WSJ (Peggy Noonan): The Big Alienation (about illegal immigration / politics)

[Predicto]

and in both cases the costs to society raise sharply.

I do not think that case is proven, not in the least.

It didn't work that way with alcohol prohibition.

[sacase]

I do not think that case is proven, not in the least.

It didn't work that way with alcohol prohibition.

I agree that it is not proven and you can find research that agrues both points. But you also have to admit that it is not proven that legalizing drugs and granting amnesty will be a benifit to society. Personally, I don't have a problem with certain drugs such as MJ, however there are other drugs that will completly ruin a person's life, such as crystal meth, which should never be legal. These will be the drugs the cartels go to.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I do not think that case is proven, not in the least.

It didn't work that way with alcohol prohibition.

I'm sure its not proven, but I can't disregard it entirely. Also, I have no evidence, but I think even alcohol (legal drug) raises crime. It must. Right?

[SkinsNumberOne]

Legalize drugs, and it will be transported in semi-trucks on highways rather than through tunnels, on boats, or through the desert.

Legalize immigrants, and they will come the same way.

The overall demand might remain the same, but the supply will become legal instead of illegal.

Right, because there's no legal way for immigrants to come to this country. That's the problem.

OK, minus the sarcasm, there actually is a legal way for immigrants to come to this country. I know plenty of people who have done it, and while arduous, the end-goal is highly rewarding and comes with a strong appreciation of what you've been given at the end. I'm sure many on this board have parents who did it, but I have very close relations who have run the gamut recently. It's a lot more involved than it was before, and when you are close to the situation now (not just "my parents immigrated here," which mine did) I think you get a better understanding of some of these issues and they become a lot more than stupid talking points journalists and politicians alike enjoy trumpeting. It's just a lot easier to come across the border illegally though. Not very fair to the other immigrants though, but who cares about them... ?

The point of the article doesn't have to be "Here is a solution" - but more she is sharing a concern that there are some fairly obvious political reasons not to want to even try to solve the problem in many specific ways because most of our leaders seem to lack the political will to do something that obviously unpopular to - as she pointed out - a fast-growing portion of the populace. If you want to find fault with that assertion (and there are possibilities there, I grant you), I think that's the more fair criticism. That seems a lot more fair and in-tune with the article than expecting the journalist to actually solve the problem.

By the way, she did mention a solution to the problem - she mentioned one solution I've heard before, the one where illegals serve in the military to gain citizenship. A quick mention, yes, because that really wasn't the topic.

A quick but related aside (re: Arizona's specific implementation): Legal immigrants ARE already required to carry their green cards at all times. Some localities have taken to requiring immigrants to be able to prove their status if stopped by local authorities on another issue. That is an important distinction to the Arizona law, but even that was attacked in some circles of the media - people are missing the point that you shouldn't compare a citizen's rights to an illegal immigrant's. You should compare an illegal's rights to a legal immigrant's - and it seems like many are much quicker to protect the illegal's rights than the legal's - out of what seems to be a sense of misplaced pity/pseudo-compassion (because real compassion doesn't come out of ignorance).

[Predicto]

I'm sure its not proven, but I can't disregard it entirely. Also, I have no evidence, but I think even alcohol (legal drug) raises crime. It must. Right?

In the sense that more people drunk and do stupid things than if there was no alcohol? Of course.

In the sense of violent crime to control the astronomical profits that come from smuggling an illicit product? Not at all. There are no gangs of Budweiser pushers ambushing Coors dealers in drive by shootings.

The thing to recognize is that drugs or no drugs is not the real choice we face here. The drugs are already here. People already get high. They are going to keep doing so. People will keep supplying them. Those people will keep killing each other for the profits that come from that supplying.

The choice is between 1) accepting that reality, decriminalizing drugs (and legalizing some of them), taking the profit out of drug dealing, and medically treating the people who abuse drugs, and

2) ignore that reality, keep drugs criminalized, keep the profit in drug dealing, accept the violence that comes with it, fill our prisons with addicts and low level dealers, watch Mexico turn into a narco-state, and pretend that it is working.

