Steyn On Illegal Immigration “Compromise”
Brilliant and scathing, Mark Steyn comments on what is known about the illegal immigration compromise that has been worked out in the US Senate. He calls it for exactly what it is, not a compromise but a capitulation.
Are you a fine upstanding member of the Undocumented-American community? That's to say, are you (if you'll forgive the expression) an illegal immigrant?
Great news! Being illegal is now perfectly legal! Just for being one of the circa 12 million people who shouldn't be here, you can now be here indefinitely! If you were living and working in America illegally before Jan. 1, 2007, you're now entitled to one of the new Z-1 "probationary" visas. And your parents and spouses are entitled to one of the new Z-2 visas, and your children to the new Z-3 visas.
Don't worry: It's not an "amnesty." Every politician in America is opposed to amnesty — if not the concept, then at least the word. That's why the visa starts with the letter that's furthest away from the one "amnesty" begins with. "Z" stands for zellout . . . no, hang on, zurrender or Zapatista, or some other word way up the other end of the alphabet from "amnesty." But the point is, at a stroke there will be no more illegal immigrants. Because being illegal means you're now legal.
Unless, of course, you came to America after Jan. 1, 2007, and thus aren't covered by the zamnesty. But in that case why not apply for the Z-1 anyway? After all, you're here illegally so how would U.S. Immigration know when you arrived? Especially with 12-15-20 million urgent applications tossed in on top of what's already a multi-year backlog. They're not exactly going to be doing a lot of in-depth background checks, especially not for a visa category whose only entry requirement under U.S. law is that you've broken U.S. law when you entered.
By the way, when I said "came to America," if you're visiting Toronto for a weekend break from Yemen or Belarus, don't be deterred by the fact that Canada is not technically in America. Why not just head down to Buffalo and apply for the old Z-1, too? After all, it's not such a stretch to regard every single person on the planet as a Z-1-in-waiting. This being America, pretty soon — a court decision here, a court decision there — the presumption of every school district and hospital and welfare administrator will be that they're obliged to treat everyone who walks in through the door as if they were a Z-1. You zee one, you've zeen 'em all.
After beating the heck out of the absurdities in this bill, Steyn gets very serious. The way this is being handled points to a serious structural weakness in our society:
At some point, it's worth trying to climb over the rubble of the 2007 Z-1s and the 1986 amnesty and the 1965 immigration act, and going back to basics: What is immigration for? In the modern Western world, to question immigration in even the most cautious way is to risk being demonized as a racist. Most of us like to see ourselves as nice people, and so even to raise the subject of immigration — even illegal immigration — feels like an assault not on distant foreigners so much as on our self-image. Yet, whatever the virtuousness of immigration for the host society, a dependence on it is a sign of profound structural weakness, and, when all the self-congratulation about celebrating diversity has died down, that weakness ought to be understood as such. The unspoken premise behind this bill is that the socioeconomic order in America is now so dependent on the vast apparatus of a giant shadow state of illegal immigrants that it cannot be dismantled but only legitimized and thereby expanded. If that is true, that is a basic structural defect that should be addressed honestly.
And that is precisely what this bill is not doing: addressing the issue honestly. That the political class in Washington is so tone deaf that they think they can slip this past an angry electorate shows just how out of touch they are. Polls repeatedly show that Americans want the border closed or at least made more secure first before anything else is done. The lip service that this bill makes to border security will not fool the public. There isn't enough lipstick in the world to dress this thing up.
Steyn is, of course, completely correct about the response anyone questioning illegal immigration gets. They are instantly visited by screeching comments calling them racist or worse. That is part of the left wing noise machine's tactic of intimidation. That the politicians in Washington are willing to cave into that kind of pressure is discouraging at best. I frankly think that any Senator up for reelection in 2008 who supports this monstrosity will be in trouble with the voters - regardless of party.
Immigration Reform, Politics | Gaius Sunday, 20 May , 2007
By Terry, Sunday, 20 May , 2007 @ 11:48 am
Gaius…
I’m a big fan of your site and an even bigger fan of Marl Steyn but I have to ask you this. I understand the animosity to the naturalization portion of this bill but what is the alternative. If the answer is a border security bill only then it will not pass and we will be stuck with the status quo for some time. I don’t think this is acceptable since I believe that we need to document illegals already here simply for security reasons. It seems to me that a bill (such as this one) that requires legitimate progress towards border security before the naturalization process is reasonable. Then during the border security phase we can identify those illegals already here with an aim of deporting any undesirables.
I’ll be interested in your response.
By Gaius, Sunday, 20 May , 2007 @ 1:22 pm
If enough people make it clear they want the bill to secure the borders first, it will pass. The last figures I saw were that better than 2/3 of Americans want the border security fixed first. That should be enough to get it passed if enough of those people start screaming their heads off.
I think one of the big factors that really hurt the Republicans in the last election was going wobbly on illegal immigration.
By Brass, Sunday, 20 May , 2007 @ 2:25 pm
My roommate is an Australian who has been working here on a seasonal H2B visa for the last 6 years. She has to get a new one every six months and the resort company she and I work for offers them for the summer and winter seasons. Until this year. The INS has decided that companies must choose to have either a one season or the other, that having both is like having a year round visa which is unavailable to unskilled workers. My roommate is heading back to Australia in two weeks.
I’m wondering if she could apply for a Z-visa so that she may work year round. I mean, sure she’s paid taxes for the last six years and has jumped through the hoops, but she could say that she was also illegally working for some lawn care company and was therefore an illegal alien and entitled to a Z-visa. Hoorah! She might get to stay.