“just an attempt to, as they say on Wall Street, ‘put lipstick on that pig’”
While waiting to see what, if any, public converstaion takes place on those border issues there’s another, somewhat related, conversation trying to take shape. In the Irish Times, campaigner Frank Sharry, executive director of the US National Immigration Forum, reckons it could take up to 10 years before US immigration reform “becomes viable to have it back at the table” – and not just because of contradictions between Ministers of State. From the Irish Times article [subs req]
Sharry believes that despite the tough measures contained in the Bill (undocumented migrants would have had to pay thousands of dollars in fines and would not have been eligible for permanent residence for eight years, for example), Republican opponents succeeded in portraying the proposal as an amnesty that would reward law-breakers. Democrats, themselves unsure about its feasibility, were half-hearted advocates. “So the combination meant the grand bargain that was negotiated in the backroom, when it went public, was something of an orphan.”
Frank Sharry is also sceptical of any proposed bilateral ‘special case’ agreement for Irish illegal immigrants, as suggested by Dermot Ahern previously.
While Sharry is supportive of the Government’s efforts to secure a bilateral agreement that would regularise the status of the undocumented Irish, he is not convinced it will succeed.
“I would be supportive of it, but I don’t see its viability, because people on the right will label it an amnesty and people on left will say, ‘how come these white immigrants are going to get status rather than many others?’”
Meanwhile inside the paper there’s an additional article [subs still], by Trina Vargo founder and president of the US-Ireland Alliance, who argues that “Irish-Americans trying to get a special deal only for Irish illegal migrants in the US are wrong.”
The US immigration system needs fixing, but it requires a comprehensive and united approach. The deportation of 12 million people is clearly not possible, and pragmatism favours efforts to create an earned path to citizenship for those in the US illegally. Sadly, that effort has been stalled.
But to support a special deal that would single out illegal Irish immigrants for preferential treatment would be morally wrong, could harm the US-Ireland relationship, damage the high regard in which Irish-Americans are held, and lead to a divisive debate in the US between the Hispanic community and the Irish-American community.
The Irish economy is strong, and a special deal is not justified on economic grounds. The majority of those attending the rallies for the illegal Irish immigrants are young people, people who came to the United States when jobs were plentiful at home.
These are not people who fled extreme economic hardship, political persecution, physical torture, or an undemocratic government. Jobs are so plentiful in Ireland that in recent years, Government officials have travelled to the US to urge the Irish to return home. It is to be celebrated that Ireland is now a country of wealth, prosperity and opportunity. Now one of the richest countries in the world, it is a not a place anyone has to leave.
Supporters of a special deal for the Irish say there is precedent, that this was done for Australia. What they neglect to point out is that those visas had nothing to do with illegal immigrants. They were about trade agreements and facilitating the movement of professionals to the US. They were temporary visas subject to stringent eligibility requirements. The visas were only available to those with specific professional skills and for specific jobs pursuant to trade agreements.
There is also talk of trying to mask a “special deal” by cloaking it in innocuous immigration provisions but this is just an attempt to, as they say on Wall Street, “put lipstick on that pig”.
Why should the Irish be treated differently? Irish law breakers who have remained in the USA illegally should face the same penalties as those from Mexico and other parts of the world who flout US law.
Here beginneth the rant of a peon passing through JFK and EWR on a regular basis.
1. There is no way the Irish are going to get special treatment. Forget it.
2. The status of legitimate “aliens” is bad enough. The process of registration and certification of those is within the control of the Federal Government. Nobody seems capable of sorting that out. Paperwork and the routines are somewhere between a shambles and a nightmare: inevitably, it is always the applicant’s fault until proven to the contrary. So, meanwhile, it become almost de rigeur to employ an attorney to help. Ummm … perhaps that’s the explanation.
3. Is there any bureaucracy in the “free” world as officious and oppressive as the jobsworths of the Department of Homeland Security? All they are missing are the brain-cell count of a plant, and a pair of jack-boots, then they would be dangerous as well as obtuse and ill-mannered. Yet, this is the model (I gather) that David Davies and the Tories would have us follow.
Trina Vargo is a former aide to Ted Kennedy, and I’ve no doubt she is a woman, a person, of singular energy, commitment, vision and drive. Sad then, that the biggest impact she will make in her life on Ireland and America will not be her tireless work on behalf of the Mitchel Scholars, but the damage she’s accomplished with this article.
The statistically overwhelming majority of legal immigration visas to the United States are based on familial relationships. If it were, say, the early nineteen sixties, and the only prospective immigrants able to claim the necessary familial relationships were from Ireland, Poland, Germany, and the UK, Trina Vargo would no doubt be one of the first to see and to say that such a system was flawed, that diversity and opportunity beyond the baseline factor of familial relationships were urgently needed, both in terms of fairness and multicultural diversity.
In the article Pete quotes from, Vargo states “I fear, however, that if the future of the US-Ireland relationship
rests on Irish immigration, the relationship will falter. Those who
care about the relationship should note and expand upon the business and cultural ties, academic and student exchanges, as well as legal immigration. The constant flow of citizens between our two countries is a positive thing that should be nurtured.” Stating that you are going to build on busines and cultural ties without building on and increasing LEGAL immigration is like stating you are going to encourage sexual relationships between partners without recourse to sex. It is that basic and intrinsic to any sort of genuine vitality.
Any fool can see the United States clearly needs a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. If there is actual evidence that making provisions for a few thousand Irish illegals will actually take visas away from other illegal immigrants, Vargo needs to present it calmly, and in detail, not just make a shamelessly emotional statement like “No Mexicans Need Apply” without presenting objective collaborating evidence.
Here is a recent voices from within the Irish gov’t and parents of undocumented currently in America:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1112/qanda_av.html?2308347,null,230
I truly fear Vargo’s done in any hope of a deal in for Irish undocumented, without doing anything to materially help a single undocumented person in America of any ethnic origin whatsoever. No one worked harder for comprehensive immigration reform than the “small group” of individuals Vargo singles out in her Times piece, and it is hard to imagine she wouldn’t know that.
Her Mitchell Scholarships will continue to let talented, deserving American students the opportunity to observe a “post-conflict society” in Belfast, not to mention soaking up the charms and gifts of Galway. But Vargo will have even more of an impact on the illegal Irish landscaper in the suburbs of Chicago currently employing half a dozen or more illegal Mexican immigrants who will return to Monaghan because she’s now killed any chance of a special deal.
Congratulations, Trina, there goes another pig in lipstick from your shores.
The young married couple in Boston from Cullyhanna who’ve lived there fourteen years will take their children out of school and start again in a place their children have never seen. Congratulations, Trina, there go five more pigs in lipstick from your shores.
