From The Archives -- We've Always Played Politics With Immigration
Program Note
OK, I know I semi-promised (yesterday) that there would be a new column today, but while reviewing columns for Thursday and Friday I actually came up with three good former columns on the subject of immigration -- a subject now being hotly debated in the Senate. What I would have written about today (instead) is the rampant hypocrisy of the Republicans, vis-à-vis the CBO report just out which shows that the Senate immigration bill would actually reduce the deficit by close to $200 billion in the first ten years, and something like $700 billion in the following decade -- versus the Republicans' insistence that deficit and debt reduction is their party's highest priority. That column will have to wait until next week, I suppose.
For now, and for the rest of the week, I'm presenting three repeat columns on the subject of reforming immigration. I'll be doing this out of chronoligical order -- today's column actually ran one day after the column I've got teed up for tomorrow. Both ran at the beginning of this year, when pundits were busily estimating the chances of comprehensive immigration reform actually becoming a legislative reality this year. After half a year, I thought it was worth a look back at my initial takes on the subject.
Today's column deals almost exclusively with some historical aspects of tackling the subject, and tomorrow's column deals with my estimation of the chances of success for such legislation this year (complete with an introduction which updates my rash prediction). Then for Friday, I dipped a little deeper into the archives for a column I initially wrote in 2010, right after the Arizona anti-immigrant law passed (part of which was struck down by the Supreme Court this week, making it relevant once again). It's a more sweeping and non-political look at the entire subject, which is why I saved it for Friday rather than presenting it in chronological order. Anyway, that's the lineup for the rest of the week, unless I get random bursts of energy during the Netroots Nation conference and decide to "live-blog" what's going on. Once again, next Monday, regular (new) columns will resume on schedule.
[Originally published January 30, 2013]
We stand at the beginning of a grand debate on immigration. America goes through these grand debates every generation or so, and what remains constant is that both sides in the fight can be counted upon to accuse the other side of "playing politics" with the immigration issue. This has, indeed already begun.
Republicans are offering up a splendid display of doublethink on the issue, in order to be able to say: "Hah! We were right all along," no matter what happens. Republicans make two accusations, which are completely contradictory (which doesn't seem to bother them at all), that the whole thing is just a cynical political game: (1) Obama and the Democrats want to legalize 11 million people who will then immediately become reliable Democratic voters, and/or (2) Obama and the Democrats will somehow find a way to scuttle the deal because they really don't want to pass any law, they just want to use the issue to beat up Republicans, in election after election. As I mentioned, no matter what happens, they'll be able to fall back on one of these tropes. Democrats, however, are using the second of these (with slight modification) to explain their own wariness: Republicans just want to be able to say: "We tried something" during the next election, and they will find a way to scuttle the deal in the end while blaming Democrats for the legislative failure.
The media gladly goes along for this ride, because (as we all know) conflict sells. What's amusing to me, however, is that very little historical context will be presented in the entire debate. Which is a shame, because anyone who knows the slightest bit about the issue's history knows that America always plays politics with immigration, in one fashion or another. It's an inherently political issue, in fact, so it would indeed be impossible to completely divorce it from "political games."
Most, when thinking about the history of immigration, reflect on the twentieth century. Ellis Island. Braceros. Internment camps during World War II. That sort of thing. But the question of immigration was even uglier in the previous century, with political parties formed around being anti-Catholic (which was definitely a question of immigration -- who got let in -- at the time). However, to really prove the point that we've always played politics with immigration, the easiest thing to do is go all the way back to the dawn of our federal government, in the 1790s -- the first decade or so after the ratification of the United States Constitution.
