Posted by M. Wright | Filed in: Immigration

8 Responses

1. Volunteer Voters » Ignoring The Downside Of Amnesty Says:
   September 28th, 2007 at 11:33 am

   [...] Mick Wright cannot concur with his former boss Greg Siskind when he argues that immigration amnesty must be considered a viable policy option because a man who was granted amnesty in 1986 went on to bring the camera phone to the general public: Not factored into Siskind’s equation is how other blanket amnesty recipients may have subsequently contributed in a negative way, or if the specific achievement he cites would have been developed by the same individual while living in another country. Siskind also doesn’t consider the effects of a more targeted, individualized amnesty (rather than blanket amnesty), or the possibility of a private relief bill based on merit or national interest. [...]

2. Neil Says:
   September 28th, 2007 at 12:05 pm

   But blanket amnesties are a signal that we don’t take our laws seriously and we don’t respect our own sovereignty.

   Bad laws shouldn’t be taken seriously - they should be taken out. The touchstone of law is justice; to enforce bad laws may be “taking our laws seriously” but it mocks justice. I’d rather we take justice seriously.

   Likewise, the negative effects of bad laws should be mitigated as efficiently as possible, and to the greatest extent possible. I won’t pretend to know what the most efficient way to do this in the context of immigration law, but blanket amnesty does have an appealing simplicity to it.

   As for “respecting our sovereignty,” what do you mean? Assuming you agree that our current immigration policies are the wrong answer, is it more important that the U.S. look serious than be correct?

3. M. Wright Says:
   September 28th, 2007 at 1:07 pm

   Neil,

   I agree that our immigration laws are bad, and that justice is more important than laws. But I don’t think the best way for such laws to be “taken out” is by violating them, selective non-enforcement or blanket forgiveness unaccompanied by legal reform. Further, I don’t think people who aren’t even citizens of our country have a right to individually determine which of our laws are just and which should be ignored.

   If the laws need to be reformed, there are proper ways for us to go about changing them. And I think it’s important to be both serious and correct, so I would say that’s a false dichotomy.

   I think what I mean by “respecting our sovereignty” is that for us to remain a valid nation, we have to respect and enforce our laws, as well as our borders. Otherwise, we’re just random people living in random places according to a random sense of “justice.” Hey, maybe that appeals to you. But I’d rather have some organization. ;)

4. Greg Siskind Says:
   September 29th, 2007 at 7:11 am

   Mick - You’re welcome to call me by my first name after all these years. And I’m very, very hurt that you would post a comment that I’m in this field for the money. I think you know that I graduated from one of the best law schools in the country and worked for several years at the largest law firm in the state doing mergers and acquisitions work. Going in to to immigration law was a serious financial sacrifice. Most of my colleagues from law school who went the M & A route are now making salaries in the high six and low seven figures. I can assure you that I don’t do that well and never will as an immigration lawyer with or without changes in immigration law.

   By the way, if I wanted to attack your motives in a similar way, I could say the only reason you’re taking the position you’re taking is because Hispanics are now polling 90% Democrat (interestingly, President Bush was able to get about 40% of their votes in 2000 so its been a steep slide). If these were future GOP voters, I suspect you would be singing a different song.

   But that’s beside the point and I’ll try and stick to your arguments.

   First, with respect to the amnesty in 1986, what actual evidence do you have that the population legalized in those years has not gone on to become a productive citizenry. If you want to point to the individual here and there out of three million who was not the perfect person, that’s pretty easy. But at the macro level, this is a population that did quite well. And we can point to every generation of immigrants and find the odd criminal. The great immigration wave that came through Ellis Island gave us both America’s great composer Irving Berlin and author Isaac Asimov as well as gangsters like Lucky Luciano and Bugsy Siegel. The net effect of every immigration wave to this country has been positive and every argument you raise has been raised in the past. Criminality was usually the number one argument,in fact, so you’re unoriginal.

   But, again, what evidence do you have that those immigrants did not fare well?

   Second, just because something is law does not make it just or moral. What I find deeply, deeply ironic is that many folks who consider themselves people of faith (and I consider myself one), side with the anti-immigration crowd on the grounds that they broke the law. Those 12 million people in this country illegally are not hear for our welfare (myth #1 is that they’re actually eligible - they’re not). They crossed the desert to get here to work. And in many cases to feed families that are at home depending on them for survival. They pick our food, build our houses and clean our toilets not because it’s fun, but because its absolutely necessary.

