans in El Salvador, Guatemalans in Guatemala, etc.) is I-N-H-U-M-A-N-E

Well, that leads to the obvious question, what about the poor folks in Mexico (or El Salvador and Guatemala) who for whatever reason (poor health, inability to find a reliable smuggler) cannot get into the US? Is it not I-N-H-U-M-A-N-E to just leave them there?

Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument would serve as a justification for the US to liberate the entire world from the I-N-H-U-M-A-N-E condition of not living in the US.

Looks like we're going to need a larger military.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | December 19, 2007 5:03 PM

"There's no such thing as an inhumane argument." Wolverine.

Yes there is. Now please address the substance of the argument or doesn't is suit you?

"Well, that leads to the obvious question, what about the poor folks in Mexico (or El Salvador and Guatemala) who for whatever reason (poor health, inability to find a reliable smuggler) cannot get into the US? Is it not I-N-H-U-M-A-N-E to just leave them there?" Wolverine

Last time I checked most of them didn't have US citizen kids born here. Instead of trying to divert attention from the real inhumanity of the policy you advocate, maybe you can address what should be done with the kids born to these people.

"Correction: The quote I attributed to Don at 5:03 was actually the responsibility of James Martin. My apologies to Don."

I'm sure Don feels much better now.

Posted by: JamesMartin | December 19, 2007 5:17 PM

Don Martin wrote:

Last time I checked most of them didn't have US citizen kids born here. Instead of trying to divert attention from the real inhumanity of the policy you advocate, maybe you can address what should be done with the kids born to these people.

We've been over this before: they can return to live with their families while retaining US citizenship and the right to return to the US. Or they can live with relatives in the US.

Now in the past this suggestion has consistently been considered, "I-N-H-U-M-A-N-E". Well, maybe not that exact word, and in all caps with hyphens, but the general gist has been that it's an affront before God to break up families or have US citizens living outside of the US.

So, when a missionary family takes their children to live in a poor country, that's not admirable commitment to the cause of Christ, that's, well, I-N-H-U-M-A-N-E.

And when a parent sends a kid to live with relatives to get them out of a bad situation that's I-N-H-U-M-A-N-E.

A final thought: Some of you may recall this was the premise of the The Fresh Prince of Bel Aire:

In west Philadelphia born and raised

On the playground was where I spent most of my days

Chillin' out maxin' relaxin' all cool

And all shootin some b-ball outside of the school

When a couple of guys -- they were up to no good

Startin makin' trouble in my neighborhood

I got in one li'l fight and my mom got scared

She said 'You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in bel Air!'

All this time you probably thought Fresh Prince was a sitcom. You probably never realized it was a searing drama of man's inhumanity to man.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | December 19, 2007 5:59 PM

We are told that there are 20,000,000 people here
illegally, although it might be more like 100,000,000.

The whole world is at our doorstep.

There are other huge issues also.
-The fact that our government does not enforce
its own laws. In not doing this government itself becomes rogue and corrupt.
-The fact that our government does not fund, or
does not fund completely, approved bills intended to deal with real problems.
-Laws written 60-70 years ago to address one issue
(we needed scientists during WWII and allowed
babies of these non-citizens to become citizens
when born here)-are having enormously unintended consequences now with the mass migrations of third
world, child bearing age, peasants.

Without a liberal press, none of this comes easily to view, nor do the societal disasters created by said migrations.

Posted by: linda | December 19, 2007 6:45 PM

God said,

"The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you" (Leviticus 19:34).

Posted by: Hali | December 19, 2007 8:04 PM

Posted by: JamesMartin | December 19, 2007 5:01 PM

"I think it might be "SHOW ME THE MONEY". (lol)"

The 'lol' was added to show that it was a 'joke'. Most people on this site that still have a funny bone understand that one.

It is a crime - if they would have in the past just inforced what is on the books we would not have had this problem. I am the great grandson of immigrants from both sides of my family. There was a protocal even back then to gain enterence to this great country. There are thousands if not millions from all around the world that would like to get here. I think that it should be level ground for all who desire access to the US. Just because you can walk across a river to get here should not be your way of come here when other have to take a plane or boat and need to have the documentation in hand before you can even start you journey. I have been a part of a group that has assist in two families coming to the US and we helped with the paper work.

Give me your tired, your poor. Yes - but let us be fair about it, fair to all.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: moderatelad | December 19, 2007 9:04 PM

What part of "mercy" don't you understand?

There's this story I've heard about an owner who forgave the debt of one his managers. After the manager's debt was forgiven, the manager went to someone who owed him money and said, "Pay me what you owe me!" He was perfectly within his legal rights to demand payment. What part of "debt" did his debtor not understand? And yet, Jesus said that the manager was in the wrong. He had been shown mercy and yet did not show mercy himself. Hmmm. . .I wonder if that might be the basis for a humane immigration policy.