She wanted to make a difference in Ireland and in America, and by God she has.
susan: “I truly fear Vargo’s done in any hope of a deal in for Irish undocumented, without doing anything to materially help a single undocumented person in America of any ethnic origin whatsoever. No one worked harder for comprehensive immigration reform than the “small group†of individuals Vargo singles out in her Times piece, and it is hard to imagine she wouldn’t know that. ”
First of all, what part of “illegal immigrant” don’t you understand, susan?
The only way to maintain a nation under law is to enforce those laws. Frankly, it would be more creditable to eliminate the special treatment of Cubans than creating a safe harbor for Irish illegal immigrants. Likewise, those locales such as San Francisco which hold themselves out as sanctuary cities should have their place at the Federal trough cut (or at least diminished).
I see no problem with lawful immigration and lawful immigrants, but this foolishness of rewarding illegal immigration — granting them licenses, in-state tuition, et al, is folly.
susan: “But Vargo will have even more of an impact on the illegal Irish landscaper in the suburbs of Chicago currently employing half a dozen or more illegal Mexican immigrants who will return to Monaghan because she’s now killed any chance of a special deal. ”
On what basis should the illegal Irishman be granted special treatment? Irish illegal immigration was overwhelmingly economic in nature — why else would Phds be doing carpentry under the table in Boston? He should have the same treatment as his illegal Mexicans, unless there is some overwhelmingly critical aspect to his presence here that I am missing — the collapse of hurling in America doesn’t strike me as a major issue to the US, nor the loss of a landscaping firm operating in breach of US laws.
On what basis should the illegal Irishman be granted special treatment?
Wouldn’t be because they have a whitish hue?
joeCanuck: “Wouldn’t be because they have a whitish hue? ”
Not directly — Irish have only been “white” for barely a century and a half in the United States.
Indirectly… mayhap. The Irish-American has evolved a long way from the charicatures of Nast — societal menace or par with dreaded “yellow peril” of a slightly later era to tool of machine politics to gangsters to blue colllar public servant (policeman, fireman)to the bosses of machine politics and white collar public servant (politican, FBI agent) to just another part of society, albeit one that is held with a certain affection, particularly around mid-March.
I would also say that the qualities of the Irish illegal immigrant might play into it– the few I knew in Boston were, as I said, highly educated folks doing blue-collar jobs. They already speak English, they don’t have militant fringe organizations advocating a “reconquista” of the Southwest and, either by dint of behavior or small numbers, don’t make nearly as many negative headlines as their Mexican and Latin American counterparts.
But, if you prefer, I will ask again and clarify…
On what rational and legally defensible basis should the Irish illegal immigrant receive preferential treatment?
Pete
NINE backlinks this time!
You’ve been relatively restrained……
The answer is quite simple, Dread,
NONE.
joeCanuck: “The answer is quite simple, Dread, NONE. ”
And people call me a literalist… *sigh*
And if the answer is that bloody simple, Canuck, why is there a plethora of whiny, hand-wringing, pointy headed liberal lefty milk-sops trying to say otherwise, calling anyone who asks questions regarding their rush to legitimize illegal immigrants “racist” for embracing the rather plain notion that nations have borders?
Sorry Dread.
Looks like you cannot get any response other than from me, who agrees with you.
Dread
“I see no problem with lawful immigration and lawful immigrants, but this foolishness of rewarding illegal immigration—granting them licenses, in-state tuition, et al, is folly.”
On a purely theoretical level, this is fine. The problem is that you are not at year zero. You have so many illegal immigrants in the country that you couldn’t remove them, partly because you couldn’t hope to find even a significant percentage of them, and because the economic damage in some areas would be huge.
If you are serious about sorting it out — and that would mean getting seriously tough on the people that employ illegal immigrants which neither party seem to have the stomach for — then surely you have to recognise you have to do something with the people already there?
I agree, Kensei, that something desperately needs to be done to regularise huge numbers of those already there.
But I can’t agree that some nationals deserve to have preferential treatment.
joeCanuck: “Looks like you cannot get any response other than from me, who agrees with you. ”
Sorry — I popped a filling, so I’m a little cross at the moment… I should not be snappish at you.
kensei: “The problem is that you are not at year zero. You have so many illegal immigrants in the country that you couldn’t remove them, partly because you couldn’t hope to find even a significant percentage of them, and because the economic damage in some areas would be huge. ”
In the main, I don’t have to remove them. By simply not accomodating them, most will leave on their own accord. This includes SSN matching programs for employers, the REAL ID program and enforcing existing regulations.
Likewise, any damage would be offset, insofar as the illegals damaged the economy in other ways. For example, meat-cutting, on the factory level, used to be a decent living — not great, but one a body could live on. Nowadays, it’s $7.00 an hour and meat plants are raided regularly by INS, with hundreds arrested at a time. The presence of these illegals is corrosive on the economy, robbing the working man by keeping wages artificially low, soaking up government benefits whilst avoiding most taxes, etc.
kensei: “If you are serious about sorting it out—and that would mean getting seriously tough on the people that employ illegal immigrants which neither party seem to have the stomach for—then surely you have to recognise you have to do something with the people already there? ”
Yup. Show them the door and shoo them out of it. Simply make their existence uncomfortable and unprofitable and they will line up to leave. This includes taxing remitttances, enforcing other rules on the books and making it too expensive for municipalities to be sanctuary cities. Unlike the proverbial frog, if you turn up the heat, the illegals will simply jump out of the pot.
The United States tried that sort of amnesty in the Eighties. It is already known that amenesty merely encourages more illegal immigration.
Frankly, the US should simply take Mexico’s policies on illegal immigration on its southern border and apply them to the US-Mexican border.
Dread Cthulhu and Joe, you do not need to agree with me, but you do need to understand that very sadly I share Frank Sharry’s pessimism over the likelihood of the US Congress achieving the comprehensive immigration reform needed to better secure the US borders and to deal — not to pontificate, but to deal – with the millions of illegal aliens from around the world currently in the US.
I wish I didn’t agree with Sharry. But I do. I think the outlook is bleak, and I think the lack of comprehensive immigration reform will continue to have a negative impact on the struggling US economy, on the American healthcare and educational systems struggling to cope with such a large underground economy, and on otherwise law-abiding, long term illegal immigrants of WHATEVER national origin, WHATEVER race, WHATEVER religion seeking a path to citizenship.
And so, yes, with such a bleak outlook on the likelihood of comprehensive reform needed, I can’t oppose the efforts of pols and advocates seeking special provisions for their citizens abroad. No special deals are possible? Ever hear of Berman visas, Donnelly visas, Schumer visas, Kennedy visas? I don’t have Pete’s way with the hyperlinks (then again, who does?) but you can Google them.
