Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Black Thursday: Obamnesty — November 20, 2014
Why is the opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens so intense? What is it about granting – not citizenship – but simply the right to remain living and working in the U.S. to 5 million aliens (who broke our laws by coming here) that so enrages some core portion of America’s silent majority? What ideal, what fiber in the America ethosn is being so shredded? And what does the President’s violation of that ideal – by granting executive amnesty last night – bode for the future of America?
These are questions which I think very few pundits outside of government have honestly addressed.
First let me say that I am among those who believe that the hullaballoo (oft-heard on Fox News) about the President’s “executive overreach” and the incipient “Constitutional crisis” is merely a circus side-show that has no transcendent significance, but that might nevertheless be employed in the service of good or, possibly, in the service of chaos.
What does that mean?
At heart, what is important is not how the President did it, but what he did. Had Congress passed and the President signed the amnesty – even the limited, transient, two-year amnesty – that Obama unilaterally imposed last night, it would be no better than the executive order. It would, indeed, be worse. It would mean that the forces of bourgeois greed and primal amorality within the Republican Party had at last triumphed over the majority who, simply put, understand the difference between right and wrong.
Let me explain with a story.
A couple evenings ago, listening on my drive home to Nightside, a popular radio show hosted by the stolid conservative Dan Rea on WBZ here in Boston, the following exchange (recorded from memory and embellished somewhat for clarity) took place.
Dan: So what do you think about the President’s reported plan to issue amnesty through executive order to five million illegal aliens?
Caller (Joe): I think that the illegal aliens who are here committing crimes should be focused on. Deport them maybe. But the ones who are here just for jobs, obeying the law, with families and kids – there should be some way to let them stay.
Dan: Well why do you think that, Joe?
Joe: Well, Dan, I gotta tell you: I have a business here on the South Shore and I employ nine guys. Eight of them are Americans and one is Brazilian.
Dan: Is that one here legally or illegally?
Joe: Now I didn’t ask him – I just got the papers I needed…
Dan: Wait a minute. What are you saying? That he is an illegal alien? Hey, I gotta say I don’t agree with that at all, Joe.
Joe: Well, Dan, I just do what the law requires me to…
Dan: But Joe, did you run his information through E-Verify?
Joe: Yeah.
Dan: And what happened?
Joe: You don’t want to know.
Dan: I don’t want to know?! You’re saying he didn’t pass?
Joe: Well, no.
Dan: Hey, Joe. You’ve got your business on the South Shore there. I don’t know the name of the business now and I don’t want to know, but, are you telling me that you couldn’t find one American in today’s job market who was willing to fill that job?
Joe: Hey Dan, let me tell you: The problem is with these kids these days. They just don’t want to do hard work anymore. It’s really tough…
…
Dan: Well Joe, look, I want to thank you for having the guts to come on here and tell the truth. Let’s see what our other listeners have to say.
And this, I thought, is the abyss.
A significant portion of the Republican base — whose instincts otherwise tend toward small government, less regulation and conservative principals — have knowingly broken the law and employed illegal aliens for purely personal gain and have deluded themselves – perhaps by appealing to some free market diatribe – that their violation of the rule of law is necessary, or excusable, or on account of the “sad state of the youth of today,” or some other transparently shallow crap, when in fact, at long last, all they really want is to put that third Mercedes in the driveway.
Perhaps that is bitter. Perhaps that is rage (cf. Kubla-Ross’s stages of grief).
But it is what I think.
Because I have a theory. It is, I think, an eminently sensible theory and yet I have never seen it in print. And I would like to ask the assembled Ricochetti what you/they think of this.
My theory is that, in spite of the recent deluge of illegal alien children deposited against the demands of the American people across the country, Republican candidates for Senate in this past election were restrained from a full-throated condemnation not merely of Obama’s threatened executive overreach, but of amnesty itself — the rewarding of illegal aliens and their employers who wantonly broke our laws – only by the dollars from Joe and the organizations that represented all of the Joes, like the Chamber of Commerce, who said: “Psst. Senator! Cool it with the illegal alien stuff!”
And here too, all along, it has seemed to me that the U.S. Senate, far more than the U.S. House of Representatives, has been bought and sold by Joe and Co. – just because the influence of money (as compared to banalities like rule-of-law or waiting your turn in line) is stronger for statewide as opposed to local, district elections.
Am I missing something here? Is this not obvious to everyone?
But there are exceptions. And just as Obamacare has molded the protoplasm of the Republican Party over the last five years, Obama’s amnesty – Obamnesty – is destined to mold it over the next two. Here is how Obama’s amnesty can work for good. (Perhaps I will expound on how this turmoil over executive overreach might get us screwed on some future occasion).
