Immigration - Part 36,248

Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Heather McDonald has written a long but ultimately unsatisfying jeremiad for City Journal. She does a very thorough job of citing example after example of problems resulting from an influx of illegals but she draws no attention to the fact that all of her examples are drawn from a very small geographic area and are the proximate result of a decision made by the Los Angeles City Council which instructed the LAPD to develop what became known as Special Order 40. McDonald did a better job on "root causes" in this 2004 City Journal article which explains the political dynamic a bit more completely. Her paragraph on Giuliani's fight to protect illegals is rather entertaining - and very good ammo for his opponents in the primaries.

It is impossible to insist that the Feds "enforce the law" while local and state governments do their damnedest to resist enforcement. Georgia and Arizona are both doing what is necessary to discourage illegals but as long as southern California remains an illegal migrant magnet - with "amnesty" and court mandated benefits, the national problem cannot begin to be solved.

10 comments:

Skookumchuk said...

Rick:

as long as southern California remains an illegal migrant magnet - with "amnesty" and court mandated benefits, the national problem cannot begin to be solved.

Perhaps those with some knowledge of the law can chime in on how to curb these activities at the state and local levels. As a practical matter, what would be the quickest and simplest way to do it?

terrye said...

This is something I have often wondered about myself. If it was as simple as just enforcing the laws, the problem would not exist. Obviously there is more to it than that.

Gale asked me why the states don't do more of the work themselves by fining people who hire illegals or by putting their NG units on the border without the president asking them to. In fact he asked me who actually has possession of the border, I assume it is the Feds, but then again there is private property right there.

But Rick is correct, a huge chunk of the illegals are in California or at least seem to consider it safe haven. And I don't think that all the illegals are a negative either, if they were we would not have an open border down there for 140 years.

David Thomson said...

I’m sure the problem is worse in California than it is Texas. We are, of course, a Republican state. It does not behoove the current political establishment to encourage such nonsense. The Democrats in California, on the other hand, basically see illegals as future voters. Rick’s place of residence is not likely to become a red state anytime in the near future. The situation will probably get worse.

Rick Ballard said...

DT,

I'm not positive that it's actual votes that they are looking for. Texas is a very good example of a state that discourages rent seeking - it did so when it was run by Democrats just about as much as it does now. California encourages rent seeking - and the bureaucracies that are used to disburse largesse in a manner that no other state does. That's why we went broke and will go broke again.

Increasing the pool of rent seekers is a form of wall building for the Blue Castles. I started working on comparisons between Blue Castle cities and healthy cities and had to quit when I realized that what I came up with had such racial overtones that it could serve no positive purpose.

As to turning back the tide - a Federal law restricting or denying funding to any state or municipality that engages in any type of "amnesty" for illegal behavior would be a good start. It would have to be fought out in the courts and it would take a more conservative SC than we now have to establish it in law.

The reason that I say that the Dems aren't just buying votes is that Hispanics conform just as other ethnicities have conformed before. They're for the Dems until they start owning and then they don't really want to know them any more. I'd love to see splits on third generation citizens of Hispanic descent. I don't think the Dems would like them at all.

loner said...

The national government is responsible for national borders. Border states have the same responsibilities as all the other states.

What's to curb?

No drivers licenses for illegals! Okay. That's a state thing and it was a big political issue so we got that. Of course, when I went to exchange my PA drivers license for a CA one back in 2000, I was the only person to pass the written test while I was there and paying attention. That day most of the people who didn't pass appeared to be of Asian ancestry. There were no sixteen year olds amongst them. Were they legal? Did they eventually pass? Are they driving? My guess is that the answer "yes" most often, if truth be told, applies to the third question.

And then there's the conventional wisdom regarding the passage of Proposition 187 by California voters in 1994 and Republican Party fortunes in the state since that election. Not good.

What's to curb?

I skimmed the linked article. Nothing of substance is going to be done this year.

David Thomson said...

“it did so when it was run by Democrats just about as much as it does now.”

The yellow dog Democrats of yesterday are now committed Republicans. Today’s Texas Democratic party is getting goofier.

“I'd love to see splits on third generation citizens of Hispanic descent. I don't think the Dems would like them at all.”

Yeah, but the first and second generations tend to support Democratic candidates. Today’s politicians are only worried about the here and now. Like John Maynard Keynes once said: in the long run we are all dead anyway.

Rick Ballard said...

DT,

The first generation is illegal, they're not supposed to vote, period. The overall split is about 62/38 and divides on economic status.

The true Yellow Dog Dems never switched - the vast majority of them have just gone to The Big Rock Candy Mountain in the sky. Their kids did switch - and they show no sign of returning to the fold. Their kids are registering independent in higher numbers than any preceding generation. That's the tickler for the future and that's why the Reps keep moving to the muddle in the middle.

terrye said...

it is also true that California has always had a large hispanic population.

I remember reading about the Mexican Reparation Act back in the 30's. It turns out that the majority of "Mexicans" shipped back to Mexico to make room for the Okies were actually Americans. But they looked and sounded Mexican to the authorities so they were forced to leave.

I

terrye said...

loner:

If the feds are responsible for the border why don't the states put up barriers or walls a quarter mile in and make the feds pay for it? It just seems to me that when I turn on TV I see the Minute Men standing on someone's private party talking about the wall they are building, so obviously there are nonfederal lands there. If the states are so up against the wall on this why don't they condemn the property, take control of it and do something themselves? Instead they refuse to comply with federal law and bitch when the president ask for NG troops down there.

loner said...

terrye—

If the feds are responsible for the border why don't the states put up barriers or walls a quarter mile in and make the feds pay for it?

Make?

If the states are so up against the wall on this why don't they condemn the property, take control of it and do something themselves?

Separation of powers? Courts? Armies? Money?

Instead they refuse to comply with federal law...

With what statutes are the states refusing to comply?

...and bitch when the president ask for NG troops down there.

It's a free country.