The nascent political parties were the Federalists and the Antifederalists. The Federalists had a stronghold in New England, which was downright nativist in its views. Don't believe me? One Federalist wrote to Abigail Adams in 1798: "the grand cause of all our present difficulties may be traced... to so many hordes of Foreigners immigrating to America." That's pretty cut-and-dried nativism. Immigrants were undesirables for one reason or another, stated freshman House member Harrison Gray Otis, who hailed from Boston: "I feel every disposition to respect those honest and industrious people... who have become citizens... but I do not wish to invite hordes of wild Irishmen, nor the turbulent and disorderly of all parts of the world, to come here with a view to disturb our tranquility after having succeeded in the overthrow of their own governments." Federalists had other reasons for disapproving of immigrants as well: "The mass of foreigners, who have sought asylum in the United States, have been compelled to that measure by their poverty or their crimes."
The "culture" argument was strong, as well. Federalists railed against the Louisiana Purchase, in part because of the types of people who lived there (mostly of French or Spanish descent): "Why admit to a participation in the government aliens who were not parties to the compact -- who are ignorant of the nature of our institutions, and have no stake in the welfare of the country but what is recent and transitory?" There was a heavy regional attitude as well, as Josiah Quincy proclaimed: "The influences of emigrants prevail over those of the ancient natives... the voices of our Representatives will be drowned amid the discordant jargon of French, Spanish, German, and Irish delegates, chosen by slave owners, in a disproportionate ratio." Federalists believed that such immigrants would never manage what is today called "assimilation." Sound familiar?
Beyond New England "exceptionalism" (it's hard to call it anything else), the Federalists were fighting a political battle which should also sound familiar. The ranks of Thomas Jefferson's Antifederalists were being swelled by the influx of immigrants, because most found the (small-R) republican values of the Antifederalists more in tune with what they expected from America. Since, at the time, more immigrants meant more political power for the other side, Federalists began limiting immigration.
In 1790, an immigrant to the United States could become a full citizen after two years of living here. In 1795, this was upped to five years. But 1798 was when the issue truly exploded on the American political scene, for a number of reasons. By 1798, Federalists were pushing not only to require 14 years of residence to become a citizen, but they also wanted to bar all immigrants from serving in the federal government.
This was personal. It was, in fact, directed against a man named Albert Gallatin, who had been born in Switzerland. Gallatin was, at the time, what we would call the House Majority Leader for the Antifederalists. If the proposed law passed, it would force him out of government altogether. Neat way of getting rid of a political opponent, eh? Gallatin later went on to become America's longest-serving Treasury Secretary of all time. Today, such a law would be seen as unconstitutional, but this was before Marbury v. Madison was decided, where the Supreme Court decided it had the power to strike down such laws -- so no judicial remedy would have been possible.
The real reason the fur was flying over immigration in the late 1790s, though, was that America was perilously close to fighting a war with France. This became known as the "Quasi War" -- what we'd today perhaps call "limited warfare." Feelings against the French ran high, as this was just after the French Revolution had descended into a "reign of terror." Fears our own governmental experiment would follow the same course were not entirely unjustified, due to the newness of our federal system.
Congress held fierce debates over what to do with "aliens." America is always at her worst, constitutionally and morally, when we are fearing war. 1798 was no different, in fact it was the first of many such reactionary periods. Proposals abounded in Congress. All aliens from countries at war with America, upon the proclamation of the president, could be immediately deported. Further provisions gave the president the power to determine who was a threatening alien fit for deportation, on his own. No judicial review was possible. One Federalist explained: "punishment ought not to depend upon the slow operations of a trial" -- the president's say-so was good enough. Even the foreign-born Alexander Hamilton (a founder of the Federalist philosophy) agreed: "the mass ought to be obliged to leave the Country."
A national registration system for aliens was also proposed, with the first of what would become "green cards." Aliens weren't the only ones targeted, though -- citizens who were going to permit an alien to even cross the threshold of their houses had to first give written notice to a federal judge, in an attempt to penalize "harboring an alien."
