Being Against Illegal Immigration is Not the Same as Being Anti-Immigrant

In the last HOT5 I linked a post on intellectual honesty. Today I read several pieces written in response to a new ad by Sharon Angle in Nevada. The usual suspects are accusing her of racism -- there's a big surprise, leftists making racism accusations -- but the responses also provide examples of one of my pet peeves: the blatant intellectual dishonesty of most illegal immigration supporters. Liberal hack Alex Pareene at Salon helpfully offers the most striking example, right in the title: "Sharron Angle's ridiculous new anti-immigrant ad." If you look at the ad you will find that there is nothing about it that is in any way "anti-immigrant." Being opposed to illegal immigration, no matter how stridently it is opposed, has nothing to do with being opposed to all immigration, or to legal immigrants.

It is of course possible to be opposed to all immigration, legal & illegal, and to be against it on racist, nativist or other grounds. But the vast majority of people opposed to illegal immigration are opposed to having people illegally enter the country, not to legal immigration, which is a different matter. Even someone that thinks we should have stricter controls on legal immigration doesn't necessarily qualify as anti-immigrant. There is no question that writers like Alex Pareene understand the distinction between opposing illegal vs all immigration, or that there are various positions that can be taken on immigration in general. Pareene and others like him, are simply intellectually dishonest propagandists, deliberately conflating opposition to illegal immigration not just with immigration as a whole, but even with racial animus to immigrants. It's just another variant of the common left-wing smear tactic of false accusations of racism, which is deployed regularly against political opponents. Like much of what is found at Salon, there's simply no reason to take it seriously as any sort of rational analysis. When you engage in such obvious intellectual dishonesty as Pareene, you immediately identify yourself as a ideological hack whose writings should be taken with a big grain of salt.

Deport the Protesters

The Wall Street Journal has an article up called, "Young Illegals Out Themselves, Daring To Be Deported."

young illegal immigrants in caps and gowns entered the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C., and began sit-ins in the offices of several senators. Twelve soon returned to the atrium, where they formed a circle around a banner reading "Undocumented and Unafraid." Refusing to be moved, the students were arrested by Capitol Police... a similar protest by a separate but allied group was taking place at Lafayette Square in front of the White House. These students went a step further. Openly announcing their immigration status and giving their full names just across the Mall from Immigration and Customs Enforcement headquarters

According to the article, ICE will not initiate deportation procedures against these protesters, fearing the reaction.

As anyone reading this blog knows, I have significant sympathy for illegal aliens, support expanding immigration, and favor a path to citizenship for those who entered illegally but are now working and not causing trouble. But in my opinion, every single one of those protesters, and any other illegal alien who acts in similar fashion, should be immediately deported. It's the height of arrogance and obnoxious behavior to illegally enter a country, openly declare that you've flouted the laws of that country, and dare the authorities to deport you -- as if you are somehow in the right. That's exactly the type of behavior -- an arrogant attitude of entitlement -- that generates widespread disgust with illegal aliens. It tarnishes the majority who just want a better life. Instead of rounding up people working quietly at restaurants, cleaning services, landscaping and other service occupations, our immigration enforcement agencies should target people like these students in Washington, DC. 

The protests this month are most significant not because of any direct influence they may have on lawmakers, but because they are drawing other young people with illegal status out into the open, undoing the chilling effect that legal vulnerability has long had on illegal immigrants' political activism.

Let's restore that chilling effect. Deport them all.

Deporting Gays to Iran

The Obama administration has been bending over backwards to avoid deporting Guantanamo prisoners to countries where they might be mistreated.  That's why we didn't sent the Uighurs to China, even though the Chinese wanted them and it would have been to the U.S. advantage diplomatically. But for some reason, that same administration is scheduled to deport a gay Iranian illegal immigrant back to Iran -- where openly gay people are killed. You'd think this would be a clear case for asylum. There's no question that Iran persecutes homosexuals. But that's not how our bureaucracy operates. 

Abdollahi's case for asylum is not cut and dry: As an undocumented U.S. resident for twenty years, he missed the one-year window of opportunity by law to proactively apply for protected status. He now faces the more difficult task of appealing defensively before an immigration judge.

This man, aside from being gay, has been in the U.S. for twenty years. His parents brought him here when he was four years old. Why is this someone who needs to be deported, let alone to a country that might kill him for his sexual orientation? Is there any better example of the insanity of our immigration laws and bureaucracy? Rather than fighting deportation, Abdollahi should be on a fast-track to U.S. citizenship

Assorted Thoughts on Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration is not a big issue for me because I have a middle position. The extreme positions on both sides are simplistic, and those who adopt them tend to ignore any evidence that undercuts their often fanatically held beliefs on the subject. 

Last night while I was driving around working, I caught bits and pieces of an NPR discussion/debate on illegal immigration. I didn't hear the introductions, but on the anti-illegal side was some state senator (I think), with an ACLU representative taking the pro-illegal position. The senator portrayed illegals as basically an evil horde of invaders who depress American wages, suck up social services, and commit crimes. The ACLU guy refused to even use the term "illegal alien" -- since of course we can't offend people who commit illegal acts by labeling them illegal -- but referred to them repeatedly with the ridiculous euphemism "undocumented workers." To him, illegals are all great people who help the U.S. economy. Both guests referenced only cherry-picked data that supported their own preconceived notions. The ACLU individual, as is typical on the left, basically accused those who disagree with his position of racism. The senator overemphasized a few sensational crimes committed by illegals as evidence that they represent a lethal criminal threat to American citizens.

In reality, illegal immigration has both benefits and costs, neither of which is easy to quantify. It is obvious that most illegal immigrants come to the U.S. to find work, and make up part of the workforce. By working, by purchasing goods and services, and by paying indirect taxes, they clearly contribute to the economy. At the same time, however, they impose costs, particularly in terms of social services like medical care. The actual cost-benefit ration probably depends on each region in question, possibly right down to each individual locality. As for crime, although most illegals come to work, as with any population, a small minority are prone to criminal behavior (not counting the crime of illegal immigration itself). For every wave of immigrants that enter the U.S., some will be criminals. But this applies to both legal and illegal immigrants, which undercuts the crime argument as a factor in keeping out illegals -- unless one opposes all immigration. Again though, it depends on locality. If an area has a particularly high number of criminal illegal aliens, obviously that area is going to view illegal immigration as a major criminal import problem. 

Illegal immigration is both a problem and a benefit. Which side outweighs the other depends  on your outlook, the statistics you choose to accept, and where you live. If you own an office building cleaning service in New York, staffed with hardworking illegal immigrants who do a good job for low wages, your perspective is probably quite different from a property owner in Arizona whose land is constantly trespassed on by illegals.