   Most of the religious leaders of the major religious denominations have recognized the immorality of the current laws and have spoken out. Their flock, on the other hand, is a different story.

   The bible tells us to welcome the stranger. You certainly don’t seem to have taken that to heart.
   As you know, I’m hardly in a position to lecture on this subject as I’m not a religious expert, but I would recommend a piece written by Bruce Hake on this subject at http://hake.com/pc/openimm.htm.

   It’s also ironic that some people of faith have turned “amnesty” and “sanctuary” in to bad words. Both words are largely synonymous with the concept of mercy. When did your heart turn so cold?

   I would also remind you that American history is littered with laws that were unjust and that were changed. Would you have returned a runaway slave to the South? That slave crossed the border illegally and harboring or facilitating the transport of the runaway slave was a serious crime.

   Or how about a revisit to the immigration laws in this country of the 1930s and 1940s that barred most Jews in Europe from entering the country due to severe quotas? You might want to talk to Professor Clark Blatteis here in Memphis at the University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center. He was a passenger on the ship the S.S. St. Louis which was filled with 900 Jewish passengers fleeing Europe for Cuba in 1939. When they were denied asylum in Cuba, they sailed to Miami and were denied asylum in our country by President Roosevelt. They sailed back to Europe where nearly a third of the passengers were to die in the next five years at the hands of the Nazis. What makes this more interesting was that apparently a major reason why Roosevelt apparently was reacting to pressure from a group Southern conservative Democrats (who have all, by and large, later moved to the Republican Party) who threatened to withhold their support for Roosevelt’s 1940 party nomination. You seem to be upholding this Southern conservative tradition quite well.

   By the way, Professor Blatteis’ story was told in the Commercial Appeal last week - here’s another - http://www.tennesseeholocaustcommission.org/livingon/biographies/details.php?livonID=.
   Here’s another bit of irony for you - Professor Blatteis married a woman from Peru and their son Carlos Blatteis is one of the leaders in the Latino community here in town who is fighting hard for that amnesty that so perplexes you.

   You might also remember my wife Audrey (who always had nice things to say about you). Her own father, grandmother and grandfather hid in the forests of Europe for several years when the Nazis took over Romania. Should they have respected the sovereignty of neighboring countries whose borders they crossed illegally or surrendered themselves to their fate? Or how about all those Darfur refugees who illegally crossed in to Chad across the Sudan border?

   I don’t have a problem with sovereignty. But we have not had a guest worker program in this country since the 1960s, we have more jobs than people, and you’re talking about exiling 5% of the American population. So I can only assume that you understand that deporting this population is not a realistic option.

   Perhaps you like the stalemate. No legalization and no deportation. That will ensure that they remain in the shadows doing the work that needs to be done for a lot less money than they would make if they were legalized and without also having to worry about them voting some day.

5. M. Wright Says:
   September 29th, 2007 at 8:28 am

   Slightly adapted from an e-mail

   Greg,

   First off, let me apologize for how I worded that comment about the “bottom line.” My intent was never to question your integrity by any means. I know that you are doing what you truly believe is right, and you are a tremendous and honorable servant of your clients. I wouldn’t say that you do anything you do just for compensation. The point that I was trying to make was that financial interest is the bottom line in general (for everyone), and cannot be discounted as a factor. I shouldn’t have said it was your personal “main reason,” but I would contend that is the “main reason” for many amnesty advocates, and perhaps simply an additional reason for others. I’m sorry for the way I wrote that, and that I’ve offended you. Again, that was not my intent.

   As you know, I also care about immigrants, and as I wrote on the blog I am in favor of liberalizing our laws so that more immigrants can live, work and visit here. I don’t hold anything against people who come here seeking a better life, or out of necessity. I think we need to accept more people and allow them to enjoy the same benefits and responsibilities we have. I think we need to do that in a smart way, in a way that is respectful of our nation, its laws and its borders. I don’t think blanket amnesty is an appropriate way to do that.

   I’m not sure why you decided to retaliate by questioning my motives and attributing them to partisan interest, Southern bigotry and religious negligence.

   I did not mention partisan interests as a factor in my opinion about blanket amnesty because it isn’t one. It’s true that I am a Republican, but I’m a Republican because I believe in the party’s conservative philosophy, not the other way around. I would be happy to see more Hispanics get involved in our political process, and I look forward to winning them over to my side.