What came out of this fight were the "Alien and Sedition Acts." The "sedition" part of it was aimed at anyone espousing anti-government opinions. This was also personal, and targeted Antifederalist newspaper editors -- many of them aliens, themselves. In particular, it targeted the loudest voice among the Antifederalist editors, Benjamin Franklin Bache of the Philadelphia Aurora (Ben Franklin's grandson). Any person who said, wrote, published, or otherwise printed any opinions disrespectful of the party in power could be tried in federal court for such "crimes." Antifederalist editors were rounded up and given steep fines or chucked in jail.
While the impetus for passing the Alien and Sedition Acts was the looming threat of war, the Federalists quite obviously overreached in playing the political game. Not only did they cement their anti-immigrant stance with the public, they tried to crush the opposing political party by whatever means they could think up.
What happened was a backlash. Thomas Jefferson and his Antifederalists swept into power two years later (in the election of 1800), and the Federalists began a political decline which ended with the complete death of their party in the 1810s. Granted, what really killed off Federalism was their opposition to the War of 1812, but their anti-immigrant stance certainly didn't help them with the changing demographics of their time.
Raging debates over immigration in the political arena are nothing new. Political parties have eyed the immigration question through a very partisan lens ("Will this help or hurt my party?") since the beginning of American political parties. The issues raised are not exactly new, and even the positions taken are far from original. Harrison Gray Otis even admitted what the Federalists were truly scared of: "If some means are not adopted to prevent the indiscriminate admission of wild Irishmen & others to the right of suffrage, there will soon be an end to liberty and property." Suffrage, of course, is the right to vote. Back then, as now, immigration was seen by some as a thing to be feared and a burden on the country. The targeted groups change over time (not many rail against letting the "wild Irish" in these days...), but the sentiments do not. Perhaps the most succinct statement of this feeling also comes from Otis, who wrote a fellow Federalist to warn that the Antifederalists were bent on short-changing existing citizens by giving "foreigners our loaves and fishes."
Some things never change.
[Notes: I use "Antifederalists" where many historians use "Democratic-Republicans," because this double-barrelled label was only very rarely used back then. Jefferson's party normally called themselves "Republicans," but this gets confusing as there is no link to the modern Republican Party at all. All quotes were taken from two sources: James M. Banner Jr., To The Hartford Convention: The Federalists and the Origins of Party Politics in Massachusetts, 1789-1815 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970) pp.89-99; and William J. Watkins Jr., Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), pp.27-42.]
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
i remember this column, and liked it quite a bit the first time round.
What I would have written about today (instead) is the rampant hypocrisy of the Republicans, vis-à-vis the CBO report just out which shows that the Senate immigration bill would actually reduce the deficit by close to $200 billion in the first ten years, and something like $700 billion in the following decade -- versus the Republicans' insistence that deficit and debt reduction is their party's highest priority.
And what *I* would have responded with is what about the fact that, over the next decade, 33 million new workers will be dumped into the jobs market, competing with other minorities for low-end, low wage jobs.
Unemployment for black Americans is over 25%!!
Do you think adding 33 MILLION new low end workers is going to help that??
That column will have to wait until next week, I suppose.
Then I spose I'll have to keep my powder dry.. :D
Michale
Let me demonstrate the lack of facts here...
Where did the 33 million come from? NumbersUSA or an independent source? Doesn't sound like a "fact" to me. More like an biased projection.
If the 33 million immigrants are competing with "other minorities" are all 33 million immigrants minorities? Are all low wage or are some H1B1? The verbiage is vague. Not much "fact" here either
Current unemployment rate for African Americans is 13.5% as per the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate for African American males is 25% but that is not what you wrote...
Valid points, possibly but I'm not seeing any "facts" here...
Bashi,
Let me demonstrate the lack of facts here..
See, that's your problem, Bashi..
I post facts and you base your LACK of facts statement solely and completely on the simple premise that you don't know..
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/10-Year_LPR_Numbers.pdf
Current unemployment rate for African Americans is 13.5% as per the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate for African American males is 25% but that is not what you wrote...
Once again, a minor typo, nothing more..