We might remember, in this Christmas season, that those who leave a difficult situation in their own country, cross borders without documentation, and seek refuge in another country have a model--The Holy Family. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were undocumented sojourners in Egypt. Should Egypt have sent them back? Should Egypt have built a wall?

Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 19, 2007 10:48 PM

And Don .. You really don't see the difference between say coming into a land illegally and a traffic ticket ?

Of course I see the difference. And in my mind, speeding is far and away the more serious offense, because it puts me and all other law-abiding drivers at direct personal risk. Undocumented immigration by itself doesn't compromise anyone's personal safety.

But having said that, my point was not to make a direct comparison between living in the country without proper documentation and driving over the speed limit or making rolling stops at stop signs. My point was aimed at those who are so quick to point fingers at "illegal immigrants" as lawbreakers. Don't forget, whenever one points a finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back at him/her.

And having said that, it has been pointed out on previous threads on this topic that undocumented immigration is not a crime in the sense of murder, armed robbery, or car theft. It's more like a civil violation. Maybe the easiest comparison is to driving without a valid operator's license. There are some (e.g., Rep. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin) who have tried to make it a crime, but those efforts, so far, have been unsuccessful (thanks be to God). The enforcement only folks tend to forget these facts when they put such emphasis on the word 'illegal'.

It seems to me that Sojo's biggest problem with the illegal immigration debate isn't that it's so heated, but that you appear to be losing it. ... The awkward truth is that the American public is rejecting broad legalization of illegal immigration. ... If Sojo wants to remain relevant on this issue they should start considering alternatives to legalization.

I couldn't disagree more. The movement for comprehensive immigraation reform is only beginning to get organized. The hearts and minds of fair-minded Americans are only beginning to be stirred. The demonizing of "illegal immigrants" that's taking place within the Republican presidential sweepstakes is exposing the enforcement-only movement as the exclusivist, inhumane, and, yes, racist ideology that it is. This nasty demogogoury is beginning to backfire, and the backfiring will only get stronger as the movement for fair immigration reform grows stronger.

An enforcement-only approach to the immigration issue will fail for two main reasons. First, it's unworkable. The border cannot be properly secured and immigration cannot be properly regulated until we find a fair, equitable, and workable approach to allowing people to enter the country to work and a reasonable way to handle those who are living and working here presently that doesn't involve tearing families apart. Second, the failures of the enforcement-only approach will be recoginized, and reasonable Americans will begin rejecting that approach and begin demanding a workable solution.

That is why Sojo is being more than relevant on this issue. This is one place where they are using their prophetic voice to call our consciences to account and to reject both the current broken immigration system and the proposed enforcement-only non-solutions. The work is just beginning.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 20, 2007 7:48 AM

I and I:

I believe you are wrong. A well-designed guest-worker policy is a necessary component of a comprehensive solution to the immigration problem. It's the key to having an enforceable and workable border policy. Further, a fair and workable guest worker policy would force employers to comply with, and not dodge, the labor laws.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 20, 2007 9:10 AM

Don,

How is a guest worker program a neccessary component of comprehensive immigration reform? If we provide a path to citizenship for undocumented families already here, and we take steps to enforce the borders, why do we need to bring more "temporary" workers into the country? If we need more workers, why not just increase the number of people we let migrate here permanently? That way they would have more freedom to find the best jobs, rather than being limited to working for only one employer.

Posted by: I and I | December 20, 2007 10:35 AM

If you're going to get all legalistic on us, please try to get the law right.

What and irony! Who is being legalistic--the ones who think we should show Christian compassion to families who are only here because they are trying to escape desperate circumstances, or those who think current immigration laws must be followed to the letter, even if that means families are to be split apart for years or even decades?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 20, 2007 10:53 AM

Okay, Don, you've got me persuaded that I could support a guest worker program that doesn't exploit workers, artificially drive down wages, or provide a competitive edge to large corporations at the expense of smaller businesses (who ususally can't afford to participate in such a program). My fear is that anything that the majority of Republicans and more than a few Democrats would be willing to support would do some or all of these things. I guess we'll have to see what happens after the elelction.

"What's so wrong with guest worker cards? Is it too merciful somehow? Too much like Jubilee Year when everyone got amnesty?"

Ashpenaz, please! The concern was about exploitation. At least read my posts before yelling at me. You're off my Xmas card list.

Posted by: I and I | December 20, 2007 11:40 AM

"Of course I see the difference. And in my mind, speeding is far and away the more serious offense, because it puts me and all other law-abiding drivers at direct personal risk. Undocumented immigration by itself doesn't compromise anyone's personal safety."