Would I agree that those seeking asylum from political or religious persecution are a higher priority that Irish undocumented? Of course I bloody do. This talk of a “bilateral agreement” seems a long shot, but it also seems the only shot available to the people in Ireland and in the US who worked so hard for comprehensive reform and saw it all come to naught. What should they tell the people, the undocumented Irish in America, they vowed to help? Dread and Joe and Trina Vargo can all watch the undocumented pack and tell them they never should have come– I’m sure that is patently obvious to them by now. But I don’t think America will be better off without them, I don’t think the immigrants will be better off, and I don’t think it will do one iota to assist the ongoing efforts to achieve a comprehensive, compassionate, enforceable immigration reform in the USA.
Excellent points, kensei. Here is a link to an article maintaining that aout 8 million of America’s illegal immigrants are paying taxes, including Medicare, social security, etc.
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml
susan: “I think the outlook is bleak, and I think the lack of comprehensive immigration reform will continue to have a negative impact on the struggling US economy, on the American healthcare and educational systems struggling to cope with such a large underground economy, and on otherwise law-abiding, long term illegal immigrants of WHATEVER national origin, WHATEVER race, WHATEVER religion seeking a path to citizenship. ”
It is the presence of illegal immigrants that are the drag, susan. The distort the labor markets, robbing legal workers, cause localities to incur costs they would have otherwise incurred and, by their very nature, the term “law-abiding illegal immigrant” is a contradiction in terms.
susan: “And so, yes, with such a bleak outlook on the likelihood of comprehensive reform needed, I can’t oppose the efforts of pols and advocates seeking special provisions for their citizens abroad. No special deals are possible? Ever hear of Berman visas, Donnelly visas, Schumer visas, Kennedy visas? I don’t have Pete’s way with the hyperlinks (then again, who does?) but you can Google them. ”
And they were wrong response then and would be wrong now.
susan: “This talk of a “bilateral agreement†seems a long shot, but it also seems the only shot available to the people in Ireland and in the US who worked so hard for comprehensive reform and saw it all come to naught.”
Odd, that you should call ignoring law-breaking “reform.” Amensty doesn’t work — it simply encourages more of the same.
susan: “Dread and Joe and Trina Vargo can all watch the undocumented pack and tell them they never should have come– I’m sure that is patently obvious to them by now. But I don’t think America will be better off without them”
Your thought and a couple of euros will get you coffee at a Stabucks, susan, but you would still be wrong. Illegal immigrants are a drain on government coffers. As they are paid under the table, they deprive the state of tax dollars, as the state incurs costs due to their simple presence. This drain raises taxes on the law-abiding population, while forcing the labor-wage down. This stresses American workers and forces the government to take more money out of their pockets in taxes to make up for the free-loading illegal immigrants. How does *ANY* of this economic damage make America “better off,” I wonder.
susan: ” I don’t think it will do one iota to assist the ongoing efforts to achieve a comprehensive, compassionate, enforceable immigration reform in the USA. ”
Two seperate issues that should have never been linked in the first place. One should not change one’s laws to accodate scofflaws. Reform of the legal immigration system should not benefit illegal immigrants.
Remove the gators, then worry about draining the swamp.
Dread,
I also think that in theory what you say makes sense but when it comes to the practicalities of the situation people find themselves in then sometimes you have to look for solutions rather than simply enjoying having a logically coherent position that is pretty much unassailable.
Like JoeCanuck, I too believe there is no rational reason why they should have preferential treatment.
But like the 14 billion the EU gave us last year when others were more deserving, I’m not going to look a gift horse in the mouth, even if it is wearing lipstick.
For me it is the Irish government’s job to represent the interests of all its citizens and that includes those living illegally in the US or homeless or in jail in Britain.
If our state’s representatives won’t stand up for them no one will. And if the Irish government can put forward some solution that the Americans can sell to their representatives as some sort of quid pro quo then why not?
Just like the 14 billion from the EU, such a decision would mean nothing in the greater scheme of things if it is sold right. It wouldn’t even make a ripple.
Naturally if the Americans say no dice and tell the Irish to sling their hook for the reasons outlined in Pete’s post or whatever reasons they see fit, fair enough but at least we tried what little we could to help them.
Equally, illegal immigrants in Ireland, who too are economic for the most part, should use whatever is available to them to try and stay and seek out the assistance of any available allies.
George: “For me it is the Irish government’s job to represent the interests of all its citizens and that includes those living illegally in the US or homeless or in jail in Britain. ”
I don’t necessarily disagree, George… but given the Republic’s stance on illegal immigration, their scarcely less hypocritical than Mexico on the topic.
George: “Naturally if the Americans say no dice and tell the Irish to sling their hook for the reasons outlined in Pete’s post or whatever reasons they see fit, fair enough but at least we tried what little we could to help them.”
I never said it was wrong to ask, George, I simply asked what rational basis there was that that ask should be granted, knowing full well the answer was “none whatsoever.” Right now, partly due to the elections, partly due to the fact that a porous border is a national security threat — the border that allows the iconic “hard working, law-abiding illegal immigrant” to cross undetected could also allow the drug-dealing Mexican, the (Usama)bomb-Laden Islamic fundalmentalist terrorist,etc. to cross. Not every swarth fellow crossing by night speaks Spanish or wants to mow Mitt Romney’s lawn.
George: “Equally, illegal immigrants in Ireland, who too are economic for the most part, should use whatever is available to them to try and stay and seek out the assistance of any available allies. ”
Can’t blame a body for trying… but neither should the illegal immigrant expect not to be deported. One cannot break the law and then claim to be “law-abiding.”
Susan,
I don’t agree that they should just be shown the door.
Bush (no liberal) had a proposal that gave the illegals a chance to “regularize” their position.
I thought that was a good proposal but it fell when it came to Congress.
That proposal would have satisfied one of Dread’s concerns. It would have meant that they started paying taxes.
Where does the USA go now? I have no idea. I believe that a Democrat president will stand even less chance than Bush in bringing forward any proposal that will allow any existing illegal to become regular.
“In the main, I don’t have to remove them. By simply not accomodating them, most will leave on their own accord. This includes SSN matching programs for employers, the REAL ID program and enforcing existing regulations.”
There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the US. And we’d probably guess that figure is higher. You can wish hard, Dread but you aren’t going to get rid of them easily. That is twice the population of Ireland.
“Likewise, any damage would be offset, insofar as the illegals damaged the economy in other ways. For example, meat-cutting, on the factory level, used to be a decent living—not great, but one a body could live on. Nowadays, it’s $7.00 an hour and meat plants are raided regularly by INS, with hundreds arrested at a time. The presence of these illegals is corrosive on the economy, robbing the working man by keeping wages artificially low, soaking up government benefits whilst avoiding most taxes, etc.”
And if the price of meat double overnight then you have a bit of an inflation problem there, Dread. I also direct you to this article too, much of which remains true for illegal immigration:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/evandavis/2007/11/on_the_buses.html
It isn’t a situation that developed overnight and it isn’t one that can fixed overnight, either.
