John asked me to post this, so I will:
Well, to say the least, I don’t agree with much. 🙂 I’m just too much of a pragmatist. I would say my biggest problem with the posting is that the downsides are never presented in any of the posts. It’s as if we could have free migration without consequences. I know Matt and Kiel are both liberals, and yet they pretend as though the state functions by itself. It’s as if this whole discussion is missing reality. So it’s very difficult for me, or anyone else, to listen to this talk of “justice” and “rightness” from all of these individuals who aren’t at the same time asking for an objectivist, minimalist state. You can’t have both.
I know you understand what I’m talking about, but I’m not sure anyone else on the boards does. I know, I know, I sound like I’m trying to break down your wall. 🙂
Later,
JD
Nonviolent Migration 
October 8, 2007 at 9:08 am
People are either an asset or a liability. To argue against immigration reform, for economic, societal, political, moral or other reasons to assume the latter.
I am unsure as to how the label “liberal” was intended to apply to me or my posts. For the sake of this argument, I will assume that “liberal” means I am for “big government,” nationalized health care, and a governmental duty to diminish the ever-widening gap between the working poor and the advantaged rich.
Opponents of immigration reform typically cite economic reasons in their arguments; indeed, it is the only leg upon which they can stand, having exhausted the moral, spiritual, and societal. Economically, taxes and welfare are usually the main issues against an immigration reform which will allow some, if not all, of our nation’s 12 million undocumented immigrants to participate openly in our democracy.
Economics, however, is a moot point. Extralegal immigrants pay into the tax system every day; the only difference is that they are not afforded the means to reap all the benefits of their taxes. Undocumented immigrants working under an invalid social security number pay income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and social security annually. Immigrants without any sort of documentation still pay property taxes and sales taxes, in addition to paying a “privatized” tax levied by an employer who knows he/she can pay them whenever and whatever he/she wishes. The only difference is that these immigrants cannot draw the benefits afforded every other citizen within our nation’s assumed borders.
Economically speaking, it behooves the United States to open means of legal citizenship to these masses of necessary workers in some of our most fundamental industries. Illegal citizens visit doctors and police stations infrequently if ever, and so minor injustices or treatable illnesses snowball until these workers’ productivity falls off or is lost forever. Economically speaking, this is the loss of a productive worker and his/her contribution to the national GDP over something which could have been curtailed had they been granted some means to citizenship; morally, it is an unjustifiable death. People are an asset. To simultaneously need and ostracize this working class smacks Orwellian.
Granting a means to citizenship for illegal immigrants will not instantly change their plight; to assume this is to idealistically overlook to the very real gap between our nation’s poor and rich. No, it will simply allow them the means by which to advance into a tax bracket and an income level where they can one day afford the rudimentary “amenities” of health care and citizen benefits. Granting citizenship will not immediately change anything but these citizen’s rights and hopes.
Our country is not so great a world power or working nation that we could survive without these immigrants and their necessary labor. A brief look at the past twenty years of increasing globalization shows that the U.S. has moved its operations overseas and outsourced jobs to places with less moral and legal scruples. The reason more jobs and companies have not moved overseas is because of our 12 million immigrants. People are assets; extralegal immigrants are working people; extralegal immigrants are assets. With China and the EU already becoming the global economic regulators and predictors, the United States cannot continue to ignore, discriminate, and under-appreciate the asset it has in its immigrant population, extralegal or otherwise.
In an effort to return to the liberal moniker I was granted in your post, I do think that government has a duty and a necessity to provide the means for poor working people to access health care, daycare, welfare, tax exemptions, and other aspects of “big government.” However, because I view people as an asset, be they illegal, naturalized, permanently residing or multi-generational immigrants, I believe that to move forward with any sort of comprehensive health-care or welfare reform without first addressing the immigration issue would only serve to widen the divide between our nation’s poor and privileged. Certainly it would help the poorest American citizens; but it would leave behind an immigrant working class 12 million and growing. Yes, there will be “consequences,” although I am unsure how granting citizenship to a vast working class could but increase their productivity and, by proxy, our nation as a whole.
October 8, 2007 at 9:10 am
JD,
Just quickly, the reason the downsides to unrestricted migration are never mentioned is because we started with just and unjust laws as discussed by Dr. King and asked ourselves what was right, not what was easy.
What you call “pragmatism” is simply injustice, and what you label “dissent” is nothing more than nativism.
The poorest in our society are kept there because of our laws. Those laws are unjustifiable based on King’s view of laws, but also based on Rawls and Burke, and Mill. You ought to read David Carens’ essay again.
I’m calling you out here JD, as a friend. This wasn’t dissent; you made no argument. Stop pretending to yourself that what you have to say might be damaging and make your point.
October 8, 2007 at 10:00 am
That was a stellar rebuke Matt.
October 8, 2007 at 11:12 am
That was a stellar use of an emoticon JD. It made me feel better about the whole thing.
October 8, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Well, I really don’t want to hash out the argument that we’ve had 100 times John. You asked me to post the email, so I did.
My argument is about numbers, not rhetoric. I am a liberal. I am proud to be a liberal, but I understand the limitations of liberalism. If you believe in open borders — in the totalist sense — you can’t also advocate for a liberal state. 2 + 2 doesn’t = 5, Matt. It all boils down to numbers.
I don’t have time for a blog-fight.
October 9, 2007 at 5:41 am
“…and so minor injustices or treatable illnesses snowball until these workers’ productivity falls off or is lost forever”
I think Matt means injuries not injustices.
October 9, 2007 at 7:11 am
JD,
I know you’re very busy. Thank you for making the email public by posting it here.
You’ve never successfully made your argument to me in person; I’m simply inviting you to make it for the record. I’d love to respond to your points, but you need to make them first. Please explain to me why unrestricted migration is mutually exclusive with the liberal state. “2+2=/=5” isn’t as self-evident an argument as you might think.