Well Don I think this may explain why my previous points are never agrred upon equally as I and I pointed out . Stop the immigration , kick out the ones who are causing a direct personel risk , and allowing for a path to citizen ship or at least to be protected by our laws to those already here obeying the laws since they have come here . Right about those three fingers pointing back at you , hope you share some of the responsibility here , because the path to solving the problems here for millions of illegal immigrints here in my opinion is following those first two points I made . Actually they were made from others and I happen to agree with this way of solving the problem . Not sure if it is the conservative , liberal , or middle of the road path , most religious , just seems logical, the best for all , and practical. .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | December 20, 2007 1:08 PM

Don,

Look, you're accusing all of us of hypocrisy based on your (half-baked IMHO) understanding of the law.

I never accused you or any other supporters of amnesty of anything. We have a disagreement on a public policy question, and that's it. I've said this before, I'll say it again: I can understand your motivation. These people came here hoping to improve their lives. Most of them mean us no harm.

I don't think trumps all national interests, but there are splittable differences here. We might ---still-- be able to work out a compromise that we both could live with if you would quit telling us what horrible hypocrites and monsters we are long enough to address our concerns.

I said earlier -- and nobody has challenged me on this -- you are losing this debate. You have lost the votes on comprehensive immigration reform, by increasing margins, and both Democrats and Republicans are giving less support to amnesty in debates. So you can call us mean, call us hypocrites. Even if you're right about all our character flaws, politically it just isn't working.

Maybe it's time to try a new approach, one that dwells less on the perceived vices of your opponents. Maybe it's time to address the concerns that we, well meaning or not, have raised about national interests and rule of law.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | December 20, 2007 1:23 PM

Don,

There's no doubt that there is a lot of debating left to be done, and things might change. But don't pretend that the early Congressional votes that defeated "comprehensive immigration reform" don't count. Or ignore Sen McCain's shift from advocating amnesty to acknowledging the need for enfocement first. Or casually dismiss the fact that none of the Democratic frontrunners is emphasizing the issue now.

There's no such thing as an exhibition season in politics. The debate has started, and so far you are losing it.

You can accept that fact, adjust, and salvage something out of this. Or you can stay in denial and in all likelihood continue to lose. Your choice.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | December 20, 2007 2:42 PM

Wolverine, I think you might want to take some time studying earlier social movements. Many took years of defeat before public opinion began to swing the other way. Women didn't earn the right to vote overnight--it was a decades-long struggle. And earlier social reforms, like the prison and mental hospital reform movements of the 19th century, likewise took a long time to bear fruit.

Do you really think a single defeat in Congress of a bill that they didn't even really debate is going to faze us? (You may recall that it was killed by a technical vote; no actual debate on the merits of the bill took place on the floor of either chamber.) You think we're going to say, well we lost so let's pack up and go home under circumstances like that? Where's your understanding of history? Where's your perspective?

Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform is, I believe, less than a year old as an organization. As I said, we're just getting started. And, yes, the real debate hasn't begun yet.

McCain, as a presidential contender, is probably feeling the heat from the extremists in his party, so I don't take much stock in his flip-flop. And the Democrats have been a fearful bunch, so I don't take much stock in their silence,

The fact is, we believe we can earn the hearts and minds of reasonable, fair-minded people. If they have the opportunity to hear us out without all the background noise from those who want to demonize people for the sake of votes, a majority will agree with us that an enforcement-only approach is both unworkable and inhumane.

I sense you're gloating, but I'd be careful of claiming victory too soon. It might take time, but we believe that time is on our side.

Maybe it's time to address the concerns that we, well meaning or not, have raised about national interests and rule of law.

We understand those concerns, and I believe we've addressed them. I know I've addressed them in previous posts. We want secure borders with control over who enters. We want employment law applied to all workers equally. We want to keep out criminals and would-be terrorists.

We just think it can all be done without tearing families apart.

I will be unable to write any more this week, so you will probably have the last word, if you choose to respond to this.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 20, 2007 7:43 PM

Wolverine, you mentioned you would like to find a solution that keeps our nation open to legal immigration. Does this mean that if the immigration law would have kept up with our need for immigration you would not have a problem will the "illegal" immigrants that are now here? Darin, Indiana, U.S.

Posted by: Darin | December 20, 2007 10:34 PM

Wolverine, I have the chance to write a few words in response.

Who has the all-or-nothing approach? You are the one who consistently has written here that you think it's OK to tear families apart. You are the one who refuses to see that this kind of treatment is inhumane and unchristian.