Let's face it..
You simply don't LIKE the facts so you spin and nit-pick...
Why don't you address the point being made rather than respond with minor grammar-lame-esque responses??
33 Million new low-end workers into a field that already has an over-abundance of low-end workers??
How can that be a good thing??
Valid points, possibly but I'm not seeing any "facts" here...
Oh, yer seeing them all right..
You just don't like what they say so you spin and nit-pick rather than address the points that they make... :D
Michale
OK let me make it a little easier for you...
Let's say, for the sake of the discussion, that the 33 million new immigrants being dumped into the job market is accurate..
The number could be 10 million, the number could be 100 million..
But since there is evidence to back up the 33 million, let's use that number..
Do you think it's good idea to dump ANY number of new workers into the low-end job market when that market is already over-saturated with workers??
Do you think it's a good idea to dump millions of new workers into a job market when the unemployment rate for other minorities in that exact same jobs market is as high as 25%??
Does that make any kind of sense to do that??
Michale
Wrong link posted on that....
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/cchmielenski/may-3-2013/33-million-green-cards-10-years-heres-how.html
Here's the breakdown if you don't want to click on links..
10,647,000 -- green cards currently being issued in all categories per decade
+13,364,000 -- green cards in the newly created merit-based track two category
+1,337,000 -- green cards in the newly created merit-based track one category
+2,510,000 -- green cards for spouses and minor children of employment-based green cards (a new category)
+2,500,000 -- green cards to DREAMers
+864,000 -- green cards to Agricultural workers
+1,177,000 -- recapturing "unused" green cards
+676,000 -- others
Michale
"Damn!! Three times!!!"
-AUSTIN POWERS, THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME
:D
Michale
I post facts and you base your LACK of facts statement solely and completely on the simple premise that you don't know..
Uh, no. The "fact" is that a anti-immigration group made a projection. The projection it's self is, by the definition of the word fact, not a fact but a projection. Unless of course you have a time machine, went in to the future a decade, then came back with verification of the numbers...
Once again, a minor typo, nothing more..
Let's face it..
You simply don't LIKE the facts so you spin and nit-pick...
13.5% vs 25%, Pretty big typo. Which I notice was not corrected. Are we talking about African American unemployment rate or specifically African American male unemployment rate?
A few posts down (yes, I am in guideline territory here) you mention the 25% figure without defining it. This is what I would call a pseudo fact. Massaging the numbers to make them bigger without defining them. Can I counter by slicing out a part of the population that has an unemployment rate below the current overall unemployment rate?
You simply don't LIKE the facts so you spin and nit-pick...
So far you have posted a single fact and that was evidently accidental as it had to be pointed out to you.
Now lets look at your numbers:
33 Million new low-end workers into a field that already has an over-abundance of low-end workers??
Not according to the numbers you posted.
13,364,000 are merit-based track two. These folks are employed and have been in the country for 10 years. This means a) they are already here and therefore not additional and currently employed. b) have been so for 10 years, which means a certain percentage have or will move beyond "low end" jobs.
1,337,000 are merit-based track one. This give points for education, employment experience, exceptional employment record, occupation, length of residence in the U.S., family ties in the U.S., knowledge of English language, etc. These folks are even less likely than track two to end up in "low end" jobs.
2,510,000 are the spouses and minor children of current green card holders. It is unclear how many of these folks will end up in "low end" jobs. The younger children will likely get an education and go straight to better jobs.
So your numbers are not only not facts but have also been proven to not support your assertion that all the immigrants are all new to the labor pool and will all end up in low end jobs.
Now personally I do think immigration is good for the country and has been through it's entire history. I don't see this suddenly changing. Having looked at this program, I think I support it.
Any chance your next argument will actually contain facts?
You call for "facts" yet all you have is spin...
OH well, if we have to go this route.... AGAIN...
Uh, no. The "fact" is that a anti-immigration group made a projection.
Exactly!!!