[Predicto]

OK, minus the sarcasm, there actually is a legal way for immigrants to come to this country. I know plenty of people who have done it, and while arduous, the end-goal is highly rewarding and comes with a strong appreciation of what you've been given at the end. I'm sure many on this board have parents who did it, but I have very close relations who have run the gamut recently. It's a lot more involved than it was before, and when you are close to the situation now (not just "my parents immigrated here," which mine did) I think you get a better understanding of some of these issues and they become a lot more than stupid talking points journalists and politicians alike enjoy trumpeting. It's just a lot easier to come across the border illegally though. Not very fair to the other immigrants though, but who cares about them... ?

.

What country are your parents and relatives from, and why were the recent ones allowed in?

Just curious.

[SkinsNumberOne]

What country are your parents and relatives from, and why were the recent ones allowed in?

Just curious.

What do you mean "why were the recent ones allowed in" - do you mean, under what status?

I'm not one to share a lot of personal info on the internet in general, but my parents are from India, and my wife (just married last year) is from South Africa. That would be the "very close relations" - my poor way of attempting to remain vague and inspecific. Haha.

[Destino]

Those that think stopping illegal immigration is about actually physically securing the border are clueless or lying. Stopping employers from hiring illegals in any capacity and swiftly removing those that show up and join an underground economy is how you combat illegal immigration.

Securing the border is how you combat the drug trade.

[DjTj]

Right, because there's no legal way for immigrants to come to this country. That's the problem.

The problem is that there is no legal way for enough immigrants to come to this country to match either supply or demand.

OK, minus the sarcasm, there actually is a legal way for immigrants to come to this country. I know plenty of people who have done it, and while arduous, the end-goal is highly rewarding and comes with a strong appreciation of what you've been given at the end. I'm sure many on this board have parents who did it, but I have very close relations who have run the gamut recently.

My parents are immigrants and became citizens when I was 8 years old. My aunt, uncle, and cousin got their green cards about five years ago. I have another cousin who is a post-doc on a J-1 visa. I also have a cousin who came to the United State while 6 months pregnant to have an "anchor baby." I am also volunteering as a pro bono attorney for two illegal immigrants who I am helping to apply for asylum.

While you may have experience with the legal immigration experience, it doesn't sound like you have much experience with the the illegal immigration experience.

It's a lot more involved than it was before, and when you are close to the situation now (not just "my parents immigrated here," which mine did) I think you get a better understanding of some of these issues and they become a lot more than stupid talking points journalists and politicians alike enjoy trumpeting. It's just a lot easier to come across the border illegally though. Not very fair to the other immigrants though, but who cares about them... ?

It is NOT easier to come across the border illegally than it is to come to the country legally. Every single illegal immigrant, if there was a line to wait in or a list to sign up for, would choose to come here legally. Every one of those immigrants, from my asylum clients to my pregnant cousin, would love to have had an option to immigrate legally. There was no such option for them.

There is no form for Mexican laborers to fill out. There is no office for Chinese farmers to go to. If those people want to immigrate to the United States, their only option is to do so illegally, and it is usually a very expensive process that involves incurring a large debt to a smuggler and involves either hiding from the authorities or fighting through the immigration courts once you get here. Anyone who thinks illegal immigration is easy doesn't know anything about illegal immigration.

The point of the article doesn't have to be "Here is a solution" - but more she is sharing a concern that there are some fairly obvious political reasons not to want to even try to solve the problem in many specific ways because most of our leaders seem to lack the political will to do something that obviously unpopular to - as she pointed out - a fast-growing portion of the populace. If you want to find fault with that assertion (and there are possibilities there, I grant you), I think that's the more fair criticism. That seems a lot more fair and in-tune with the article than expecting the journalist to actually solve the problem.

I actually have even more of a problem with that assertion, because it makes no political sense.

Even if Hispanics are a fast-growing demographic, they are still only 20% of the population. Wouldn't it be politically prudent to get the votes of 80% of the non-Hispanics? That is a weak excuse that just tries to blame a minority for the choices of the majority.

The Republican Party does not implement draconian immigration enforcement because business owners and free-trading libertarians do not support it. The Democratic Party does not implement draconian immigrant enforcement because bleeding-heart liberals and Latino activists do not support it. The parties are not simply catering to a minority. They are catering to a majority of Americans who do not support mass deportation.