“Yup. Show them the door and shoo them out of it. Simply make their existence uncomfortable and unprofitable and they will line up to leave. This includes taxing remitttances, enforcing other rules on the books and making it too expensive for municipalities to be sanctuary cities. Unlike the proverbial frog, if you turn up the heat, the illegals will simply jump out of the pot.”
Not if life back home is worse. Not if they have built a life in America. Not if there is loopholes they can exploit, fake ids and the prospect of buying time. You will not seriously tackle that 12+ million figure and it’s wishful thinking to suggest otherwise.
“The United States tried that sort of amnesty in the Eighties. It is already known that amenesty merely encourages more illegal immigration.”
I don’t think it makes a bit of difference what happened in the 80′s. The economics and current incentives are much more powerful. What you are suggests may curb the current rate of illegal immigration, though I’m not 100% convinced. But it won’t solve the problem you already have.
joeCanuck: “Bush (no liberal) had a proposal that gave the illegals a chance to “regularize†their position. ”
Ah, yes… “Amnesty… the policy that dare notspeak its name.”
joeCanuck: “That proposal would have satisfied one of Dread’s concerns. It would have meant that they started paying taxes. ”
It would exacerbated others, including causing a stampede of illegals seeking to cross the border in hope of benefitting from the amnesty.
joeCanuck: “I believe that a Democrat president will stand even less chance than Bush in bringing forward any proposal that will allow any existing illegal to become regular. ”
Maybe, maybe not… betraying core constituencies is not exactly “new hat” to the Democrats, having alienated poor urban whites in the past with such issues as court-ordered busing, gun control, etc.
That said, New York State, no red-neck bastion of conservatism, was 70% against issuing illegal immigrants driver’s licenses. If it doesn’t play in New York, how well do you think it will play in less liberal locales?
Dread,
As I already said, if you look at this rationally and logically your position is unassailable, but life isn’t logical or rational.
As for what illegal immigrants should or should not expect, they are human beings like the rest of us so make their decisions accordingly. Sometimes their dreams and hopes and expectations are rational, sometimes not.
As for the you “cannot break the law and then claim to be “law-abiding†logic, I find it a bit glib and a nice phrase to justify ignoring their real-life situation.
I can honestly say I don’t think I know anybody who hasn’t broken the law at some stage but I would consider the company I keep to be law abiding.
Your standards are approaching those set out by the guy who came up with the idea of original sin.
It seems you favour leaving these particular souls outside the consecrated ground of legal right of residence simply becauses your doctrinal logic dictates it.
As an aside, I don’t mind people just calling me “Joe”; it saves typing.
I just started calling myself joecanuck to distinguish myself from another Joe who occasionally comments.
kensei: “There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the US. And we’d probably guess that figure is higher. You can wish hard, Dread but you aren’t going to get rid of them easily. That is twice the population of Ireland. ”
If I make it too expensive for meat-packing plants and construction firms to hire, where will they work, kensei? Without jobs, why would they stay?
The point is that I don’t have to chase them. Likewise, I don’t have to get them all, just enough to get the problem down to a managable size.
kensei: “And if the price of meat double overnight then you have a bit of an inflation problem there, Dread.”
Having lived and buying meat when the meat-cutting trades were unionized and paying roughly than 50% more an hour to their cutters, I can safely say you’re full of beans, kensei.
kensei: “Not if life back home is worse. Not if they have built a life in America. Not if there is loopholes they can exploit, fake ids and the prospect of buying time. You will not seriously tackle that 12+ million figure and it’s wishful thinking to suggest otherwise. ”
kensei, if you bothered to read my post, I’m talking about closing the loopholes, ID programs that are harder to fake and streamlining the processes. I am also talking about destroying the magnets that attract them in the first place.
The first thing you do to drain a tank is to turn off the tap. Eliminate the job attraction through a combination of REAL ID, SSN matching and penalties for employers and no one is going to hire them. No jobs, no reason to come. Likewise, this is just the low-hanging fruit. Texas mayors are suggesting a simple solution — let the Rio Grande run a little deeper and faster, making it a more credible barrier.
Likewise, the sanctuary cities can be readily de-fanged bureaucratically. Tie their federal aid dollars, starting with law-enforcement, but expanding outward from there, to their cooperation in dealing with the illegal immigration problem. No assistance = no assistance dollars.
And, no, it won’t be an overnight solution. But it can be done and without a great deal of hullabaloo. In most interviews, the illegals themselves have said they would be inclined to leave based on these bureaucratic measures.
kensei: “I don’t think it makes a bit of difference what happened in the 80’s. ”
Those who refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it…
kensei: “The economics and current incentives are much more powerful. What you are suggests may curb the current rate of illegal immigration, though I’m not 100% convinced. But it won’t solve the problem you already have. ”
Not overnight, but once I’ve shut off the in-flow valve, I can start draining the tank.
Likewise, if I de-incentivize illegal status, with confiscatory fines, taxes on remittances, etc., I remove the benefit of remaining here.
Ideally, in a generation or two, the demographics in Mexico will have alleviated some of the problem as well — Mexicans cross into the states to work, not necessarily settle.
The core of the problem is that Mexico’s anti-poverty and anti-crime programs is to export their problems to the United States, right up to and including manuals for the best ways to cross the border.
If you take away the benefits, they will not come and will not stay. I’d be willing to support a constitutional amendment that would limit / eliminate citizenship by birth, save for those born to citizens, to eliminate the “anchor baby” phenomenon.
There’s a lot of beating-up going on here to no avail.
Let’s be pragmatic.
Those “illegals” who are in professional positions, with a certain amount of jiggery-pokery they and their company/organisation can legitimate their position. End of that story.
Then there are the casuals and blue-collar workers, who, quite frankly, are the main drug on the market. As has been pointed out, they are a major brake on wage-rates (so unpopular with unions, and so not going to get a boost from the Dems). If I were stuck in a dead-end job, where my hourly-rate had effectively been frozen for 30 years, I doubt that I could afford too many liberal and humanitarian principles.
In short, the issue is not recent Irish immigration: it is Latino and Black immigration into low-skill, low-pay, low-esteem and often-seasonal jobs.
My confident prediction is that the Immigration Service will continue to harass this group, from time to time, sufficiently for the whingers to sleep peacefully in their beds, and for forestalling the vigilante problem worsening. And that will be it.
Those who refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it…
On “Cheers”, Woody said that the same is true for mathematics.
George: “As for what illegal immigrants should or should not expect, they are human beings like the rest of us so make their decisions accordingly. Sometimes their dreams and hopes and expectations are rational, sometimes not. ”
To come into a country illegally is to break the law. I really could care less what their expectations are, George. They don’t have to like it, but illegal immigrants should expect to be deported.
