I caught only 30 minutes of the Democratic Presidential Debate on NPR Tuesday afternoon on the car radio. I haven’t watched any of the televised debates and wasn’t sad about missing this radio debate.
Due to the timing, I happened to catch former Sen. Mike Gravel’s comment on immigration. I heard most of the other candidates give their nonanswer answers, but was left feeling Gravel brought a little sense to this issue each party has turned into a never ending volleyball match. I found a transcript of the debate on The New York Times Web site, and here’s what Gravel said on immigration:
GRAVEL: This has become obvious in this discussion; that there has to be a reason why, over the last 15 years, we haven’t solved this problem as a nation.
Stop and think. Our unemployment level is about 4.5, and that’s about as low as you can get it. So where is the problem? We have to have people fill these jobs. They come in and fill these jobs. We call them illegal.
Are they illegal? They’re filling jobs that need to be done. If we were to chase them out, aren’t we playing to the nativist, the crazies who are opposed to anybody coming in since they got here?
And the media plays into this. The Congress plays into this. Just open our doors. When the jobs are there to be filled, they’ll come in. The jobs aren’t there, they’ll go home.
We can deal with all these other problems in trade, but we’re making a mountain out of a mole hill. We’re creating laws. We’re trying to deal with this.
Deal with the obvious. We do not seem, as a nation, to be able to solve this problem the way we’ve been approaching it.
Whew … nothing amazing, but just a little something no one wanted to say, but many have thought. Seems like everyone else wants to make sure they sound as tough as the GOP candidates or swear they’ve never hired an illegal. Biden was a bit sensitive on this subject.
Gravel’s Web site gives his views on all the issues, including immigration. This guy is a fourth-tier candidate, right? But that little nugget made me take another look at him. I discovered he hasn’t been invited to other debates, which is probably why I haven’t heard much about his campaign in those radio morning news sound bites the day after. Too bad.
This article appears in Dec 6-12, 2007.
Isn’t that precisely the role of the 4th tier candidate – you get to be honest with people and say things the other candidates would like to say, if it wouldn’t be political suicide. Just like Ron Paul for the GOP – he gets to say things that reflect common-sense (OK – not always) because it makes little or no difference. Sure there’s some value in having these people around to at least try to focus the debate on real issues, but they’re not going to change things in any significant manner.
Why were you impressed by Gravel’s comments? Seems to me he’s completely full of shit.
“GRAVEL: This has become obvious in this discussion; that there has to be a reason why, over the last 15 years, we haven’t solved this problem as a nation.”
The reason why it hasn’t been solved is because people have avoided solving it.
“Stop and think. Our unemployment level is about 4.5, and that’s about as low as you can get it. So where is the problem? We have to have people fill these jobs. They come in and fill these jobs. We call them illegal.”
What the hell does “we call them illegal” mean? That they’re not illegal, but legal? That’s the implication.
“They’re filling jobs that need to be done. If we were to chase them out, aren’t we playing to the nativist, the crazies who are opposed to anybody coming in since they got here?”
So basically anybody who thinks there’s a problem is a “crazy.” It’s always helpful to negatively label and smear anybody who disagrees with you. It really brings so much to the discussion.
“And the media plays into this. The Congress plays into this. Just open our doors. When the jobs are there to be filled, they’ll come in. The jobs aren’t there, they’ll go home.”
You think this is an astute comment? That “if the jobs aren’t there, they’ll go home”? That’s a joke. Jobs or no jobs, once here they aren’t likely to go home.
“We can deal with all these other problems in trade, but we’re making a mountain out of a mole hill. We’re creating laws. We’re trying to deal with this.”
Maybe it’s not a mountain compared to other problems (Iraq is Mt. Everest), but is it really a mole hill? Or is there a real problem there? It’s hard to have an intelligent discussion unless we can all first agree there is a problem. I certainly think it’s a problem to have 10 million people in the country living underground and with only partial participation in the laws and regulations that apply to everybody else.