[Popeman38]

The choice is between 1) accepting that reality, decriminalizing drugs (and legalizing some of them), taking the profit out of drug dealing, and medically treating the people who abuse drugs, and

2) ignore that reality, keep drugs criminalized, keep the profit in drug dealing, accept the violence that comes with it, fill our prisons with addicts and low level dealers, watch Mexico turn into a narco-state, and pretend that it is working.

There is a problem with your logic: half the drug problem in the US is with legal drugs. Prescription drugs. If you legalize pot and cocaine (no one will ever legalize coke), guess what steps up and replaced pot and coke? Harder drugs, and prescription drugs. Your logic ignores human nature. If a void is created by legalizing drugs, something else will swing in to fill that void.

[Hubbs]

I'm sure its not proven, but I can't disregard it entirely. Also, I have no evidence, but I think even alcohol (legal drug) raises crime. It must. Right?

The question isn't whether or not it raises crime. The question is which policy raises crime more. I think the facts are pretty clear on that one.

[Predicto]

What do you mean "why were the recent ones allowed in" - do you mean, under what status?

I'm not one to share a lot of personal info on the internet in general, but my parents are from India, and my wife (just married last year) is from South Africa. That would be the "very close relations" - my poor way of attempting to remain vague and inspecific. Haha.

I only meant that most immigrants get admitted because they are related to American citizens. That is to say, they have a special legal preference that the typical Mexican farmworker does not have.

When one says that there is a "legal way" to get in, one often means "a legal way that is not available to everyone but was available to MY family."

And when one says: "why don't they follow the rules," the answer is because the current rules do not let people like them get in.

[Predicto]

There is a problem with your logic: half the drug problem in the US is with legal drugs. Prescription drugs. If you legalize pot and cocaine (no one will ever legalize coke), guess what steps up and replaced pot and coke? Harder drugs, and prescription drugs. Your logic ignores human nature. If a void is created by legalizing drugs, something else will swing in to fill that void.

That seems speculative to me. That does not appear to be the European experience.

In my opinion, one ignores human nature by trying to criminalize a voluntary recreational activity that millions of people already indulge in.

[luckydevil]

What a lot of people seem to miss is that the end of prohbition 2.0 would lead to cleaner drugs. In that environment, drug addiction would be easier to combat and manage.

[GoSkins561]

So what was her plan on securing the border? I must have missed it.

My solution would be tanks, apaches and The National Gaurd.

[Larry]

Those that think stopping illegal immigration is about actually physically securing the border are clueless or lying. Stopping employers from hiring illegals in any capacity and swiftly removing those that show up and join an underground economy is how you combat illegal immigration.

Securing the border is how you combat the drug trade.

Not at all certain that I disagree with you, but you've just listed two problems which are, at least in some ways, similar, (they both deal with smuggling illegal products for which there is a commercial demand), and claimed that those two problems can only by solved by different methods.

Without giving any reason at all as to why you think so.

(This is an invitation to elaborate.)

[Larry]

There is a problem with your logic: half the drug problem in the US is with legal drugs. Prescription drugs. If you legalize pot and cocaine (no one will ever legalize coke), guess what steps up and replaced pot and coke? Harder drugs, and prescription drugs. Your logic ignores human nature. If a void is created by legalizing drugs, something else will swing in to fill that void.

I fail to see you offering any reason whatsoever why you think this will occur.

Both marijuana and oxycontin (just to pick two names out of the air) are available, right now, illegally.

You assert that if marijuana is legalized, then Joe Pothead, who is currently smoking marijuana, will suddenly decide that he prefers oxycontin, instead?

Why?

[SkinsNumberOne]

While you may have experience with the legal immigration experience, it doesn't sound like you have much experience with the the illegal immigration experience.

It is NOT easier to come across the border illegally than it is to come to the country legally. Every single illegal immigrant, if there was a line to wait in or a list to sign up for, would choose to come here legally. Every one of those immigrants, from my asylum clients to my pregnant cousin, would love to have had an option to immigrate legally. There was no such option for them.