You have pleaded before for compromise, but you too have wanted it on your own terms. You seem to be saying that we aren't concerned about rule of law, border security, etc. And I believe we have addressed those concerns. Go back to earlier threads on this topic. But what we cannot understand is your lack of concern for the people involved. We're talking about real human beings here, not just numbers.

And this is the source of our disagreement: I'm saying that what God thinks is far more important than what do you or I think. And I believe that God has given us some pretty clear directions. From the CCIR Web site:
* We believe that all people, regardless of national origin, are made in the “image of God” and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect (Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6).
* We believe there is an undeniable biblical responsibility to love and show compassion for the stranger among us (Deuteronomy 10:18-19, Leviticus 19:33-34, Matthew 25:31-46).
* We believe that immigrants are our neighbors, both literally and figuratively, and we are to love our neighbors as ourselves and show mercy to neighbors in need (Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:25-37).
* We believe in the rule of law, but we also believe that we are to oppose unjust laws and systems that harm and oppress people made in God’s image, especially the vulnerable (Isaiah 10:1-4, Jeremiah 7:1-7, Acts 5:29, Romans 13:1-7).

How do you interpret these biblical texts in light of the current immigration problem?

If we wish to try and forge some kind of understanding and even work a compromise, I ask you to consider these questions:
1. Would you agree to a moratorium on workplace raids that result in undocumented immigrants' being torn away from their families, while we work together to try and forge a an acceptable solution?

2. Would you be willing to admit that any revision of immigration laws has to include more than just enforcement provisions, or we are going to be back here again in twenty or so years?

3. Would you be willing to accept that the 12 (give or take) million undocumented immigrants can't all be sent back, and that a humane and workable solution to this situation might have to include allowing some to stay here permanently?

4. Are you willing to admit that perhaps some of our government's own policies (e.g., trade and economic policies) have contributed to the economic displacement that have led to the migration of undocumented immigrants, and that perhaps we as a nation have a moral responsibility to try and amend some of the damage that these policies are doing to the Latin American economy, as well as a moral responsibility to those who have been so displaced?

5. Would you be willing to recognize the need for the labor that undocumented immigrants provide, and help work out a way for unskilled and minimally educated persons to come and work here, something that current immigration law does not provide?

One more point.

A quick note about the "procedural" Senate vote.

You proved my point. I said there was no floor debate on the merits of the bill. We haven't had a real debate yet, just a bunch of wimps in Congress grandstanding. Lack of courage on this issue, I believe, will eventually send these folks home.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 21, 2007 6:49 AM

I appreciate Don's points, too. In regards to #6, it amazes me that certain politicians still grandstand on the unworkable idea of "sending them all back." Even if we were able to do that, many of them wouldn't have anywhere to go.

As for #5, okay, but we need to make sure companies pay those workers American wages. They hire illegals not because of a shortage of unskilled labor (contrary to Vicente Fox's racist claims that illegals do jobs blacks don't want) but because they can pay them cheaper, far below the minimum wage. THAT is what needs to stop. If employers want workers, they need to hire LEGAL workers and pay them LEGALLY. That will be most humanely accomplished by making most of the current illegal residents legal through a "path to citizenship" procedure.

People need to be reminded that the problem is not the presence of those workers themselves, but their illegal status. When politicians focus on the people themselves and not their status, they are being "against immigration" and not just "against illegal immigration." And that is xenophobic and racist. We have got to pound that point constantly.

P.S. Ashpenaz, your appreciated sarcasm has got you on my Easter card list.

Posted by: I and I | December 21, 2007 9:53 AM

To Don,

Thank you for so concisely and eloquently stating a reasoned approach to immigration.

Posted by: JamesMartin | December 21, 2007 11:38 AM

Don wrote:

Wolverine, I have the chance to write a few words in response.

Why am I not surprised to see this? Your reasoning is questionable, your passion is not.

Who has the all-or-nothing approach? You are the one who consistently has written here that you think it's OK to tear families apart.

I never wrote that it is okay to "tear families apart." I would not force families to seperate. I would expect most of them to return to their countries of origin. For US born children of illegal immigrants, I would leave families a choice: reunite in your country of origin, or remain with legal resident citizens in the US. This is not "tearing", this is leaving people with choices. People makes these sorts of choices all the time.

The real all-or-nothing posture is yours: you insist that we must allow all or nearly all illegal immigrants to remain the the US indefinitely. It is inhumane, you repeatedly assert, to expect illegal immigrants (or their US born children) to return and live in their native countries. I'm not convinced of that.

You have pleaded before for compromise, but you too have wanted it on your own terms. You seem to be saying that we aren't concerned about rule of law, border security, etc. And I believe we have addressed those concerns.

