Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning Orphan WorksActof 2008

[Leo Mauler]

--- On Tue, 8/19/08, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:04 AM, Leo Mauler
> <webgiant at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > My freedom not to get sick when an illegal 
> > immigrant brings over a communicable disease 
> > needs to be celebrated by keeping immigration 
> > laws in place to try and prevent him from 
> > doing so.
> 
> I see now where you get your news.  I recall that a 
> year ago or so was when Fox News was running the scare 
> story over and over again about illegal immigrants 
> bringing over Consumption.

FOX Noise isn't my source of news (except the occasional story which filters in through Keith Olberman over on MSNBC).  Illegal immigration is a disease vector which needs to be blocked.

> It's not as big a deal as folks make it out to be, 

Until Patient Zero illegally immigrates.

Besides which, the illegal immigrants aren't being tested for diseases right now.  There's no information which would allow you to state, accurately, that "it's not as big a deal as folks make it out to be."  For all we know it is an incredibly big deal which is simply under-reported.

But there are additional factors.  Its not just the communicable diseases.  Its the poor living conditions experienced by illegal immigrants, such as the cramming of multiple individuals into a single room.  Its the poor food and the poor working conditions.  Once they're here its an outbreak waiting to happen.  Poor Americans are sometimes in the same boat, but unlike the illegal immigrant they aren't risking deportation just to go see a doctor, and thus maybe prevent an outbreak.

> and tends to be used by small-minded folks as an 
> excuse for discrimination.  I'm not asserting that
> you are one of them, so please don't take offense.

Frankly I could care less what race the illegal immigrant is.  Illegal immigrants haven't been tested for communicable diseases, and I'm just as adamant about Canadians not coming in illegally as I am about Mexicans coming in illegally.

> The odd thing, though, is that I think most folks 
> _agree_ that illegal immigration should be 
> curtailed.  The problem is that there are many 
> folks taking extreme positions (most, unfortunately, 
> on the Right side of the political spectrum).  

In much the same way that homosexuals (those who have put some thought into the matter) think Fred Phelps is more of a blessing than a curse (no one wants to be seen as aligning himself with Fred), I'm of the opinion that the folks who seem to support illegal immigration would have a much harder time if there weren't so many racists in favor of halting illegal immigration.

> Last year's attempted compromise was very flawed, but
> it was a start.  We need to find a real solution for 
> the problem and it's not "kick 'em all out and build 
> a giant wall".  The problem is much more complicated 
> than that.

When people start saying things like "illegal immigration is more complex than kicking out all the illegal immigrants", they're generally talking about increasing immigration, not decreasing it.

> I would like to see illegal immigration numbers to drop,
> dramatically.  However, to do that we need to reform our 
> immigration laws to make them less biased against working 
> class folks

As you say, the problem is very complex.  One aspect which proponents of increased and more open legal immigration fail to comprehend is that many of the problems which cause folks to want to immigrate to the U.S.A. are caused by the governments of the home countries of the immigrants.  Simply allowing more legal immigrants fixes nothing if the government at home doesn't fix its problems and just uses the U.S.A. as a dumping ground for excess citizens created by the government's failed policies.

> and to reform the quota system.

No argument from me against reforming the quota system.

> This will make it easier to secure the border by 
> reducing the influx.

The influx will not be reduced by allowing more people in legally.  The influx will be reduced when home countries fix their governments and economies.

> We must put teeth to the labor laws that prevent 
> abuses of illegal immigrants, which will dry up the 
> jobs for illegal labor.

Sounds great, albeit a bit on the "pipe-dream" side of things.

> Finally, we must offer some solution to the millions 
> of illegal immigrants that are already here - and
> no, "deporting them" isn't an option, as we simply can 
> not capture and deport 15 million people, we don't have 
> the manpower, the money, the time, nor the detention 
> centers necessary.  Folks can argue about it all they
> want, but it simply won't happen - we need to find a
> compromise.

Finally, we must decide not to punish the millions of highway speeders that are already here, and no, punishing them in courts isn't an option, as we simply can not capture and imprison several million people.  We don't have the manpower, the money, the time, nor the prisons necessary.

Every time I hear the "we shouldn't punish criminals (or X type of criminals) because there are too many of them" argument, I hear all kinds of other common crime titles in place of "illegal immigration", and wonder why on earth no one else does as well.

Compromises seem to boil down to "let criminals continue to break the law with impunity", a concept which is a recipe for anarchy.  If we do not enforce the law because there are too many lawbreakers, then the number of lawbreakers will simply increase, not decrease, since everyone will know that they can break the law and get away with breaking the law.

> Leo, your Paris Hilton example is absurd.  Please stop
> justifying it and use something cogent.

Your inability to accept it is precisely why you use arguments like "we shouldn't punish criminals because there are too many of them".

> I understand what you're trying to say

Clearly you do not, since you used the "we shouldn't punish criminals because there are too many of them" argument.

> You can do better.  :)

It occurs to me that I just did with my "highway speeders" example, which is of course indirectly related to the "Paris Hilton" example.