A picture... AND a thousand words
In an uncharacteristically long post, Allen Forkum opines on the immigration debate.
Are there things we can all agree on? Certainly border security should be a priority, especially after 9/11, right? And we should respect "rule of law" and not encourage illegal behavior, right?Yet another example why I can't get too excited about this issue. I can easily dismiss the various Leftist positions - simply because they are so vacuous. Even when they agree wholeheartedly with one of the other ideologies - conservative, libertarian, or objectivist - rarely can the liberal explain why he takes the position he does. Meanwhile, I can sympathize and agree with many of the valid points brought up by the various (non-liberal) participants, and I seem quite immune to all the overheated expressions of calamity should the respective speakers' positions not be followed.Yes, all true ... generally speaking. But the specifics of the immigration issue are crucial. Unfortunately, much of the opposition to "illegal immigration" seems to evade the full context, namely that the right to immigrate is restricted by government quotas and that that artificial restriction is the primary cause of the problems related to illegal immigration. Worse still, judging by complaints I've read about the prospect of raising the limit on immigrants allowed into America, some people are simply using the phrase "illegal immigration" as a euphemism for "too many immigrants."
Notice that we don't commonly talk about, say, "illegal homeowners" or "illegal students." Why? It's not because homeowners and students are fanatics for rule of law. It's because there are no government quotas limiting the number of home buyers and education seekers. If there were, if only a small number of houses were permitted to be built every year, if only a small number of people were allowed to attend school, then we'd be hearing about "illegals" who forge construction documents and smuggle students in station wagon dashboards.
It's a problem, and it needs a solution. But it's been a problem for quite a while, and I don't see a failure to resolve the issue as doing a whole lot of additional harm - except to my ability to stay attentive.

Comments
Forkum's argument falls a apart when he claims that there is a "right" to immigrate into the USA. There is no such right, immigration is a priviledge. And, we are prudent to limit the exercise of that priviledge.
The argument he wants to make, but apparently doesn't have the sense to express, is that we enjoy a benefit by allowing foreign nationals to come here and work, and he should say, we need to have a program which will allow the number of workers allowed entry to correspond with the actual need at any given time.
This is also the concept which President Bush is attempting to address with his "guest worker" program; where W's proposal falls down is when he combines the temporary import of workers and a "path to citizenship". Forkum's seems to make the same mistake, there is no reason to insist that guest workers must be put on a path to citizenship, this is a mixing of apples and oranges. Even the use of the word "immigrant" when used to describe the foreigners who are invading this country is a misnomer.
When Forkum goes to the argument that our immigration rules are unjust, comparing them to Nazi rules, and Southern slavery, he sounds like an idiot. For only an idiot would be make such a baseless comparison. Our immigration laws only serve to protect our freedom, not to diminish the freedoms of any other group of people. To follow his argument one must assume that he is suggesting that we oppress the rest of the world by not permitting them free access to reside within out land; this is tantamount to arguing that one is oppressing the burglar when we pass and enforce laws against breaking and entering.
The cartoonists Cox and Forkum have done some really great work in the past, too bad that is over, for Forkum is clearly nucking futs now.
Posted by: Richard
|
July 12, 2006 10:23 AM
Proof of theorem. To degrade the discussion to the point of suggesting Cox & Forkum "have done some really great work in the past, too bad that is over," is equally "futs". I really cannot comprehend the level of vitriol this issue engenders in people.
Personally, I'd pay good tax money if we could find some way to permanantly exchange three blue-state Democrats for any random, hardworking Mexican.
Posted by: Chris
|
July 12, 2006 11:14 AM
It isn't just this issue. My vitriol would be just as great if we were discussing any number of other issues where the wing nuts invoke invented "rights", or Hitler, or slavery, in order to make an unsupportable contention.
I remember when you used to delight in Fisking them too.
Posted by: Richard
|
July 12, 2006 11:21 AM
And, as to my believe that the sald days are over at Cox and Forkum, once these folks get the derangement they never seem to get over it, we can expect more of the same liberal idiocy from C&F in the future.
Posted by: Richard
|
July 12, 2006 11:23 AM
Yup, that's it, Rick. Let the overblown rhetoric make you equally paranoid, forgetting who your friends are. That'll teach 'em.
Posted by: Chris
|
July 12, 2006 11:31 AM
?
Posted by: Richard
|
July 12, 2006 11:53 AM