   The reason I didn’t single out Hispanics in my blog post was because my opinion about blanket amnesty isn’t influenced by racial prejudice.

   My best friend growing up in Wisconsin — the first friend I ever made on my own — his name was Farhat Ahmad. He was a Muslim, and his family came to America from Pakistan. While my family supported Reagan, they were Mondale voters. I was glad they came to this country. I’d do anything to see him again.

   In middle school in Iowa, my best friend was named Alejandro, or Alex for short. He was bright, a geography bee champion, and a Hispanic kid. His family was from Mexico, and they were probably illegal immigrants. I was glad they came to this country. I would do anything to locate him and catch up.

   I understand you were hurt by what I wrote, but I would think if you were interested in talking to me and smoothing things over, you wouldn’t have responded by questioning my integrity in terms of partisanship, Southern bigotry and — worst of all — religious negligence.

   You write that I “certainly don’t seem to have taken that to heart,” meaning the Bible’s call to welcome the stranger. I think that’s a pretty low thing to say just because I don’t agree with a specific policy you favor. As I’ve said several times now, I think we need to be more welcoming of strangers. People looking for work. People wanting to be with their families. People who just want to visit. People who want to make a new life here. People fleeing persecution. Absolutely, they should come.

   The only place we disagree is in how that should happen, how they should go about coming here (especially in light of the terrorist threat), and how we should enforce our laws and respect our borders, and how the law ought to be reformed.

   My point is that blanket amnesty is either right or wrong, regardless of an anecdote about any one person.

   You serve clients who are bright, hard working and worthy of our respect and admiration. And you serve them well. If they want to come here, I’m certainly not standing in the way. I want them here, too. But I want them to come here legally, not under false pretenses, or stealing through the night hiding in the shadows. And I want us to respect our country enough to reform the law through proper channels.

   We need to reform the law so that the people who need to come here can come. I don’t think its right to give blanket amnesty. I don’t think its right for anyone to enter illegally or under false pretenses unless they’re escaping an emergency situation. And for those who are working here legally, I also don’t think its right to publish phony job postings customized so that only that one person fits the job description, and printed in places where nobody will see it. Immigrants should be welcomed to come here to work and live, but let’s respect the law and be honorable in the way we go about incorporating them into our society.

   I’m glad we had a chance to correspond, Greg, and I’m sorry it had to happen this way. Perhaps we can get together in person soon and catch up. I’ll buy you a baked potato(e).

   Give my regards to Audrey and your beautiful daughters,

   Mick

6. Greg Siskind Says:
   September 29th, 2007 at 11:19 am

   I appreciate what you say and apology accepted. But I wonder if your friend Alejandro would be scared to meet with you after seeing what you wrote. Do you think his family had criminal tendencies? Do you think they would make poor Americans. Do you think Alejandro deserved a chance to go to college like you? Or should he be relegated to a future in hiding. If it upset you that I brought the religion thing up, it was meant to upset you. Because if there is a person I know in this town who has firm religious convictions it is you and I simply don’t see your views on this issue in any way being compatible with the religious principles you espouse.

   As for conservative values, I had thought of you more in line with the pre-presidential campaign Sam Brownback. Before he found out he could not get his party’s nomination and say nice things about immigrants, I had the opportunity to hear him given an impassioned speech two years ago explaining why being a good conservative meant being pro-immigration. He identified with the strong family and religious values of the typical immigrant family as well as the work ethic and the desire to build a better life for their children. And he cited his general distrust of government interference with small business owners in terms of telling them who they can and cannot hire or in setting tight government controls on the labor supply in the US.

   As for the Southern thing, during the recent debate in Congress on immigration reform, it was telling - very telling - that almost all of the leaders fighting against immigration reform were the Southern Republicans. It was like we were back in ‘64 and the issue was President Kennedy’s Civil Rights Act. Or 25 years earlier debating the admission of Jewish immigrants to the country. I had hoped that in the 21st century, this part of the country had moved past this. But we still have a long way to go. Plenty of western conservatives have taken pro-immigration positions so I think it transcends one’s general view of government. I don’t want to use the “r” word because people shut down and can’t discuss things reasonably when you do, but it’s hard to get past the fact that the anti-immigrant movement in this country is strongest in this part of the country - even stronger than in places with much, much larger immigrant populations.