Well, seriously, do you expect us to "compromise" on your terms? You have at times sort of nodded at the problems we see, but you have yet to acknowledge that the '86 amnesty was a miserable failure, that it led to a dramatic increase in illegal immigration, nor have you challenged our depiction of the consequences of that policy. Watching you tiptoe around that whole subject might lead one to believe that, your protests to the contrary notwithstanding, you really don't see increasing levels of illegal immigration as a problem.

How do you interpret these biblical texts in light of the current immigration problem?

I'm familiar with the scripture passages, and here is my response: I am not persuaded that any of these create a right to immigrate into the US, and I do not see return to one's native country as inconsistent with humane treatment. There are millions of people who live in Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Russia, the Middle East, and any dozens of other countries and retain their dignity as children of God. Permanent residence in the US is not required as a consequence of the Imago Dei.

However we restore enforcement, we are obligated to take steps to ensure that the punishment, in both legal and practical terms, fits the crime. Consequently our enforcement process must be done in such a way that these people are able to "land on their feet" when they return to their home countries.

If we wish to try and forge some kind of understanding and even work a compromise, I ask you to consider these questions:

1. Would you agree to a moratorium on workplace raids that result in undocumented immigrants' being torn away from their families, while we work together to try and forge a an acceptable solution?

This question is based on a false assumption. Worplace raids to not tear people from their families. Family reunification is always possible in the country of origin. That may not be exactly what you or they want, but does that really rise to the level of "inhumane"?

2. Would you be willing to admit that any revision of immigration laws has to include more than just enforcement provisions, or we are going to be back here again in twenty or so years?

That much is probably true. The question is, what changes should we make? Should the changes be based on legalizing illegal immigration, or on being more generous to legal immigrants?

3. Would you be willing to accept that the 12 (give or take) million undocumented immigrants can't all be sent back, and that a humane and workable solution to this situation might have to include allowing some to stay here permanently?

Mass deportation is unworkable, and if you read carefully I've never said that deportation alone would work. (Sloppy writing at times may have left readers with that impression -- that was never my intent.) Increased workplace enforcement will result in a many illegal aliens returning to their native coutries on their own initiative.

As for your second question, whether or not a humane resolution will involve allowing some illegal immigrants to remain permanently: Some? Yes. Most? No.

4. Are you willing to admit that perhaps some of our government's own policies (e.g., trade and economic policies) have contributed to the economic displacement that have led to the migration of undocumented immigrants, and that perhaps we as a nation have a moral responsibility to try and amend some of the damage that these policies are doing to the Latin American economy, as well as a moral responsibility to those who have been so displaced?

Perhaps, although whether any of that rises to the level where the only adequate solution is to grant US citizenship to large numbers of illegal immigrants is dubious. We should also acknowledge that our failure to enforce immigration law itself had a part to play.

5. Would you be willing to recognize the need for the labor that undocumented immigrants provide, and help work out a way for unskilled and minimally educated persons to come and work here, something that current immigration law does not provide?

I'm not completely sold on the notion that there is a large labor shortage in this country that cannot be addressed through better use of the US labor force and more investment in technology and equipment. But this is definitely an area where there are splittable differences.

(Re: the Cloture vote on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform")

You proved my point. I said there was no floor debate on the merits of the bill. We haven't had a real debate yet, just a bunch of wimps in Congress grandstanding. Lack of courage on this issue, I believe, will eventually send these folks home.

You just keep on telling yourself that. In practical terms, you had about as good a floor debate as you're ever going to have in Congress, and in the Senate a Cloture vote is as reliable an indicator of support for a bill than a vote on final passage -- if anything more so.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | December 21, 2007 12:08 PM

The debate over immigration is obviously not over. The wrongs are still going on, despite which side you are on.

The border is still unsecured.
Americans living on the border are still in danger.
Smugglers are still being paid to bring people over.(In fact I am willing to bet that their incomes are going up.)

Immigrants are still coming and finding work. So those who believe your incomes are being held down by migrant labor are still experiencing this negative effect.

Everyone telling us to be afraid should therefore still be afraid. Every American who is out of work and wanting to pick veggies is still out of work, (bummer!).

The undocumented are being punished, more so every day.

The people we have elected to solve the problem have still not done so.

They expect to be re-elected, based on our fear. A few of them actually expect we will give them a promotion to the Presidency on this issue, which they have not solved.

I guess the only good news is that we have held up our ideas about the "Rule of Law" and haven't given anyone "amnesty" yet. Oh, I almost forgot. We are still speaking English too! Boy is that a relief or what? (LOL) I hope that's enough for you, because it sure looks like it's all that your "winning" is going to get you.