I'm not sure that's true. It's pretty expensive to come here. There are hundreds of repeated forms, hundreds of hours (literally) needed at some stages to get things done when you're talking about dealing with two governments (in terms of getting papers processed and in order to everyone's liking, etc). There are specific rules that the US imposes on legal immigrants to make sure they don't become indigent or a problem for society in the future, like the sponsoring form that gives a legal onus on the sponsor to ensure that the immigrant is taken care of. I'm not saying that the threats of legal action are going to be carried out by the government if a sponsor doesn't fulfill their supposed duty, but the idea is there that the government doesn't want people who will end up on the streets.

There is no form for Mexican laborers to fill out. There is no office for Chinese farmers to go to. If those people want to immigrate to the United States, their only option is to do so illegally, and it is usually a very expensive process that involves incurring a large debt to a smuggler and involves either hiding from the authorities or fighting through the immigration courts once you get here. Anyone who thinks illegal immigration is easy doesn't know anything about illegal immigration.

So, their only option is to come to this country illegally. It kind of sounds like - and I know this is harsh - but it kind of sounds like they have to wait until they have a better option. I mean, I don't mind if the immigration law is made easier for more people to come here easily, but there is a very large gap between what exists today (from my experience) and the people you are talking about who are coming right now. It looks like we want specific parameters around our immigrants (based on the legal immigration policy) and a lot of those obviously get thrown out the window when people skip over this same policy.

I actually have even more of a problem with that assertion, because it makes no political sense.

Even if Hispanics are a fast-growing demographic, they are still only 20% of the population. Wouldn't it be politically prudent to get the votes of 80% of the non-Hispanics? That is a weak excuse that just tries to blame a minority for the choices of the majority.

Yeah, I always think of this same thing (and have made the exact same point myself) when someone talks about the "fast growing population" of Hispanics in this country. I also wonder about the voter turnout numbers as well. I kind of guess there's lower voter turnout among that population, which makes them even less attractive for political purposes.

I only meant that most immigrants get admitted because they are related to American citizens. That is to say, they have a special legal preference that the typical Mexican farmworker does not have.

When one says that there is a "legal way" to get in, one often means "a legal way that is not available to everyone but was available to MY family."

And when one says: "why don't they follow the rules," the answer is because the current rules do not let people like them get in.

So you're saying there is no lottery system, there is no other way to get into this country? I do know people (who I'm not related to) who are now citizens who got into this country through doing business here.

If you know where I lie on these kinds of issues, it's never really right or left specifically. But I enjoy good, thoughtful debate on anything, and in this particular issue I don't think there's any easy answer. But sometimes an unfortunate answer may still be the right answer, and I'm pretty sure in this case - regardless of what "the solution" is - there are going to be unhappy people at the end.

I would love to live in a world without boundaries, passports, citizenships, specific country allegiances, etc etc. There are many people who would prefer that. The reality is very different though. There could very well be plenty of argument for changes to how the legal immigration policies work.

Being intellectually honest here, what I'm kind of getting at is if the "Mexican farmworker" is a needed commodity in the US, you'd expect there to be a policy in place for him to legally be here. If there isn't, at some level, the US doesn't want him here (or our immigration policies need to be reformed, which I guess isn't unprecedented at all). The US seems to want skilled workers, seems to have ways to get students here, seems to have ways to get people involved in specific business opportunities here, and it looks like there isn't a great way (from what I'm being told) to get certain other classes of immigrants here. I guess you are debating that the policies need to be changed so those classes can legally come here, and contribute to the betterment of the US (because as a country, the US is probably less about being a charity and better about enriching itself first and foremost). I would hope you aren't talking about some kind of "open-door" policy to the world at large though, because then again we're talking about a world we simply don't live in.

I'm just trying to be a realist about why the existing immigration policies are in place, and how they fall short of what is needed to properly address the problems that exist with illegal immigration. I'm not arguing against reform at all though.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Actually, I believe almost all of them come across the border of foot. They come across on foot and if the guide they are with is not shady, will lead them to a pick-up spot where they make the rest of the journey by truck or van to Tucson or Phoenix as hubs to wherever else they are headed.

At least that is how it works here. That's why so many die in the desert.

That being said, a fence is pretty stupid unless they do something else to monitor for tunnels under the fence/wall.

I'm somewhat of an expert on this. As I have firsthand knowledge on how it works. In San Diego though. The shining example of a secure border.

