FAIR AND BALLAST

My view on the immigration debate that has now engulfed our nation, from the diapers to the dynamos, is simple in terms of what I think should happen to the 11 or 12 million or so illegal immigrants: I don't favor expulsion of these people, whatever their race, religion, or ethnicity, for the simple reason that our government lacks the funds to forcibly remove them, and that I, as a taxpayer, should not have to pay interest due to the government's failure (if one is to call it a failure) to expel them earlier. Both political parties have used Latino immigrants as a prop in political campaigns - Democrats have turned a blind eye to illegal border crossings to curry favor with the Latino vote; George Bush has done the same thing, and his corporate paymasters, in direct violation of federal law, have failed to report illegal aliens. Thus, the corporations have not incurred the requisite sanctions (sanctions, which, ironically, could fund the cost of a nationwide expulsion). The corporations, multinational, multistate, and otherwise, who need immigrants as a cheap source of labor, and these folks' apologists, have squawked that it's not their job to act as "border control" officers. However, laws imposing sanctions upon employers are not targeting/commandeering (see Printz v. U.S.) corporations to act as vessels for a federal government scheme (even if such laws did, corporations are not "sovereign entities," as states are, and can be commandeered in this fashion); such laws merely require employers, along with everyone else, to play their part in ensuring that laws of general applicability are not violated. There is no legal prohibition against making corporations, which are created under state and federal laws in the first place, do this, especially given that the rest of us (i.e. citizens) have our own legal obligations (the failure by which to abide can result in legal consequences) to report illegal aliens; to not defraud the IRS by paying illegals off the books, and so on.

The attitude of corporate apologists is astonishing. We have laws in this country that are specifically designed to control workplace interactions. These include, among other laws, federal anti-discrimination statutes. Employers grumblingly recognize that these statutes are constitutional, and further realize that ultimately, their failure to abide by these laws will result in a government entity (a court) imposing damages upon them. In this sense, employers DO have a responsibility to act as "civil rights enforcers" - but because - and precisely because - they are the entities that are deemed by the law to be capable of committing civil rights violations in the workplace. Since emplyoers recognize the legitimacy of federal anti-discrimination laws, to those who have a problem with how those laws are effected, I ask, what would you have as the alternative? Government monitoring of your worksite? Such monitoring is obviously offensive, and the fact that it isn't done indicates that to some extent, the anti-discrimination laws can only be enforced by corporations' self-policing: the government is not literally in the workplace, but it is telling you that if you don't police your shop, you'll pay. This is how laws - criminal laws - and the law of intentional torts work, in general. Why should corporations be exempt from these precise ordinary workings of the law by a requirement that they should not have to check the citizenship status of their employees? Again, since these entities recognize that the employment relationship that they have with illegal aliens is illegal, and since they do not WANT the government monitoring their shop to check the citizenship status of each hiree, how do the corporations expect or want immigration laws to be enforced without their self-policing, the failure to accomplish will result in a fine (an incentive for self-policing?) It's amazing how corporations so desperately want to be treated like people, just so they can evade liability, and yet when it comes time for the corporations to do things people actually do, they declare that the laws that people must follow don't apply to them. These arguments are legal absurdities.

Yet, the corporations have won out. The last effort at immigration reform came in 1986. The product of this effort was the granting of - love that Republican catchphrase - "amnesty" to some aliens, laws purporting to enforce border control, and laws requiring employer sanctions. The employer sanction laws have not been enforced. Why? From pretty much continuously from 1986 to the present, we've had either a Republican president or a Republican Congress. This group would lose much of its base if it dared to enforce these laws. While Democrats, I believe, are (or at least should be) innately less squeamish about enforcing such laws, many of them do not want to foul the trough at which they feed by insisting upon sanctions, and some may even view sanctions as (God forbid) tantamount to punishing the aliens themselves!

So, to the extent there is a problem - a surfeit of illegal immigrants in this country - it is our fault. Our government's fault, your fault and mine. We have failed to elect/seek out individuals who will insist upon the imposition of sanctions, and we've failed to elect/seek out individuals who will merely even PROPOSE to what extent, if any, we should beef up border security. In the words of Pogo, "we have met the enemy, and it is us."

Because the American people have failed to solve this problem through republican democracy, the people who represent us under that system think, not inappropriately, that no solution is "really" needed, so long as the reprsentatives keep demagoguing the issue one way or another, keeping it in the public spotlight.

The Republican party itself has been wedge-issued by immigration. The corporate wing of the party is not in favor of expulsion en masse of 12 million immigrants and a virtual fence to prevent "new immigrants" from arriving - were it to favor such things, American workers would, god forbid, have a shot at getting a better wage and benefits, the labor market for American workers would become more competitive, less union-busting would occur, and Mexico and the multinationals would be sent the message that NAFTA is not a one-way benefit pipeline to it. The corporate wing cannot abide this.

The other wing - let's call it the "social conservative" wing, is comprised, in large part, of good old Republican bigots who simply do not like the fact that brown people (as opposed to WASPS) have come here illegally (mind you, this wing has done nothing to correct this problem - if the problem disappeared, it would not be able to demagogue it, and therefore, the problem must be kept alive) These people claim that Mexicans have a plan of "reconquista" (reconquer) - a plan under which once they "invade us" in sufficient numbers, they will then launch a war against the United States to "take back" land in California, New Mexico, and Texas that previously belonged to Mexico (so that this land can be part of the country they want to get away from?) A leading proponent of the reconquista theory is that fine scholar Michelle Malkin, who in a recent book, exhaustively documented the extent to which Japanese Americans really WERE a threat to America in WWII, and thus deserved to be interned. Facts are not this woman's best friend. They aren't even a casual acquaintance.

The bigotry is now showing its full colors. Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, described the protests with marchers carrying foreign flags as "ominous" in "their hint of a large, unassimilated population existing outside America's laws and exhibiting absolutely no sheepishness about it." (gee, Rich, I guess the protesters are kind of like the Bush administration, with the only difference being that the Bush cabal is somewhat smaller in number).

Brit Hume, the news anchor on Fox News (we all know that news anchors cannot hold personal opinions, and the anchors, especially those at Fox, are - and if they aren't, they should be - fair and balanced), described the marchers, particularly those carrying Mexican flags, as "a repellent spectacle." No doubt Brit made this comment in the "no spin" portion of his newscast.

The remarks of the Lowrys and Humes of the world serve but one purpose: to keep the bigot base energized. Were these men to back up their words with some kind of action, there is a chance, however remote, that the issue which they keep demagoguing will be rendered moot. The fear of this mootness is the bigots' greatest fear. It's hard to imagine that when FDR first said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," he specifically envisioned modern-day Republican fearmongering. Then again, he didn't have to. For while the song of despair wailing out of the wilderness of the Great Depression has ended, the melody - "action must triumph over demagoguery" - lingers on, as any President- past, present, or future - would recognize.