Wolverine, why is it you seem happy about any of this?

Posted by: wayne | December 21, 2007 2:41 PM

"...but you have yet to acknowledge that the '86 amnesty was a miserable failure, that it led to a dramatic increase in illegal immigration, nor have you challenged our depiction of the consequences of that policy."

Not that it has to do much with the subject at hand, but, failure or not, that was Reagan's amnesty policy. Boy, that phrase feels good to type: "Reagan's amnesty policy!" Every Republican candidate is advocating a return to Reaganism out of one side of the mouth and bashing undocumented immigrants out of the other side. They must really have contempt for the intelligence of their base!

Posted by: I and I | December 21, 2007 3:40 PM

...but you have yet to acknowledge that the '86 amnesty was a miserable failure, that it led to a dramatic increase in illegal immigration...

How do you define 'success' or 'failure'? In what way(s) was Reagan's amnesty a failure? And you have yet to prove that "it led to a dramatic increase in illegal immigration." In fact, it is far more reasonable to assume that the reason for the dramatic increase has far more to do with economic deterioration in Latin America than with any US gov't policy.

At any rate, without demonstrative evidence to prove that there is a connection between Reagan's amnesty and the more recent increase in migration, all you have is another post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

Congress' inaction on immigration reform tell us in a not very oblique manner that they like things the way they are, with the insecure borders, the secrecy, the people in hiding, etc. Not a very commendable track record. We elect them to try and solve our nation's most serious problems and they can't even bring a bill to an up-or-down vote.

You tell me that the status quo is the best we can do? The debate has hardly begun.

Your reasoning is questionable, your passion is not.

And your contempt is palpable.

Later,

Posted by: Don | December 21, 2007 7:16 PM

Wayne, it appears that you already said what I just wrote about Congress' inaction. Sorry I didn't read it first before responding to Wolverine. And thanks for your input.

And thanks to Payshun and James Martin as well, for understanding what I have been trying to communicate.

D

Posted by: Don | December 21, 2007 7:44 PM

Wayne wrote:

Wolverine, why is it you seem happy about any of this?

Uh, happy? Where did you get that?

at 9:23 PM on December 20 I wrote:

I honestly hope that the rejection of amnesty and mass illegal immigration does not result in the US shutting off legal immigration. But if we are going to avoid that unhappy result, we're going to have to address the problem of illegal immigration, and we're going to have to recognize that amnesty failed in the eighties and isn't likely to work any better if we tried it again.

Now does that read to you like a guy who's completely happy? I'll admit to a bit of relief in the sense that Congress did not make matters worse by repeating amnesty, but I also see a danger in that not everyone recognizes the difference between legal and illegal immigration, and I'm concerned that we could wind up cutting off both. And you're not helping matters by failing to recognize the differences. In other words, my feelings are decidedly mixed.

Don wrote:

And your contempt is palpable.

He then elaborated in a later post:

I was referring above to your obvious contempt for the things I have written. I can almost feel it when I read what you have written.

at 1:23 PM on Dec. 20 I wrote:

We have a disagreement on a public policy question, and that's it. I've said this before, I'll say it again: I can understand your motivation. These people came here hoping to improve their lives. Most of them mean us no harm.

Don,

I think a lot of what you have written has been wrong-headed. I've been at times frustrated, at other times amused by the numerous logical rabbit-holes I've had to chase you into and out of. If you want to call that contempt, fine. I can't talk you out of a feeling.

But if you want to go that way, then I have to say that I sense contempt from you. Not just for what I have written, but for me personally and for those like me who oppose mass legalization of illegal immigration.

You have accused us of hypocrisy several times based on a strained comparison of immigration law an traffic law -- a comparison that you did not defend once I pointed out all the implications of the standards you set.

You say we want to "tear families apart" when you cannot show that a single family will be forced to live apart for longer than the time it would take to resettle in their countries of origin.

I have sat here and read your attacks on my character. I have pointed out fallacy after fallacy and deflected accusation after accusation. I have at times been sarcastic, but however dismissive I have been about your thinking, I have never questioned that your heart is in the right place. In fact, I positively affirmed that much of what motivates you is decent.

I still believe that's most likely true, though I must say that after reading your last post my confidence in your basic decency is a bit shaken.

A quick observation here about what I & I called "Reagan's amnesty policy". Twenty years ago, amnesty for illegals was so uncontroversial that Reagan supported it. Nowadays it's become so controversial you cannot get it through a Democratic Senate. I don't expect you to concede defeat, but you have to admit that's not a good trend line for you guys.

