Afternoon:
15°c
Immigration is the dangerous third rail in American politics. Or rather, amnesty for illegal immigrants is the dangerous third rail in ... in what? In American politics? In Republican politics? In conservative politics? Is Karl Rove a conservative? Are the Bush brothers, George W and Jeb, conservatives? Is Newt Gingrich a conservative? Was Ronald Reagan - who 25 years ago this month signed the Immigration Control and Reform Act (which gave amnesty to illegal immigrants pre-1982) - was the Gipper a conservative?
During this week's Republican debate, Gingrich, who had suddenly taken the lead among the hopeful presidential candidates, made a point of spelling out what is now considered a liberal position on illegal immigration. "If you've been here 25 years and you've got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out."
Republicans, after all, consider themselves pro-family and (note the emphasis) pro-church. Good people who have put down roots, pay their taxes and go to church should be rewarded - that is the Gingrich position, which seems closely to follow the Reagan position of quarter of a century ago.
But Reagan was able to say the word "amnesty" without spitting it out. Today's "conservatives" can't. What Gingrich is proposing - regularising the position of virtuous illegals that falls just short of granting them US citizenship - amounts in their view to amnesty. And amnesty is a magnet.
There are - pick a number between 10 and 14 million - let's say 12 million illegal immigrants waiting for this kind of amnesty. What would happen in Central America if word got out that these people were being forgiven
their sins?
This was the line that Mitt Romney took against Gingrich during and after the debate, Romney being rather keen to demonstrate that, although he looks saner than some of the rival candidates, he's no pussycat. And Gingrich, for whom Romney is a sphinx without a secret, hit back at him with a video clip from four years ago, in which Romney expressed support for a path to citizenship for illegals, and tweeted "So what's your position on citizenship for illegals again?" (Gingrich's people had edited the clip to his advantage.)
The point Gingrich was making is that no future president of the United States is going to show 10, 11 or 12 million working people the door. That is reassuring, if true. It is also an observation whose truth many can recognise.
Here is a conservative talk-radio host, Sam Clovis, quoted by Politico: "Some of the other candidates, they don't know what to do when we get past closing the borders. Newt Gingrich has come down on this and said something that has made more sense than anybody has said in the last five years on immigration. No president is going to come in and advocate throwing 14 million people out of the country. The visuals of that just won't work."
The visuals won't work - it's some-thing to know that mass expulsions will simply not look good. Illegal immigration is a subject that offers wide scope for hypocrisy, including the hypocrisy of the status quo, in which the economy relies on illegals whom it is inconvenient to legitimise. There is also a kind of hypocrisy inherent in the sterner anti-immigrant rhetoric, which seems to trade off resentments that it has no intention to rectify, although one wouldn't like to push those who peddle this kind of rhetoric in the direction
of action.
Two states that have enacted controversial anti-illegal immigrant laws are Arizona and Alabama. In Alabama, the result of recent legislation has been that thousands of migrant agricultural workers have left the state, and, as reports have it, the crops are rotting in the fields. This, of course, is the unintended consequence of the legislation.
The story is familiar: American workers are not interested in taking up these crop-picking jobs, and where they do give the work a try they tend to abandon it. They lack the necessary skills of the Latinos.
Businessmen have begun to express some alarm at the damage the law is doing to the image of Alabama and, by extension, with the state's ability to attract and retain industrial investment. For example, earlier this month a visiting German executive with Mercedes Benz was pulled over for driving a rental car without plates. He did not have his passport with him, only his German ID card. The traffic cop was obliged to arrest the man and take him to the police station.
Lucky businessman - a colleague soon found his papers for him and he was released. Less lucky Latinos living in trailers are afraid to go out to renew the registration of their homes for fear of arrest if they cannot prove their citizenship. A judge recently blocked the application of part of the new law, on the grounds that it forced families to leave their homes.
A parallel has been drawn between the current tribulations of Latinos in Alabama and the struggles of African- Americans during the Civil Rights movement. Here is state senator Billy Beasley, the only Republican member of the state senate to oppose the recent law: "I thought at the time it was the most mean-spirited, cruel, racist bill that I had ever seen come through the Alabama legislature. How can we, in the year 2011, allow this to happen to the people of Alabama? For over 20 years, Hispanic workers have been working in the fields of Alabama, in the businesses of Alabama, and we appreciate the work that you do for the people of Alabama. We should respect the right that you have to be in Alabama."
Gingrich will soon find how many Republicans are of the same opinion.
Reader views (9)
This all sounds like the 'class' system in uk; but as yanks dont do class they do race instead.
In uk lower social bracket get plenty of benefit payouts, in the usa run the low paying jobs with these people, in a way we used to call 'black' economy nowadays its casual/moonlighting/cash in hand.
BTW do americans want to bring the latin americans in with them? Or just make a joke about speaking spanish.
- steve rudds, bromley uk, 03/12/2011 18:53
Report abuse
Lizette, living in a predominantly Latino area I would have to be blind to miss persecution of Latinos in my town, a vast majority of them illegal.