7. M. Wright Says:
   September 29th, 2007 at 10:04 pm

   This discussion is frustrating on so many levels, not the least of which being that I still feel bad about what I wrote and how it hurt you, and I feel like this would be healthier and more productive in person. But I do want to respond to a few things.

   First, let me say I appreciate your comment about my “firm religious convictions,” but that I would fear for our city if that were truly the case. I’m certainly not the best role model for my faith, so I hate to think what kind of example I might be setting. But there’s an off-chance that you meant that in a pejorative sense — which, again, shows that this might not be the best forum for us to discuss this issue.

   I feel like you’re not really listening to what I’m saying, because I think our disagreement is over a tactic (blanket amnesty) rather than a more general value (liberalized immigration law).

   You wrote that what you said about my religion “was meant to upset [me]” and that you “simply don’t see [my] views on this issue in any way being compatible with the religious principles [I] espouse.”

   But since I’ve made it clear time and again that I believe in reforming the laws to welcome more immigrants, I think it’s time I turn the tables on you:

   What if I said that you were not living up to your espoused religious principles because the tactic you advocate (blanket amnesty) was immoral?

   What if I said the scripture commands that we reform the law so that the problem is fixed permanently, rather than just advocating an arbitrary, one-time amnesty that only serves as a band-aid? Isn’t it immoral to kick the can down the road and only let a select group of people circumvent the law?

   That’s more than just a hypothetical question, because I truly believe it. In addition to blanket amnesty not being right because it encourages lawlessness and is disrespectful of our nation’s sovereignty, but it’s also improper because it leaves the larger issue unchanged.

   But the thing is, the Bible is not a legal handbook that specifies which political policies are correct for the United States of America. So it’s unfair of either of us to say that “God is on our side.” What you’ve written, and what I wrote above, is no more valid than what Jim Wallis says is “God’s Politics,” such as God being if favor of the death tax. I’ve quite had it with pundits telling me that God favors this specific policy or that specific federal budget plan.

   I’m also fed up with people disregarding valid arguments by ignoring the specifics, lumping individuals into a group, and then labeling that group racists, hate-mongers, war-mongers, sexists, homophobes, etc.

   It’s true that there was a time when I wouldn’t have believed that there really were racists in the Party of Lincoln, the party that freed the slaves and supported the Civil Rights act. But over the past few years I have come face to face with some of these people, so I am no longer ignorant. I know they exist, just as I now know that racist Democrats exist, and not just Senator Byrd. Tennessee’s 9th District U.S. House race and Steve Cohen have proved that many Democrats are as racist as they come. And I have also come face to face with Democrats who really do hate America and wish defeat upon this nation.

   I would think, however, that the best rhetorical tactic would be to win people over with compelling arguments, rather than by alienating them with disparaging labels and ad hominem attacks.

   If you want to encourage conservatives to support amnesty, I would think you would want to start by convincing people like me that it was the correct course. You’re not going to do that by calling me a racist, a blind partisan or a negligent Christian.

8. Neil Says:
   October 4th, 2007 at 9:36 am

   Well, I’ll play referee and say that I think you’ve both made interesting points. And as referee, I’ll beg you both to ignore the person (and whatever characteristics he might or might not have) and stick to the policy we are discussing.

   As near as I can tell, the point of contention is amnesty for violators of our current laws (laws which both of you agree are not the best solution).

   Mick, one of the main arguments against blanket amnesty that I hear from you is that it rewards lawlessness or reflects a lack of seriousness for our laws.

   Let’s hypothesize. Say we change the law making it easier and less risky for individuals with good motives (employment) to get a guest worker visa than it is to cross the border illegally. Assume that had this law been in place a decade ago, all of the currently “illegal” immigrants would have used it instead of being illegal. How does not punishing those violators ENCOURAGE lawlessness? Immigrants can’t break the old immigration law any more - we’ve changed it. So what law will this encourage them to break?

   And one other point before I have to go do actual, bill-the-client work. You said:

   My point is that blanket amnesty is either right or wrong, regardless of an anecdote about any one person.

   This seems incorrect to me. Blanket amnesty is either a better solution or a worse solution to our current policy problem. Painting it in moral “right or wrong” terms doesn’t seem particularly useful to me; but maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.

   oh, and GO CUBS.