George: “As for the you “cannot break the law and then claim to be “law-abiding†logic, I find it a bit glib and a nice phrase to justify ignoring their real-life situation. ”
What, that they crossed the border illegally, are residing in the United States unlawfully and are evading taxes on the Federal, State and possibly local level? This doesn’t even take into account the criminal element to enter illegally to escape their criminal records or commit crimes in the US.
George: “Your standards are approaching those set out by the guy who came up with the idea of original sin. ”
bollocks. You can’t be in the United States illegally and not be a criminal. You cannot work with either a false or stolen SSN and not be a criminal. You cannot be paid under the table and not be a criminal.
Identity theft, fraud and tax-evasion. Are these not crimes where you are?
George: “It seems you favour leaving these particular souls outside the consecrated ground of legal right of residence simply becauses your doctrinal logic dictates it. ”
The “legal right of residence” requires a green card in the United States. No tickee, no laundry.
If you want legal residence, follow the legal requirements. If not, the illegal immigrant runs the risk of being caught and punished / deported.
MR: “Those “illegals†who are in professional positions, with a certain amount of jiggery-pokery they and their company/organisation can legitimate their position.”
That’s a very thin number, especially given the fact that those industries wanting white-collar immigrants have their own visa designation and seek to enlarge it every year.
MR: “My confident prediction is that the Immigration Service will continue to harass this group, from time to time, sufficiently for the whingers to sleep peacefully in their beds, and for forestalling the vigilante problem worsening. And that will be it. ”
Depends. The gophers seek to have woken up and gotten incensed on the issue. As such, something more than “rounding up of the usual suspects” will be in order.
Why should the Irish receive special treatment in the US? No reason other than that they demand special treatment and are prepared to manipulate Capitol Hill to get it. If they get it, they deserved it. Life isn’t fair, kids. You need to keep in mind that all nations look after their own people and that process is chauvinistic and not based on merit, need or other factors. We don’t go to Europe and say “Yes, we need two billion for road infrastructure, but we don’t think it fair to ask for it because Poland’s need is greater than ours.” Likewise, the IDA doesn’t say to a company considering a choice between two equals, “Invest in X. They need the investment more than we do.” We should bully our way through Capitol Hill on behalf of the Irish and to hell with the rest.
And there is no need to be consistent. Just because we demand special treatment for Irish illegal immigrants in the US doesn’t mean we shouldn’t boot illegal immigrants in Ireland back to from whence they came. It’s politics, not morality plays.
The Dubliner: “No reason other than that they demand special treatment and are prepared to manipulate Capitol Hill to get it. If they get it, they deserved it.”
No, they won’t have deserved… the merely would have wrangled it, which is not nearly the same thing.
The Dubliner: “And there is no need to be consistent. Just because we demand special treatment for Irish illegal immigrants in the US doesn’t mean we shouldn’t boot illegal immigrants in Ireland back to from whence they came. It’s politics, not morality plays. ”
Painfully obvious hypocrisy doesn’t sell, not even on Capitol Hill, particularly in a climate where illegal immigration, as a political issue in on the front burner. No sense letting the camel’s nose in the tent, anyway. The other crabs in the basket aren’t going to let the Irish out unless they get out, too…
“I’d be willing to support a constitutional amendment that would limit / eliminate citizenship by birth, save for those born to citizens, to eliminate the “anchor baby†phenomenon.”
Posted by Dread Cthulhu on Nov 16, 2007 @ 08:45 PM
We don’t doubt it, Dread Cthulhu. Why not station immigration agents in the neonatal units, lest the wee “scofflaws” form the impression that being six hours old and cute as a bug’s arse gives them carte blanche to break the law?
Very thoughtful and well-presented points, George and kensei. Joe, brilliant that you brought up “Cheers” — Dread Cthulhu’s condescending posting style and numbing overdependence on animal kingdom metaphors (gators in the swamp, camels in the tent, crab in the baskets) does remind one of that other paragon of perfection, Cliff Claven.
One of the more distasteful aspects of Trina Vargo’s presentation of herself in the Times and on RTÉ today are her claims that she “supports” comprehensive immigration reform, yet she is lecturing the activists who actually, substantively supported comprehensive reform the last two years — by tirelessly marching, lobbying, networking, etc. the last two years on so — on “morality” when she knows the bilateral agreement is only their last ditch effort to support those they pledged to help after the collapse of all their efforts.
Her timing could not be more damaging, as Mayo’s Michael Ring emphatically pointed out, and she is well-placed enough to know it.
“No, they won’t have deserved… the merely would have wrangled it, which is not nearly the same thing.” – Dread Cthulhu
Wrong, if they get it, they deserved it – just as if you get delivery of a brand new Mercedes on Christmas Eve while someone else can’t even afford a turkey then you both deserved what you got. That’s the system and it’s up to folks to work it to their own advantage to the direct disadvantage of others, since it is the free, and as I said “life isn’t fair, kids.” It you don’t like how it works, try some form of global socialism with its inbuilt ‘morality’ and see how that works out for you.
“Painfully obvious hypocrisy doesn’t sell, not even on Capitol Hill, particularly in a climate where illegal immigration, as a political issue in on the front burner. No sense letting the camel’s nose in the tent, anyway. The other crabs in the basket aren’t going to let the Irish out unless they get out, too…! – Dread Cthulhu
There isn’t any hypocrisy on the applicable dynamic. There is only your failure to understand that the nature of a state is to serve the interests of its people before the interests of all other peoples. Ergo, serving the interests of Irish citizens in the US before the interests of the citizens of other countries is immaculately consistent with the applicable dynamic. The only “inconsistency” is in the imagined principle of universal morality wherein all states of the world are imagined to serve the interests of all citizens of the world without preference. Since that universal morality/imperative is imagined and not real, there is “no need to be consistent” with it.
Now, are “other crabs in the basket” acting as a union who are all demanding ‘all or none’ preferences or are they all fighting their own corner? If they are sane and if their state is backing them, then they are fighting for their own interests above all others. The folks on Capitol Hill know how the system works – they got elected under it – so the Irish Lobby will have bluntly told them that the Irish will twist their nipples (and not in an enjoyable way) at the next election if they don’t get special treatment. If you don’t think small groups have power and ger special treatment on Capitol Hill to the direct detriment of others, I refer you to the Jewish lobby. Those guys don’t play fair; they play to win – and they do win.
Susan, how many blood transfusions a day does it take to keep that bleeding heart of your beating?
Not at all, Dub. I’m mean as they come. Still, I need to calm down. After all, if you don’t want fuzz on the lasagna, you can’t be washing the sink basin down with your cat. As Dread might say.
This opinion of yours is a mystery to me, though, Dub –
“Wrong, if they get it, they deserved it – just as if you get delivery of a brand new Mercedes on Christmas Eve while someone else can’t even afford a turkey then you both deserved what you got. ” It seems to me the great sorrows of the world can be pretty evenly divided between those who must endure what they do not deserve and those who never get what they do.