As you said, they pay a guide to walk them across the border. Once across they have someone waiting to pick them up. Normally SUV's. Vans and trucks are too obvious. And the vehicles are rentals. They actually pay people to rent the vehicles in their names.

From there they work them into the cities. Past the border though there are checkpoints scattered throughout. There are a couple of ways around this. One is they drop people off before the checkpoint and have the guide work them around that. Then they just pick them up on the other side. The checkpoints aren't always open though. On Sundays they are normally closed for most of the day and if the weather isn't good they'll close them. In San Diego this means dense fog, heavy rain or--out in the mountains--snow. Whenever they have the forest fires they'll close them down too. So they'll just get a scout vehicle to go ahead first and check out the status of he checkpoint and call back to vehicle with the immigrants. They won't use cell phones though. Instead they'll do the little cell phone walkie talkies. Like Boost Mobile has.

In San Diego, in the western part of the county in the mountains, there are Indian reservations. The federal government only has so much authority out there so they'll use that as a launching point--after the border but before the checkpoints. They'll pay some of the Indians to use their property as a place to hide the immigrants until they can be worked out of the area.

Sometimes they'll use the airport in San Diego, but most of the time they'll take them up to L.A. There is another checkpoint from San Diego to L.A. On the 405 or the 805 (I always got those mixed up.) Those are opened sporadically though and there are ways around them through the streets of the surrounding cities.

They'll keep them in a safehouse in the SD or L.A. until the money is paid or some type of payment plan can be worked out or they just become more trouble then they are worth. Cost is normally somewhere around 2K. That seems like a lot but considering some are struggling to eat back home it's an investment that's worth it. You gotta eat and you gotta take care of your family. Plus the cost to immigrate legally (which takes forever and is pretty impossible for most) is about the same. And that's if you don't hire a lawyer.

I went through the immigration process with my wife. She was here on a Visa and we had to apply for a green card. We're poor so we had to do without a lawyer. She's a college grad (back in Brazil) and I consider myself a pretty smart guy. You all have no idea how goddamn confusing and hard the whole process it is. That we were able to work out the paperwork, all the requirements (photos, letters, documents, etc), and the bureaucracy without the help of a lawyer is one of the proudest accomplishments of my life.

All of that is moot for most of the people coming over though. They are from dirt-poor towns with no chance of even starting the immigration process. A process that can take YEARS to complete. A lot of them are in desperate straits who need to act NOW. I understand the beef with illegal immigration and with a unsecured border, but I just wish people would stop acting like these people coming over are bad human beings that are leaving their homes, their families and making a dangerous and long journey for nefarious reasons. That might be true for some but I guarantee that they are a small, small minority.

So yeah, that's how it works in Cali. I can't imagine the system is that much different in Arizona or Texas.

[Thiebear]

Spend 90% of the resources on cracking down on businesses.

[desioreo87]

All i have to say is **** Arizona. You can stop anyone on reasonable suspicion? Where the **** are we living? South Africa during Apartheid? America circa 1863? This is such bull ****.

How people can be in favor of this bill is beyond me. You can be against illegal immigration and still be against this bill. This bill is all about racial profiling in arizona.

[MrSilverMaC]

All i have to say is **** Arizona. You can stop anyone on reasonable suspicion? Where the **** are we living? South Africa during Apartheid? America circa 1863? This is such bull ****.

How people can be in favor of this bill is beyond me. You can be against illegal immigration and still be against this bill. This bill is all about racial profiling in arizona.

Are you sure that's all you have to say to Arizona?

[Larry]

Are you sure that's all you have to say to Arizona?

Well, that and . . . .

Birthers.

[MrSilverMaC]

Well, that and . . . .

Birthers.

That makes me cry.

[DeaconBlue]

All i have to say is **** Arizona. You can stop anyone on reasonable suspicion? Where the **** are we living? South Africa during Apartheid? America circa 1863? This is such bull ****.

How people can be in favor of this bill is beyond me. You can be against illegal immigration and still be against this bill. This bill is all about racial profiling in arizona.

That wasnt the way I heard it. Maybe Im wrong but I thought you had to be stopped for some other infraction first. I.E. you run a red light and if the suspect you you get asked for proof that your in the state legally , in addition to the driver's license and registration that we all get asked for, for instance. So go on throw a fit. I DON"T CARE.