You may not realize it, but by presuming bad faith on the part of me and other conservatives on this board, you are burning bridges you may -- and I emphasize may -- need to cross some day. You are turning opponents into enemies, enemies you don't need, enemies who may be in a position someday to turn a defeat on amnesty for illegal immigrants into a rout on the entire question of immigration, legal or illegal.

Believe it or not, I'm trying to do you a favor here. I'm doing this, not to be mean or contemptuous, but because as much as I disagree with you about illegal immigration, I want this country to remain open to legal immigration, for reasons of both national interest and the imago dei that can be found in all people.

Things change. Crazy as it may sound, someday we may need to work together. But if it comes to that, I have to say I'm going to have an awful hard time convincing my Christian conservative friends to cooperate with those who are going so far out of their way to accuse us of being bigots, monsters, and hypocrites.

I don't expect you to back down on policy all at once, but I urge you to recognize that men of good will can disagree on the best way to handle illegal immigration. Back down on the accusations of bigotry and hypocrisy, and leave yourself some options, just in case things don't go the way you want them to.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | December 22, 2007 2:39 PM

"You may not realize it, but by presuming bad faith on the part of me and other conservatives on this board, you are burning bridges you may -- and I emphasize may -- need to cross some day. You are turning opponents into enemies, enemies you don't need, enemies who may be in a position someday to turn a defeat on amnesty for illegal immigrants into a rout on the entire question of immigration, legal or illegal."

You all made yourselves enemies. We did not make you all that. We are not making you that now. You all want a whole group of people out even though they supply a valuable commidity and service to the United states. YOu are the one that thinks that legal immigration has been a great thing when in reality it is complex, difficult and an imperfect solution. It's not a good solution to what is happening now, (especially in the border states and small towns across America.)

We can absorb these folks into our system w/o destroying our schools and our neighborhoods but we don't want to because theya re here illegally. That's unjust in my view. It's unjust in Don's view. It's unjust biblically. I realize Don needs no one to defend him and I am not doing that now. I am making this clear. Many folks on the right don't mind families being separated as long as the law is upheld. Many on the right have some very closet racist ideology driving their push against illegal immigrants.

They won't deal w/ that. Those of us on the left that favor amnesty have some very clear guidlines about how that should be implemented while many of you folks on the right have no real plan except deportation and instead of coming up w/ something more substantive you don't except for guest worker visas. We had a name for that not to long ago. That was called Jim Crowe. We need to step forward and leave that type of thinking alone.

p

Posted by: payshun | December 23, 2007 12:16 AM

Corrction- "emanadas" should have been "empanadas"