First, the fury over executive amnesty has brought the entire Republican establishment over to the anti-amnesty side – whether they were planning to be over there or not. Who, after all, expected to see Reince (“we can’t allow it to happen and we won’t let it happen”) Priebus transformed suddenly into the Red Cross Knight? Once more into the what, Reince?
But beyond that, as with Obamacare, a blue hot flame has been ignited. Fast forward to 2016 and the Republican Presidential Primary debates. When Ted Cruz (or, bless my soul, Jeff Sessions) says: “not replace, but repeal!” and he is talking not about Obamacare but about Obamnesty, who will be able to stand in his way? When one candidate has the chutzpah to say that “the immigration laws were constructed to protect the American worker and I will, upon my election, see to it that they are, at long last, enforced,” who then turns around and votes for Jeb Bush?
And when that candidate is the Republican nominee, how does Hillary or Liz manage to hold inner-city African Americans, to say nothing of white working class folk, in the rainbow coalition? Aren’t we then back to the Reagan winning formula?
I know, my Ricochetti friends, a pleasant fireside fantasy. But permit me to take wing a bit on a dark cold night. Winter approaches.
Published in General
Part of what fuels the rage is that Obama is the President of the US, which means that his duty is to the citizens of the US, not citizens of other countries. But he makes a mushy moralistic case that sounds like he does have such a duty to them. There doesn’t even seem to be an attempt to make the case that it’s good for America as a whole.
First, you’re way in the weeds because you don’t recognize the attack for what it is — an assault on the value, the meaning of citizenship itself. Second, you don’t see the assault on the Constitution in the method. Don’t know what to tell you.
And your theory, never before seen in print, that the Chamber of Commerce has bought the GOP, so that it represents only money, not voters, is not novel even on these pages.
The President does not have the power to legislate just because the legislature will not send him the bill he wants. If this stands, America is a dictatorship. Our very citizenship is being devalued to worthlessness. We are becoming subjects.
What I said in particular was that some Senate candidates had the tendency and the power to win by jumping on the outrage of the illegal alien children tsunami of the summer and even did so for a while but ultimately backed off because of the specific people who do what Joe does. We won many seats anyway. We might have gotten even more.
And where is the Senate candidate who admits this?
A while back my brother that owns a construction company and I were discussing illegals immigrants. I asked him if he ever hired them and he said that he tries not to but it is not that cut and dry. As he said when he needs workers, he tends to need them quickly and for limited duration. A guy shows up looking for work and may come recommended by other workers, he might be suspicious of him but the worker has all the legal paperwork (stolen identity), so you can’t just turn the worker down because he is a foreigner. (nor would my brother want to) You go through the verification process and what you get back can be a somewhat inconclusive answer. You see all you really have is an electronic identity, what comes back is that there are irregularities like the id being used multiple times recently. So there might be a problem or maybe the guy just gets around a lot. Included in this notification is a bunch of legal jargon that says basically the system is not a guarantee of legality or illegality of any specific individual you may have just hired and can not legally be used to employ or unemploy that person and for you to do so is at your own risk. As he said, what is he to do? The guy is only going to be around for a short time and by the time (if) the government figures it out he will be long gone. After doing this for many years the government has never came looking for one of these folks so he figures it is easier to go with the flow than open himself up to a potential lawsuit. From his point of view it is not a cost thing since all get paid the same. The only thing he has noted is that of the ones that seemed to be illegals there seems to be a larger amount of low level theft and casual destruction associated with them.
So you don’t think this is executive overreach? You don’t think this action endangers some of the fundamental tenets of the Constitution?
OK, a significant portion of Republicans are complicit in the problem. Our hands are not clean, so to speak. I think a lot of businesses probably couldn’t survive without illegals. So what, though? That is what makes this such a challenging problem. None of us can claim moral superiority. That makes it even more important to work together to fix it. I’m not sure I understand your point. I really want to feel better about this, but I still think it makes a bad situation even worse.
Going the the flow and being against it is perfectly reasonable. Milton Freedman took Social Security. It is irrational not too.
However, you trot out the idea that there are some jobs Americans won’t do. That is false. We have massive unemployment and people not even looking.
The problem is, Americans won’t do some jobs for that little money. There is the problem. I’d clean filthy bathrooms every day for $1000/hour. Minimum wage, not so much.
If you really believe the separation of power issue is a non starter, please explain to my how this action cannot apply to other laws.