BUT on the need for perispicacity and focus, on that we completely agree.
It simply means that the individual is responsible for meeting his or her own needs, not the state or others. There are exceptions and the state should provide for their needs, but they are the exceptions and not the norm.
An individual’s success is determined only by his ability to succeed in the free market, where the state has provided free education, health care, and welfare assistance for the children of poorer parents to level the field to the mandatory minimum standards for all who wish to play on it. There is not a damn thing holding the individual back from succeeding in Ireland if he wants to succeed and has the ability. So, whatever you get is whatever you deserve. The only thing you get – or should get – with birth is human rights. Everything else, you only get if you either work hard or work smart for it. Yes, I’m fully aware that Ireland is now full of rich brats who feel deprived if they don’t have the latest Nokia or Versace handbag at 16 and will accomplish nothing in life beyond inheriting the wealth of their parents. They, however, are the exceptions. They don’t mean that Versace handbags and trust funds must fall from the sky for all 16-year-olds.
What NI’s perennially fashionable socialists have yet to grasp is that somebody has to work hard to pay the taxes that pay for the invented ‘rights’ of those who don’t want to work. They can forget that, of course, because those currently working hard for it are located in the rest of the UK, funding their subvention – and expected to fund more of the same via the attempt of PSF to make socialism mandatory via the proposed Bill of Rights.
So, back to the south: we can demand special treatment for Irish immigrants in the US and still show no mercy to illegal immigrants in Ireland because the state is obliged to operate out of self-interest, not some imagined system of universal morality. It serves our self-interest to protect Irish citizens abroad, just as it serves our self-interest to evict those who enter this country illegally. Perfectly consistent self-interest, as it should be.
DC
I’m shocked…shocked!!! Surely as a good libertarian you should be advocating the free movement of workers across borders (nasty statist things that they are) in response to market demands?
susan: “Why not station immigration agents in the neonatal units, lest the wee “scofflaws†form the impression that being six hours old and cute as a bug’s arse gives them carte blanche to break the law?”
As a fellow who audits hospitals, I gave a grasp of just how much bad debt is is generated by the border-jumpers going popping their anchor babies on this side of the border. A good many border area hospitals have closed their emergency rooms for just that reason, susan.
Why should American tax-payers “enjoy” higher costs and greater risks to reward illegal aliens? Your whinges about feelings and the cuteness of the spawn of wet-backs not withstanding, there is a cost — a high cost — associated with illegal immigration. This cost is in dollars, but it is in the lives of law-abiding citizens who are injured and killed by criminal illegal aliens, who die as a result of the changes illegals inflict on society (don’t get into a car accident near the border — fewer ER to handle your case…) and the harm they inflict on communities.
The Dubliner: “There is only your failure to understand that the nature of a state is to serve the interests of its people before the interests of all other peoples. Ergo, serving the interests of Irish citizens in the US before the interests of the citizens of other countries is immaculately consistent with the applicable dynamic. ”
Wrong end of the stick, Dubliner… The US Government would, in the event they bought into this plan, have to turn around and sell it to the American people — and there are too Americans watching for just this sort of thing for too many up on Capitol Hill for it to have much of a chance, especially since it would invite howls of “racism” from the left and “amnesty” from the right. There is no incentive for either side to take up the standard. Just because the Irish feel obligated to sell it doesn’t mean the American gov’t is going to buy it, particularly in light of the domestic political cost they would incur being far higher than any benefit they receive.
The Dubliner: “The folks on Capitol Hill know how the system works – they got elected under it – so the Irish Lobby will have bluntly told them that the Irish will twist their nipples (and not in an enjoyable way) at the next election if they don’t get special treatment.”
LOL! That’s a good one, Dub. The Irish lobby… Unless you plan to resurrect “Old Smoke” Morrissey and Tommy Pendergast, I think you will find that that threat is a fairly empty one. Irish Americans are not nearly the bloc they once were, having been fairly assimilated and with the fall of machine politics. And the Irish, as opposed to Irish-Americans, don’t get a vote. You can lobby all you want. I’m sure the whores on Capitol hill — the ones is suits and vests — are just as willing to take you money as the other sort.
SdB: “I’m shocked…shocked!!! Surely as a good libertarian you should be advocating the free movement of workers across borders (nasty statist things that they are) in response to market demands? ”
The less strictures you place upon a society, the more important that those few strictures become. Likewise, unless that flow of workers is adequately vetted, you are going to get far more than just workers responding to market demands. Leeches gaming the system, criminals fleeing their records down south, drug dealers trucking their wares, etc.
Don’t confuse “libertarian” with being some sort of wishy-washy globalist willing to lie back and “think of England.” The United States is some seventy years down a path of socialistic dependency on the central government and twice that on the notion of a strong centralized government. Just as Rome wasn’t built in a day and didn’t fall in a day, it wasn’t re-built in a day. A great deal of foundation work has to be done before I am willing to take that leap.
DC
Obviously there need to be controls of some sort, but the Libertarian Party in the US are actually pretty clear on this – they’d do strict checks on criminality, etc., but they basically advocate an ‘open-door’ policy, leaving immigration and emigration entirely up to individual choice. Which, of course, is more or less what America had before it’s “descent into socialism”.
You know, Dread, your assessment of the “Irish Lobby” in the US actually makes good sense. They wouldn’t get far with their “nipple-twisting” — (a phrase I’ve never used before , and hope never to use again) on Capitol Hill, although the film footage might run on YouTube for eons. Nor would I dispute the soundness of your argument of the need for America achieving more secure borders, or the need for more enforcement and “impact aid” in border areas attempting to cope with the largest influx of illegal aliens. All of that makes good sense.
Where you lose me is the argument that twelve million people already working and living in the US illegally will somehow slink quietly off into the shadows. It seems a bit like declaring that simply banning alcohol will eliminate alcoholism and drunk driving, rather than create an underground economy and making criminals of people who would in other circumstances not choose to break the law.
Most polls I’ve seen indicate that a majority of Americans do favour some sort of “earned legalization,” for OTHERWISE law-abiding undocumented, and the politicians — even in Arizona –espousing extreme, send ‘em all home policies are not getting elected. TIme will tell.
Meanwhile, I see that at least two of the four or five most influential people working for the undocumented Irish in America — Niall O’Dowd and Brian O’Dwyer — are hosting a fundraiser for Hils in Dublin, and that Bill is having a sit down with Bertie. If Bill and Bertie put their heads together, perhaps something will be done.
SdB: “Obviously there need to be controls of some sort, but the Libertarian Party in the US are actually pretty clear on this – they’d do strict checks on criminality, etc., but they basically advocate an ‘open-door’ policy, leaving immigration and emigration entirely up to individual choice. Which, of course, is more or less what America had before it’s “descent into socialismâ€.”