And, unless you have some other facts to DISPUTE their projections (do you??) then those projections stand..
13.5% vs 25%, Pretty big typo. Which I notice was not corrected. Are we talking about African American unemployment rate or specifically African American male unemployment rate?
"These endless quibbles!!!"
-Romulan Commander, STAR TREK, The Enterprise Incident..
Ya know, I really don't have the time (nor the inclination) to address your spin, point by point..
But, since you are so devoted to spin... Here's goes..
These folks are employed and have been in the country for 10 years. This means a) they are already here and therefore not additional and currently employed. b) have been so for 10 years, which means a certain percentage have or will move beyond "low end" jobs.
Really?? Those 13 million PROJECTED new workers are "already here"??
And your evidence to support that ludicrous time-jumping claim is...????
1,337,000 are merit-based track one. This give points for education, employment experience, exceptional employment record, occupation, length of residence in the U.S., family ties in the U.S., knowledge of English language, etc. These folks are even less likely than track two to end up in "low end" jobs.
Are they "already here" too??
2,510,000 are the spouses and minor children of current green card holders. It is unclear how many of these folks will end up in "low end" jobs. The younger children will likely get an education and go straight to better jobs.
And, again, your evidence to support this "likely" is what, exactly???
So, to sum up, your entire rebuttal of the "facts" is time-travel, a bunch of "likelys" and some phantom immigrants that are ready made high end workers, fresh from the Easy-Bake Oven....
And you provide absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to support ANYTHING you have posted...
Now personally I do think immigration is good for the country and has been through it's entire history. I don't see this suddenly changing. Having looked at this program, I think I support it.
Of course you do.. Because it's a Democrat program..
But did you support this program under President Bush??
Of course you didn't... Because it was from President Bush..
Just like you claim that the domestic spying is NOT a "Right v Left" issue under Obama, but it's a hysterical "war crime" under President Bush..
This is why it's impossible to have a discussion with facts..
Because I bring all the facts and you bring a bunch of maybes, likelys and possibilities.. But I have to admire the time-jump angle. That was pretty kewl..
For the record, the TEN MILLION number are the illegals that are already here.. The 13 Million are the projections for future immigrants..
Now....
Let's go with a simple and concise question...
I'll donate $50 to YOUR charity if you can answer it with zero equivocation...
Do you think it's a good idea to dump millions of new low end workers into a job market that is already over-flowing with low-end workers??
Assuming your answer is "of course" then WHY do you think it's a good idea....
Michale
Oh, I forgot to address the black American percentage of unemployment..
What possibly could be the difference as to whether it's ALL black Americans or male/female black Americans to the question put forth???
Does the 25% unemployment rate for black Americans/male black Americans matter in the question being asked??
No it does not..
The fact is, the current unemployment rate for a group that would be competing with the tens of millions of new workers is at 25%...
Now, does the fact that that group is black Americans or MALE black Americans have **ANY** bearing on the issue??
No, it does not. Not one iota..
That is the problem with debates here.. Ya'all find one minor irrelevant nit-pick and base your ENTIRE rebuttal on that ONE minor irrelevant nit-pick..
It's the 10 Billion/10 Million muslims in the world "rebuttal" all over again...
You latch onto an irrelevant "typo" and tap dance your way around the entire question..
It's a pitiful debating technique along the same lines as a grammar/spelling lame...
It also constitutes a concession.. :D
Michale
This might help you understand my argument.
It's the EXACT same argument that Dems like Barbara Boxer and Sherrod Brown and a dozen or so OTHER Dems made when Bush proposed the same type of immigration legislation that we're facing today...
I await your claims of "Oh, that's different." :D
"Damn!! Three times!!"
:D
Michale
Has anyone ever noticed that the "personal" arguments here in Weigantia (Michale posts too much!! Michale's a poo head!! etc etc) always seems to coincide with Obama's approval numbers going south..