Posted by: JamesMartin | December 23, 2007 9:41 AM

Maybe it’s too late to write this, Wolverine—you said you’re taking off for Christmas—but just in case you read this before it falls below the threshold tomorrow, I think I need to respond to some of your accusations.
I'm going to have an awful hard time convincing my Christian conservative friends to cooperate with those who are going so far out of their way to accuse us of being bigots, monsters, and hypocrites.
Lets deal with bigotry first. I don’t believe you personally are a bigot, and I never called you one here. But it’s a fact that many of the people who advocate positions on immigration that are similar to yours are bigots. I know this because I’ve talked to them. And the underlying reason they oppose any kind of allowance for undocumented immigrants—whether it involves amnesty or not—boils down to “I don’t want ‘those people’ living here.” Sometimes this sentiment is explicitly expressed; often it isn’t. But that’s the bottom line. And you have expressly declared your ideological affiliation with people who hold that sentiment. Maybe that’s unfairly finding you guilty by association. But if you want to identify with such people ideologically, don’t be surprised if some of the more negative elements of their ideology slap you in the face from time to time.
You have accused us of hypocrisy several times based on a strained comparison of immigration law an traffic law -- a comparison that you did not defend once I pointed out all the implications of the standards you set.
In your glee to make fun of my traffic law analogy, you have ignored one important fact: many of your fellow supporters of an enforcement-only immigration policy consider illegal immigration to be a serious crime, similar to rape, murder, armed robbery, or assault. Maybe you yourself didn’t make comments to this effect, but just scroll through previous postings on this topic, and you’ll find some that others have made. I made the traffic law analogy to remind people of the civil nature of the offenses in question.
Further, when I made the analogy, I wrote, “We are all lawbreakers.” That’s first person, right? I was including myself, so I wasn’t accusing just you and your ideological comrades of being hypocrites. I recognize my own culpability.
Your attempts to show that my traffic law analogy was ridiculous were themselves ridiculous and not worth responding to.
… accusing us of demonizing…
From transcripts of the recent Republican presidential debate on the topic:
Mike Huckabee: Now, let me tell you what I did do… This bill would've said that if you came here, not because you made the choice but because your parents did, that we're not going to punish a child because the parent committed a crime.
That's not what we typically do in this country.
Mitt Romney: Well, you know, I like Mike. And I heard what he just said. But he basically said that he fought for giving scholarships to illegal aliens… It reminds me of what it's like talking to liberals in Massachusetts, all right? They have great reasons for taking taxpayer money and using it for things they think are the right thing to do.
Mike, that's not your money. That's the taxpayers' money.
…But if you're here illegally, then you ought to be able to return home or get in line with everybody else. But illegals are not going to get taxpayer-funded breaks that are better than our own citizens…
Huckabee: Well, but they didn't get something better. They had to earn it.
Romney: Well ...
Huckabee: Mitt, let me finish. Let me finish, Mitt.
In all due respect, we are a better country than to punish children for what their parents did. We're a better country than that.
Romney: I get a chance to just respond to that. We are not punishing children for what their parents did … But the question is, are we going to give taxpayer-funded benefits to kids that are here illegally and put them ahead of kids that are here legally?
Huckabee: No, there is ...
Romney: Let me finish, too.
Huckabee: Well, but let's just be factual.
Romney: There's only so much money. Are we going to say that kids that are here illegally are going to get a special deal? Are they going to get a deal better than other kids? Do they get benefits by virtue of coming here illegally? And the answer is no.
Huckabee: Because they're earning it. That was the difference. They had to earn it by their...
If Mitt Romney wasn’t demonizing undocumented immigrants in this exchange with Mike Huckabee, then I guess I don’t know what demonizing means.
A quick observation here about what I & I called "Reagan's amnesty policy". Twenty years ago, amnesty for illegals was so uncontroversial that Reagan supported it. Nowadays it's become so controversial you cannot get it through a Democratic Senate. I don't expect you to concede defeat, but you have to admit that's not a good trend line for you guys.
First, I don’t think Reagan’s amnesty was “uncontroversial.” I seem to recall a long, heated debate and serious opposition. But I may be wrong; after all, that was more than twenty years ago and my memory may be somewhat opaque.
Second, moving up to the present time, the immigration reform bill that was defeated last spring included a provision that undocumented immigrants could apply for permanent residency after paying a rather stiff fine. By definition, this isn’t amnesty. But the opponents of comprehensive reform labeled this provision as amnesty in part of their effort to defeat it. So dishonesty and misrepresentation are a legitimate part of the strategy to defeat comprehensive reform?
And while we’re discussing Reagan’s amnesty, remember that it was part of an immigration reform package. The new law was designed to step up border enforcement. So, except for the amnesty itself, it was basically an enforcement-only legislative effort. The amnesty was designed simply to bring everyone back to square one. The enforcement provisions didn’t work, as you and others have noted. Perhaps the failure was due in part to the fact that the legislation was enforcement only? Maybe it would have succeeded if it had recognized the need to allow more people into the country legally, perhaps as guest workers. At any rate, any enforcement-only legislative reform today will probably result in our having to revisit the issue again twenty years hence. Is that wise? Wouldn’t it be better to try and solve the problem on a more or less permanent basis? That requires more than enforcement provisions.
You may not realize it, but by presuming bad faith on the part of me and other conservatives on this board, you are burning bridges you may -- and I emphasize may -- need to cross some day. You are turning opponents into enemies, enemies you don't need, enemies who may be in a position someday to turn a defeat on amnesty for illegal immigrants into a rout on the entire question of immigration, legal or illegal.
I think James Martin and Payshun have adequately demonstrated that you have made yourselves into enemies, so I won’t say anything more here.
Finally:
Believe it or not, I'm trying to do you a favor here…
I don't expect you to back down on policy all at once…
Does anyone else reading these posts sense the condescension that I recognize in these two statements? And you wonder why I thought you were showing contempt for me and my ideas?

Have a merry Christmas,

Don

Posted by: Don | December 23, 2007 4:24 PM

Just curious, how many immigrants, legal or illegal, do you all know personally? How many children of immigrants do you know? Do you personally know the story of anyone who risked her life crossing the desert so that she could feed her children at home? How many people do you know that long every night for the familiarity of their home countries, but know what dangers lie for them in the streets there? It sure is easy to make sweeping statements against people with whom you have no contact. I agree that the immigration issue is a problem. I also know, however, that it is impossible to see this as a black and white (or brown, as the case may be) issue once you actually understand and know what and who are involved. These are people who love their families just as much as you love yours. We're talking about survival. You do what you need to do to make it. If that involves risking everything and often losing it, that is a risk these people are willing to take for those they love most. Again, I know they are here illegally, but what would you have them do? They are next-door neighbors with the richest country in the world... and their children are starving.

Posted by: Ingrid | December 23, 2007 8:03 PM