Not every small “l” libertarian is a card-carrying big “L” Libertarian, SdB… mainly due to the idiots I’d have to put up with. I have a few qualms with the “do-as-thou-wilt” wing of the party. Societies are a bit like supertankers — regardless of how fast the wheel spins, the vessel only turns so quickly. The masses, so long at mother gov’t teat, are not ready for the responsibility of fending for themselves. A great deal of societal repair is necessary.
Likewise, to do strict checks on criminality, you would have to get a strict control on the border. Logically, the control should be in place before the easing of other restrictions.
susan: “Where you lose me is the argument that twelve million people already working and living in the US illegally will somehow slink quietly off into the shadows. It seems a bit like declaring that simply banning alcohol will eliminate alcoholism and drunk driving, rather than create an underground economy and making criminals of people who would in other circumstances not choose to break the law. ”
Your analogy is flawed, insofar as alcohol has no initiative or wants of its own. Illegal immigrants come because there are “under the table” jobs for them. Eliminate the jobs — make employing illegal immigrants too expensive — and those willing to employ them will shrink. Frankly, I’d like to see the business penalty for employing an illegal immigrant approach the political penalty for most politicians found to be employing domestics under the table. Likewise, make someone sufficiently uncomfortable, they will move. Eliminate those incentives that draw them — jobs, primarily, but other benefits they obtain — Medicaid in some states, etc., — and they will move on. Likewise, make it too expensive for the sanctuary cities to continue to be sanctuaries and they will cease to do so.
To be honest, I would like to see the two issues de-linked, or at least the border be solved prior to any serious discussion of amnesty / earned amnesty / guest worker. Like I said before, this is the same discussion that was had in 83-84, when the same shoddy bargain was put up and passed — legitimize the illegals and get control of the border. This time, as a minimum, I want the border controlled first before we discuss any sort of amnesty. Until such time, the “get rid of them all” plan suits me. Solve the borders and we can talk. But as I said, they are not “otherwise law-abiding,” insofar as tax-evasion, identity theft and fraud are still crimes, last I checked.
Dread Cthulhu @ 10:21 PM:
The masses, so long at mother gov’t teat, are not ready for the responsibility of fending for themselves. A great deal of societal repair is necessary.
Ah, the irony! To achieve true liberty, one must have a strong leader, nay, a Führer, who knows how to “repair society”.
On the other hand, there is that true libertarian, Anselme de Bellegarrigue, wo said of the Commune: “You have already enslaved yourselves — have you not appointed a government?”
By the way, have you noticed that all these opponents of “socialised medicine” get very edgy when the next person in the line has something really catching? And, for those of us who find this Ayn-Rand-obsession a morbid condition in its own right, that’s the test: are you prepared to have a bad, a dangerous neighbour? And how does your daft egoist philosophy cope with that? Answer on one side of a postage stamp, avoiding uses of terms like “mutualism”.
The masses, so long at mother gov’t teat, are not ready for the responsibility of fending for themselves. A great deal of societal repair is necessary.
DC
Your’re starting to sound scary – that sounds remarkably like Marxists and their ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ nonsense – and we all know what that led to.
Funnily enough, I remember reading an article online a while back saying Libertarianism was the Marxism of the Right. I’ll try and find a link.
MR: “Ah, the irony! To achieve true liberty, one must have a strong leader, nay, a Führer, who knows how to “repair societyâ€. ”
A weak attack, Malcom, as it relies on things I have not said and, second, usually the fella that invokes “Nazis” into the discussion has pretty much admitted he has no real argument.
But, for the sake of discussion, no, what is needed is not a strong leader, but a steady deflation of the socialistic aspects of the state over time, so as to re-introduce the notions of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency as civic virtues. In a libertarian state (please note, small “l”) there would be far fewer (and, ideally, no) entitlements. There are too many individuals who are too reliant on gov’t transfer payments. These programs need to be wound down and terminated — but it would be cruel to simply kick them to the curb without making some effort to prepare them for the change. Likewise, removing all the fictions in government — like the notion that Social Security is a good program, that the government is here to help, etc., will take time.
Unlike most large “L” Libertarians, I don’t think that these things can be changed with a simple wave of a wand. Even if they could, I am certain that the chaos that followed waving the wand would be as bad, in a wholly different way, as the problems that preceded it.
SdB: “Your’re starting to sound scary – that sounds remarkably like Marxists and their ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ nonsense – and we all know what that led to. ”
Freedom is a scary thing, SdB, because responsibility for one’s own actions comes part in parcel with it. But, to make an analogy, just as it would be wholly unfair to take a bottle-raised zoo animal and toss it into the wild without any sort of effort to prepare it to the new environment, it would be equally unfair to simply dump the welfare recipients (of all stripes — individual and corporate) of the state into a libertarian (or, heaven forfend, a Libertarian) state without transition or preparation.
SdB: “Funnily enough, I remember reading an article online a while back saying Libertarianism was the Marxism of the Right.”
Frankly, I think it gives big “L” Libertarians too much credit for organization. An unhealthy percentage of the large “L” Libertarians are anarchists too uptight to accept the label and too dim to understand that their proposals are unworkable within the time frame they would like to enact them. Having been to a party convention (a friend was speaking), a little Marxism — just enough to keep them from descending to the “herding cats” level of futility — would go a long way.
A simple challenge to Dread Cthulhu @ 04:05 PM and all comers:
Back in the ’60s, when I was young and green enough to take these things seriously, there was the issue about academic campuses being “private property” (the Randian view) or collectives/social property (the anarchist verson, based on the prime revenue for such place being public funds). Be careful which way you opt: one way gives the right to hire goons to beat up protesting students; the other means that teaching and learning (the prime purpose of such places) becomes impossible under certain circumstances.
Which libertarian are you?
Note that the analogy of the campus might largely apply to wider society and immigration (which was once the subject of this thread).
MR: “Which libertarian are you? ”
Neither, since I am not so naive as to believe in some quasi-mystical “purity of vision.” In most things, monocultures are the weaker option: just as alloys are stronger than native metals, just as cross-bred dogs lack the flaws of pure-breds, for liberty to exist, there needs to be some mechanism that holds people to their responsibilities. I would also suggest that your alternative to Randian ownership is not anarchism, but socialism, anarchism being the belief that all forms of government are, by their nature, oppressive and are to be opposed. I think you would find an honest anarchist would not be inclined to go along with the notion that everything he makes is the property of the state / community.
That said, I lean closer to the “Randian” notion that what is mine is mine, although I would suggest that she is by far a late-comer to the conversation.
That which is not earned but merely given is not valued by the recipient, be the transfer of wealth a farm subsidy, a welfare check or a tax-break for a business. The national government should busy itself with national business — national defense, border security, etc., and not create Ponzi schemes such as the US Social Security system. Likewise, permitting politicians to rob Peter to pay Paul corrupts the political process, incentiving the transfer of wealth to create voting blocs, or, to put in bluntly, buying votes using the public purse.