Amazing, iddn't it? :D
Michale
Yawn. A little fuzzy with the English language today? You know there are quite a few online dictionaries if you would like to learn the actual definition of fact...
Really?? Those 13 million PROJECTED new workers are "already here"??
Duh! Have you even bothered to read the bill you are arguing against? Here, have fun.
And your evidence to support that ludicrous time-jumping claim is...????
Uh, the dictionary definition of "fact"?
Of course you do.. Because it's a Democrat program..
But did you support this program under President Bush??
If this newly written bill had been put forth during the Bush administration I would have supported it. As it is new, there is no way I could have supported it during the Bush administration unless you would lend me that aforementioned time machine...
Do you think it's a good idea to dump millions of new low end workers into a job market that is already over-flowing with low-end workers??
Assuming your answer is "of course" then WHY do you think it's a good idea....
Second to last paragraph of my previous post answers both questions. You even quoted it. Do you even read the comments of others?
Yikes!
So, you think it's a good idea to dump tens of millions of low end workers into a job market that already HAS an over abundance of low end workers...
Your previous comment doesn't answer the WHY...
Let me give you a few quotes as to WHY it's bad idea..
“Comprehensive Immigration reform would exert downward pressure on wages at a time when we are already losing our middle class.”
That's Dem Senator Barbara Boxer...
“to create a permanent pool of insecure and low-paid workers whom I believe will never leave the country, even though they are supposed to, according to the rules of the program. This will only continue the cycle of illegal immigration.”
So'se that....
So, Boxer is wrong and you are right??
Michale
Let me see if I can make it even simpler for you to understand..
"If you dumb this down any more, I'm gonna slug you!"
-Lt Col John Shepard, STARGATE ATLANTIS
:D
You have a group of Americans. The majority of this group fills the majority of low-income jobs within the job market. This particular group has a 25% unemployment rate in the here and now..
Now, legislation is being considered that would jam tens of millions of new workers into the job market. Of those tens of millions of new workers, the vast majority of those new workers will be vying for low-income jobs..
In short, they will be competing for those jobs with the afore mentioned group, whose unemployment rate is ALREADY at 25%..
Now, logically speaking..
What is the logical and rational result of jamming tens of millions of new workers into a segment of the job market that is already over-filled with workers??
What happens to that group, whose unemployment rate is ALREADY at 25%??
Doesn't ANY Democrat care about THOSE workers??
Oh wait.. Democrats DID "care" about those workers..
When it was political advantageous to do so...
Now that it's politically advantageous to throw those workers to the unemployment wolves??
Guess what??
That's what Democrats are doing...
"DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH??"
-Jackie Chan, RUSH HOUR
:D
Now, if you see a flaw in the logic... by all means..
Point it out..
But if you latch onto a typo or a grammar lame, I shall taunt you a second time!!
Michale
OK, well, don't have much to say here, other than the Senate looks like it's ready to move on a final vote by Friday, and we'll be revisiting this all summer long with the House.
Michale -
When you say "dumped into the labor market" -- these people are already here. They're already IN the labor market. Are you talking about the "legal labor market" or what? Plenty of them are already working, so the impacts on the labor market (as a whole) are likely going to be less than you're predicting. It's not as if millions of folks are going to show up next Tuesday, they're already here. Maybe I'm missing something...
-CW
When you say "dumped into the labor market" -- these people are already here. They're already IN the labor market. Are you talking about the "legal labor market" or what? Plenty of them are already working, so the impacts on the labor market (as a whole) are likely going to be less than you're predicting. It's not as if millions of folks are going to show up next Tuesday, they're already here. Maybe I'm missing something...
I am not talking about the ones that are already here.. I am talking about the 10 million, the 20 million, the 30 million that will be here over the coming years...
Democrats made the EXACT same argument I am making when Bush proposed EXACTLY what the Democrats are pushing now..
So, what has changed??
Ah yes... The POTUS has a '-D' after his name... :D
Michale