“Deal with the obvious. We do not seem, as a nation, to be able to solve this problem the way we’ve been approaching it.”
This much I agree with. But Gravel hasn’t offered any alternative approach here, other than vaguely accusing people of being “wrong.”
Concur with Sam on some basic points. Gravel is insane to assume that most people who got in will go back, and here’s why: As my true Mexican-American friends, who either have roots in or have lived in Mexico, say: Mexico is a second or third world country. There is little incentive to move back there versus trying to eke out a living here as best one can.
It’s similar to how central Americans move north to Mexico to try and eke out a living there.
As an aside, not to return to the drug-possessing illegal immigrant who got his entire family deported and created student protests:
“But far more dramatically, [a rightwing Swiss party] has announced its intention to lay before parliament a law allowing the entire family of a criminal under the age of 18 to be deported as soon as sentence is passed.
“It will be the first such law in Europe since the Nazi practice of Sippenhaft – kin liability – whereby relatives of criminals were held responsible for their crimes and punished equally.”
— http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=480493&in_page_id=1811
:
I was reading that article because it relates to how Europe has seen a similar northward immigration of Arabs and blacks that relates to the northward immigration of central and south Americans up to the First World Americas.
:
Continuing the topic: There’s a lot of strife about this immigration in Europe, including how there is an increase in vocal Muslims who want equality but also want to change the entire culture of centuries-old Europe. Before your P.C. programming tells you to respond, “European tradition bad!” I would venture to say European culture has a right to firmly exist just as much as other cultures do. People just don’t like it because it is associated with whites and that automatically means it needs to be “fixed”, which is a double standard. If you try to change the culture in some countries where such immigrants are originating from could get you condemned. You know, for example, that in Saudi Arabia public practice of non-Muslim religions is prohibited, right? However, reverse the tables and you see immigrants wanting their traditions to be respected equally in the European countries.
:
These Old World/Eurocentric nations are not like the melting pots of the U.S. and Canada, and they should not have to change their cultural landscape after thousands of years of tradition to suit such newcomers who come from places unwilling to change themselves.
:
If you want to give counterarguments to what I’m saying here, feel free. /Rant over
It just gets more complicated when you bring Europe into the discussion. I barely know what we should do, let alone what they should do. Considering the riots in the suburbs of Paris, it’s a problem that we are all going to have to learn from.
I would argue that by letting immigrants into the country without creating strict laws, we are encouraging more of them to come. If we find a path to citizenship for those who have been here a while, it will de-facto encourage even more to come over. So we have to find some double-pronged way to bring current illegal immigrants on board while discouraging new illegal immigrants from coming.
I am not a fan of the border fence because it will cause all sort of problems with animal migratory patterns while barely stemming immigration. It’s also expensive and likely a big waste of resources. If our current leadership is any indication, government officials will give the fence-building contracts to their cronies, who will then build a crappy fence.
But let’s say the build a fence. That won’t be good enough. Digging tunnels is easy. Every now and then we find a tunnel that is being used to transport thousands of people, as well as drugs. The tunnel is “plugged.” But you can be sure for every tunnel found there are probably 3 others that haven’t been.
Then there’s the Border Patrol, possibly one of the most corrupt government establishments since the CIA. We’re constantly reading about Border Patrol agents caught taking bribes and letting people in.
We should create some sort of path to citizenship for the long-timers at the same time we comletely step up the enforcement of the borders. I know Jim Nintzel was saying Congress should have passed the recent legislation dealing with immigration. I don’t know the finer points but I seem to recall citizenship being contingent on people returning to Mexico and waiting 18 months and paying $1,500 or something like that. I have a hard time seeing most people doing that. But it’s a start. Make people pay some money to become citizens. Make them jump through a few hoops so it isn’t easy. Those who don’t jump through the hoops should be encouraged or forced to leave.