I agree with Jim, they achieve all different strata of wealth in this country but do better the longer they are here, learn the language & take advantage of help available to them for college. Sometimes it takes a couple generations. Over time they seem to do quite well.
Did you know that you will be told to have your ID with you at all times living in Japan? Even if you are going jogging you can be stopped & asked to show it. Is that draconian? You have to have a net worth of $800,000 to live in Canada. Is that draconian? Yes this was a very silly article.
- denise thompson, USA, 28/11/2011 23:49
Report abuse
Many who are against amnesty are against it because they have seen what it brought when Reagan tried it – more illegal immigration (not surprising) and no reform at all. So many now require that the reform portion come first. What is missing here is the particular (and massive) problems caused to border states like Arizona, who bear the brunt of the illegal Latino burden by virtue of their geographic proximity to Mexico. Easy to take the moral high ground from a safe distance but Arizona has real financial problems on this, and the federal government has done absolutely nothing about it. Agreed it is unworkable to think we can send 14 million people away. It is also unreasonable to think we can catch every burglar. But doing nothing to enforce immigration laws, and going only with “amnesty” instead, makes little sense.
Meanwhile the crops in Alabama will get tended to once the wage paid for that work rises to the proper market level to attract workers (which is, unsurprisingly, in excess of what one can get away with paying someone who is here illegally, under fear of being deported, and paid under the table). Likening the plight of someone here illegally to the struggles of blacks in the civil rights era is probably offensive to blacks. Meanwhile the reason there is a focus on Latino illegals and not on, say, Asian ones is the ease with which Latinos can and do cross the border to the US, multiple times in one week in many instances. That is not so easy to do from Asia.
- Rich, New York City, USA, 28/11/2011 17:29
Report abuse
Written, as usual, from deep within the beltway.
- John, Milton Keynes, 28/11/2011 12:36
Report abuse
Denise, I am also from California and have to disagree with you. Yes, there are Latinos living in historic and/or expensive neighborhoods and working the city jobs; however, I doubt they are "illegal," which is what the article as a whole, not the title, seems to be focusing on. Just because you don't "see" them being persecuted doesn't mean they aren't being discriminated in some way. I do agree about Washington though. All this focus on Latino immigrants and not on all the others. There are just as many Asians who have government and health-care related jobs (jobs white Americans are more likely to have) and live in expensive neighborhoods, yet all everyone seems to care about are the "illegal" Latinos.
- Lizette, California, 28/11/2011 00:45
Report abuse
There is not a cohesive Latino block in the USA. There are immigrants from many lands where Spanish is the first language, and where the people are of mixed Spanish heritage. However, Cubans don’t have much in common with Mexicans. Dominican’s don’t have much in common with Venezuelans, and Guatemalans don’t have much in common with Puerto Ricans. To assume that there is a single Latino culture which has all of the same interests, values, and traits is incorrect.
Beyond that, people of ‘Latino’ heritage have been very successful in the USA. There are members of Congress, the Supreme Court, and current and former members of the President’s cabinet who might be considered Latino. There are successful entrepreneurs, professionals, and people in every walk of life who come from Latin American heritage.
No one is persecuting members of any racial or ethnic group in the USA. As with any free system, various people will achieve different levels of success. Nobody is holding anyone back. Probably the greatest impediment to success in the USA is the lack of role models in the family and the community in which people grow up.
The children of migrant farm workers, or manual laborers often do not achieve great wealth or professional success. While many are fine people, they usually don’t get the values and inspiration which children of more affluent people do. Many children of humble origin do, however, achieve more economic and professional success than their parents did, and after another generation or two, their descendents will be at the same level as anyone else in society.
The lack of instant success in a society is not an indication of persecution.
- Jim, Orlando, FL USA, 26/11/2011 01:21
Report abuse
Alabamans are required to carry their drivers licence with them whenever driving. This law has been on the books for at least 70 years.
Similarly, he was driving in a car with no plates on it. Both acts are illegal. Are you arguing because he is a foreign executive he should be above the law?
You try driving without plates and proper documentation in Germany and see how far you get.
And your logic "Was the gipper conservative?", and of Republicans being "pro-family and pro-church" is so flawed I don't know where to begin. Surprising to see such a schoolboy error and basic logical fallacy from an Oxford man!
"Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people, therefore, surgeons are criminals."
Silly, silly article.
- wildcolonialboy, London, 25/11/2011 17:50
Report abuse
Coming from California I can see Latinos living in historic homes & expensive neighborhoods in some cities. I see business owners & nice cars. They have most of the city jobs. In fact i look around & ask. Where is the persecution? Also why is it that Washington cherry picks what laws need to be obeyed, which groups get a pass & the rest be damned?
- denise thompson, USA, 25/11/2011 17:11
Report abuse
How can you keep on rewarding illegal immigration?
How can they be paying taxes if they're illegal?
The first contribution to the country is to break the law,and your response is to reward it.
I guess that will get more people interested in following all the other laws as well ,wont it?
- Aleks, Mayfair, 25/11/2011 15:40
Report abuse