@J Flei, I didn’t say that this was *not* executive overreach…just that it is a peripheral issue that (1) has the salutary effect of putting nearly all Republicans on the at least ostensible anti-amnesty side, and (2) allows people to get enraged about constitutional principals when it is what Obama is doing, not how he is doing it, that is the irreversible tragedy.
As for your resignation that the problem is just hard, I certainly agree. I am just saying that if we ever really want to solve it we need to focus on our own side – shame the cheaters if necessary, pass E-Verify in states or nationally if possible – because it is the magnet attracting people here, and not the porosity of the border, that is the problem.
If I were to go with the flow I would text while driving because I know I can do so safely. My children have shamed me into not doing so because it is hypocritical. I don’t have any friends that I know of who have entered countries knowingly illegally. It would never *occur* to me to try that. It would equally well never occur to me to knowingly hire an illegal alien or not take the extra trouble to make sure I wasn’t. Again, if I did so I feel that my children would be ashamed of their father…and they would be right. It is not what I teach them. Are my standards really so high?
Sorry, Bryan. If I remotely suggested that I believe that there are jobs that “Americans won’t do” I should have my tongue cut out. I am revolted by that idea.
Again (see comment above) the separation of powers issue is valid. I just think that in this case it is secondary.
To quote you from above:
Joe: Hey Dan, let me tell you: The problem is with these kids these days. They just don’t want to do hard work anymore. It’s really tough…
What on earth do you think this implies in your story?
In terms of hiring illegals, I think the Social Security Analogy makes more sense than texting while driving.
Bryan, I was so outraged when I heard this I was blue! This is, as I said, the abyss. I thought it was clear that I found these remarks appalling, but obviously I wasn’t as clear as I always seem to think I am. But thanks for the feedback.
OK thanks for the clarification. I withdraw that part. I still think you are wrong on how much damage is being done to the Republic. Then again, I think his “waivers” are just as bad.
Got it, then we are in agreement. I also think Republicans should emphasize more of the sob stories about people who try to immigrate legally and are denied.
My concerns are almost entirely cultural.
Prior to this particular sustained wave of immigration, we’ve had waves, among pauses, from varied countries, which we absorbed into a culturally confident America. And there was a consensus among all parties that assimilation is good. Immigrants from multiple cultures, assimilating, learning English, becoming American: That situation makes for a stable (and vibrant and interesting) society.
Today we have a huge wave from a single (more or less) culture arriving in a country which no longer values (and indeed derides) “Americanization”. Potentially that makes for an unstable bi-cultural society. Such dysfunctional societies exist all over the world, and sure enough we’re already seeing signs of the unrest associated with bi-culturalism in parts of the U.S.
The economic and legal issues of the immigration problem are interesting and important, but it’s the unworkable mess that emerges when two peoples live in one country that keeps me up at night.
Here is an apt analogy…
I hold an annual Holiday open-house. Food and drink and merrymaking. Come one, come all. Everyone is welcome. All I ask is that you present yourself at the front door, shake my hand, look me in the eye and introduce yourself.
My soirée is so popular that there is frequently a line of guests lined up on my walkway waiting their turn to enter.
How do we feel, then, about a group of people who, instead of waiting with the others outside, go around back, hop over my fence, force open my back door and help themselves to the contents of my refrigerator, pantry and bar?
For myself, I think they have abused my hospitality and shown contempt for my guests waiting out front. And I’d demand that they leave and rightly so.
Are you sure? The letter I saw from the government specifically said that the results were not to be considered a legal reason to unemploy them and to do so could be considered a cause of legal action by various legal entities. It may be that there or other systems or the system has changed since my discussion (about a year ago) but I would not remove a person after seeing the letter.
Is there anybody else on here that has actual working experience with this system? Mine is second hand but by a trusted source and he actually showed me several of the letters from the government.
Your answer is here. There is NO right for non-citizens to live and work here.
In addition, Americans have a low tolerance for people who don’t play by the rules, particularly lawbreakers.
The enragement is not necessarily aimed at the illegals aliens, but rather for the people that coddle the illegals and fail to see how damaging they are to our country and our orderly society.
Rights are balances. No right is absolute. By extending so-called rights to literal foreigners without the consent of the governed, our rights are diminished.
—
WHy do I bother?
@Stad, Absolutely right! The problem is that the number of Americans who believe in fairness and the law is sinking as a portion of the whole. More and more people are going over to the cheaters’ side. But still I think that the majority of Americans will continue to teach their children that it is the *bad kids* who cut in line (or enable them to do so). Want to see how deep that lesson is, try cutting in line at Starbucks some day.
If the option was
A. Do the job for minimum wage
or
B. Watch your family starve
The answer would be obvious.