If there really is a demand for the labor provided by illegal immigrants (who work as migrant farmers and the like), then find a legal way for them to supply that labor. Don’t sweep it under the carpet — find a work-around for special cases, and ONLY for special cases. If the agriculture industry depends on their labor, then figure out a special labor condition that ONLY applies to those agriculture economies. Make the people who profit from the cheap labor feed into that system….make them give something back. And penalize those who don’t play by the rules.
I really hate the argument that “the unemployment rate is low, and these people are filling jobs that others won’t do.” That’s so much horse-shit. I’ve worked as a house cleaner. I’ve worked as a landscaper. I’ve worked as a dishwasher. So please, somebody tell me which jobs illegal immigrants do that regular citizens won’t do? Please, tell me — janitorial? Nope, citizens work those jobs.
The only job that illegal immigrants do that probably regular citizens won’t do is the kind of back-breaking farming work (picking strawberries and the like) that requires a person to live in a camp and migrate from place to place, while ended up in physical jeopardy. The illegal immigrants who work these jobs have no health insurance, no benefits. It’s practically slave labor.
Another thing that gets me is all the people who argue that illegal immigrants should get a pass. Meanwhile, these same people are exploited like crazy — not even making close to minimum wage. It’s like you’re arguing in favor of the continued exploitation of people.
Most liberals are in favor of RAISING the minimum wage, and in favor of very solid workers’ compensation, health benefits, and the like. So if you’re a liberal in favor of such things, how in god’s name can you possibly also be in favor of allowing employers to continue screwing illegal immigrants over by paying them jack squat with no benefits?
The incoherence of this position, and the irrationality and inconsistency it encompasses, boggles the mind.
“The illegal immigrants who work these jobs have no health insurance, no benefits. It’s practically slave labor.”
I need to bring this to attention, as when a person cannot pay for their health costs, the American taxpayer does. As part of how hospitals work — seeing patients without seeing them as legal or illegal — everyone gets care. However, the joke goes, that with illegal workers lacking health coverage, if their kid gets the flu or something they show up at the ER for free healthcare. Arizona hospitals are already overburdened with our expanding legal population, let alone the illegal population.
Wheeeeeeee!!!
More later.
By the way, I concur that it today’s farm laborers in some ways equate to modern slave labor. However, tricky thing: agriculture has no minimum wage.
I was told an interesting anecdote a while back: When border patrols increased, workers became scarce in the Yakima Valley (Wash.). What happened was that food went unpicked because the workers were simply unavailable and the local population pooh poohed the wages initially offered. Wages had to rise, but farmers got squeezed paying for such labor.
Today it’s a giant balancing game involving labor and immigration.
Also:
I’ll say it: Agricultural life hasn’t been a part of American cultural sphere since the 1970s, perhaps after the CBS “Rural Purge”. I was watching the Futurama presentation GM put out in 1940 and how change will improve farming was a central part of it. Imagine any presentation or discussion today that includes rural life when the mass media focus shifted to pavements, high rises and faster business-centric telecommunications. Not to be a bastard, but the farmer got left out somewhere along the way.
They paved over old Marana; they can pave over Dorothy’s Kansas too.
…Blah, garbled writing that early in the morning…
I recommend a more regular sleeping schedule, IPH.
Interesting comments… Have to admit there’s a lot I don’t know about the agriculture economy and how it keeps chugging along in spite of everything. There’s a lot of weirdness in terms of prices, etc.
It’s funny, back in the 1990s, I used to think that if I could ever pull in $30,000 a year, I’d be all set. Back then you could rent a veritable mansion for under $400 a month (if you had roommates), and gasoline was only about $1.00 a gallon.
Then they went and raised the prices of EVERYTHING. Rent has doubled or worse for what you get. Food prices have gone up across the board. Gas prices have tripled. Energy costs have skyrocketed (thanks, Enron and friends!).
What does this have to do with immigration? Not much….I am completely off-topic. Oh yeah, agriculture — much of that economy is protected and controlled by the government. This results in weird situations where an avocado that costs $3 in the U.S., then doesn’t get sold due to overproduction, is shipped across the border to Nogales and sold for $0.30.
Anyway, I digress… Way too much…