As for the rest, I am not the one who decided to take this detour, Malcom, nor the one who decided to be casually insulting, with flights of fancy regarding Nazism.
Illegal immigration is, at present, an anathema to the United States, insofar as one party, through its opposition to clean elections and its pandering, is seeking to “purchase” the illegal immigrants votes. The intersection between “motor-voter” laws (laws that allow the registration of voters at the DMV as a part of the licensing process) and granting driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants is, if not a naked attempt to pad the voter rolls with ineligible voters, a scantily clad one.
Dread Cthulhu @ 07:01 PM:
The issue of ownership of Columbia University (which you avoid answering) is relevant nearer home, and was discussed at some length by an editorial in “The Libertarian” of 1 May 1969. The “correct” answer (as appraised by Murray Rothbard) was that the campus belonged to those who used it. Once the state is eliminated from the equation, it becomes a matter of “40 acres and a mule”, home-steading.
Another way of approaching that is to deed ex-state property on those who seize it from the defunct state (or quasi-state) apparatus. That, to me, sounds very like “expropriating the expropriators”, which, as I recall was the answer provided by Karl Marx in “Das Kapital”, chapter 27.
Now, one might feel that Marx was being a trifle simplistic, as did H G Wells (in “The Shape of Things to Come”, Chapter 4). Since Marx was a communist, and Wells a Fabian socialist, with which does the 24-carat Libertarian stand? Or does the Libertarian come out as a rank capitalist, defending private ownership, if necessary with billy-clubs and rifles against unarmed students?
Now, as implied by my opening sentence, here’s another thought, a bit more relevant:
The citizens of the modern United States are choosing to decide which of all the immigrants into that territory are “legal”, and, in that decision, national origin, language and skin complexion play a significant part. As far as I am aware, not many of the ancestors of those “legal” 300m were invited by the few hundred thousands who previously inhabited those lands, who might and did have had strong objections on grounds of national origin, language and skin complexion. Therefore most of the 300m are “illegals” who have arrived (or descended from arrivals) since — say — 20th November 1620. I do not hear many challenges to the right of those 300m to stay.
Similarly, since 1606 Scots settlers have been in Ulster (actually, they were re-occupying lands granted to the Scots four centuries earlier, but let’s not quibble). Can all US citizens, libertarian or not, now accept the unquestionable rights of occupation and ownership to the Scots-descendants in Ulster? Which is a polite way of asking them not to be so nebby about business that is not theirs.
“You can lobby all you want.” – Dread Cthulhu
As I said: “I refer you to the Jewish lobby.” As Bishop Desmond Tutu said: “The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal in the US, and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic. People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful – very powerful.” It is so disproportionately powerful, in fact, that governments and others will deny it even exists simply because the Jewish Lobby is sophisticated enough to know that it should not be seen to exist, and those who claim it does exist will have their nipples twisted.
Just because the Irish lobby isn’t presently well-organised enough to advance Irish interests in the same manner that the Jewish lobby presently advances Jewish interests doesn’t mean that isn’t the standard we should aspire to. 45 million of the US population are Irish-American, making them the second largest ethnic group in the US. Jewish people, on the other hand, are less than 2%. Yet, they have lobby highly sophisticated groups such as AIPAC and we have… what exactly? A bunch of half-assed defeatist wankers by the looks of things.
It’s way past time that the Irish government was the potential power of the Irish diaspora and began to organise them into affiliated groups for the greater good of Ireland, both politically and commercially.
Two typos:
Yet, they have highly sophisticated lobby groups such as AIPAC and we have… what exactly?
It’s way past time that the Irish government saw the potential power of the Irish diaspora and began to organise them into affiliated groups for the greater good of Ireland, both politically and commercially
The Dubliner: “Just because the Irish lobby isn’t presently well-organised enough to advance Irish interests in the same manner that the Jewish lobby presently advances Jewish interests doesn’t mean that isn’t the standard we should aspire to. 45 million of the US population are Irish-American, making them the second largest ethnic group in the US. Jewish people, on the other hand, are less than 2%. Yet, they have lobby highly sophisticated groups such as AIPAC and we have… what exactly? A bunch of half-assed defeatist wankers by the looks of things. ”
You analysis is flawed, insofar as the Israel lobby enjoys circumstance that Ireland does not.
1) Israel is a steadfast ally of the United States and the only democracy in its region. Ireland fails on both sides of this issue. It does not have either the tenure as an ally, nor does it represent a democracy in the region.
2) Israel enjoys the support of a much larger group of voters, the Evangelicals, particular the Evangelical Right, who support it for reasons of their own. Ireland does not have similar friends in the voting public.
3) Israel can be presented as under siege and surrounded by hostile neighbors who have, on several occasions since 1948, attempted to invade Israel. Ireland, not so much.
The time and opportunity for an “Irish lobby” has past. The Irish are not a single entity, nor is Ireland at any particular risk from its neighbors.
This is not to say things can’t be better, just that you don’t have nearly as fertile a field to work with.
Malcom: “The issue of ownership of Columbia University (which you avoid answering)”
I didn’t avoid answwerng it, Malcom. I implied it was a stupid question, bordering on the ignorant.
Malcom: “The citizens of the modern United States are choosing to decide which of all the immigrants into that territory are “legalâ€, and, in that decision, national origin, language and skin complexion play a significant part. As far as I am aware, not many of the ancestors of those “legal†300m were invited by the few hundred thousands who previously inhabited those lands”
Not material to the equation, Malcom. The more you dwell upon irrelevancies, the less seriously I am inclined to take you.
Malcom: “Can all US citizens, libertarian or not, now accept the unquestionable rights of occupation and ownership to the Scots-descendants in Ulster?”
Interesting question… now, by that same logic, does that mean the SF crowd will sit down and shut up about Israel’s presence in the West Bank? It would seem to me you’re trying to hinge your argument on length of tenure, while I am taking the pragamatic approach of accepting the facts as they lie and working from there. You arguments, coming from a rather narrow and clumsy “Ivory tower” origin border on the useless.
Do I think that the Ulster Scots are in danger of being displaced? No.
Do I think they need to have their nose rubbed in the shite of their ancester’s efforts at ethnic and cultural cleansing, much in the same fashion that Europeans like to try to do to the U.S. (ironic, insofar as it was, at most, the continuation of European colonial policies)? Perhaps, but only occasionally.
Malcom: “Which is a polite way of asking them not to be so nebby about business that is not theirs. ”
I would point out that Europeans, including the Irish, have no such restraint when commenting on American cultural norms they find disagreeable…
Which is a polite way of saying just as soon as y’all can meet the same standard, I might consider it.