Coulter on Immigration
Todd ·
January 15, 2012 at 10:24am
On the most recent Ricochet Podcast, Ann Coulter spent some time discussing immigration. Specifically, she complained that the problem with illegal immigration is that businesses get their cheap labor while the "rest of us" have to pick up the tab for the increase in welfare payments, public education, etc.
Some questions for Ann:
- You said that you can't imagine a world where immigrants have a different classification (a "red" or "blue" card), that makes them ineligible for citizenship or government benefits? Well, why not? I find a world where there are outright bans on certain kinds of immigration to be far more unreasonable than a system that allows people to come here voluntarily knowing full well that they will not have access to government programs and the ballot box.
- You mentioned something about wanting more immigrants from Scotland and Switzerland. You are entitled to that opinion, but as a matter of national policy, who is going to make those decisions about which kinds of immigrants we do and do not want, and in what numbers? Do you really trust the politicians in Washington? As with most things, isn't that best determined by the marketplace? Why do you trust politicians on this issue more than the people?
- You seem to believe that the government has the right to dictate to US citizens whom they can and cannot hire (national security concerns notwithstanding). How is that consistent with any notion of limited government? Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government can prohibit US citizens from hiring people who happened to be born in another country?
- And finally, why this obsession with a fence? What is this, the Eastern Bloc?
- Comment (114)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Nov '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
Hi Todd.
As a one-time holder of a green card myself, I agree with your first point.
On the second point, I agree that the market should determine the outcome on the purely discretionary side and on matters of race and culture, but I think the Government has every right to make determinations about things like financial viability, educational background, criminal checks, etc of those vying for citizenship or other long-term immigrant status.
"happen to be born in another country" is quite a different thing than "in the country illegally" or "holding a non-working entry status".
The USA is not the Eastern Bloc. But Mexico may well be, and increasingly so (different characteristics but similar problems in terms of security considerations). Save this objection for the next time someone proposes a fence on the Canada/USA border.
Oct '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
Remember Prop 187? It was a way-ahead-of-it's-time common sense approach even before the tea party movement and the rise of small gov't libertarianism in the republican party today.
How well did that turn out for the Republicans in california, hmmm? And how successful was the tea party in california last year?
disappointed with coulter. she's just interested in increasing the size of the white population in the US Why not asian immigrants too?
Edited on January 15, 2012 at 11:22amJan '12
Re: Coulter on Immigration
Hi Todd
You are argue the economic case for immigration but leave out the cultural unintended consequences. Times have changed. Twenty years ago an immigrant would arrive in the US and start assimilating, now they arrive in the States and hit the internet to keep firmly attached to home. So do you want little and growing Bengladesh's growing up in the US? I believe there is a strong case for cultural preferences when it comes to immigration.
Oct '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
The idea of Cultural Preservation is underrated. It's one of the reasons the Moros in the southern philippines are still at war with the Philippine Gov't (Christian). they want something similar to what hezbollah got from lebanon (a state within a state, or substate where they can practice sharia). this is our version of "multiculturalism".
the muslims used to be the majority in mindanao (spaniards and americans were unable to fully colonize the south). now they're the minority. because of demographics.
Oct '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
i'm curious, do you consider free elementary to high school education as a "benefit" too for non citizens?
Feb '11
Re: Coulter on Immigration
"You said that you can't imagine a world where immigrants have a different classification (a "red" or "blue" card), that makes them ineligible for citizenship or government benefits? Well, why not? I find a world where there are outright bans on certain kinds of immigration to be far more unreasonable than a system that allows people to come here voluntarily knowing full well that they will not have access to government programs and the ballot box."
In other words, separate but not equal. I thought this sort of question was settled by a great debate that ran from 1861 till 1865 but I guess not. This idea of varying grades of status in American society reminds of the social structure of the Roman empire and I find it repulsive. I say either you're a citizen or can become one, or you shouldn't be living here.
Plus I think there is essentially no chance the public, the courts, or immigrants themselves will accept this idea- even if it might make certain businesses more profitable.
Feb '11
Re: Coulter on Immigration
"You mentioned something about wanting more immigrants from Scotland and Switzerland. You are entitled to that opinion, but as a matter of national policy, who is going to make those decisions about which kinds of immigrants we do and do not want, and in what numbers? Do you really trust the politicians in Washington? As with most things, isn't that best determined by the marketplace? Why do you trust politicians on this issue more than the people?"
The elected government should be making those choices, based upon the will of the people as expressed via elections.
Unfortunately, the Washington politicians are absolutely untrustworthy on this. They continually thwart the will of the people- as expressed by numerous election results- and refuse to secure the border and stop illegal immigration.
So I can trust the people- but you cannot. We're not on your side.
Feb '11
Re: Coulter on Immigration
"You seem to believe that the government has the right to dictate to US citizens whom they can and cannot hire (national security concerns notwithstanding). How is that consistent with any notion of limited government? Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government can prohibit US citizens from hiring people who happened to be born in another country?"
Well, yes. The government dictates in innumerable ways who can be hired and not hired, for numerous reasons, generally with public approval.
I suspect that if businesses were to openly lobby for the legal ability to establish quasi-latifundia on American soil- which is what you're arguing for- it wouldn't go well for them.
So they just hire illegals anyway, and rely on the extra votes generated for the left to keep them secure from government enforcement of the law.
No, I'm not in favor of this.
Oct '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
Sep '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
You seem to believe that the government has the right to dictate to US citizens whom they can and cannot hire (national security concerns notwithstanding). How is that consistent with any notion of limited government? Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government can prohibit US citizens from hiring people who happened to be born in another country?
This is an absolutely absurd question.The US government is nothing more than a Constitution which set(s) up laws through our elected representatives. We as citizens have tacitly agreed to abide by these laws. To be a citizen is to have some power over how we conduct ourselves and our business. Otherwise the whole thing would be a sham - citizenship would mean nothing. As a sovereign nation (see Constitution) the country is charged with protecting the citizens (no one else, btw). This includes our borders, who enters our territory, and for how long.
In case you didn't know, the government has a right to dictate a lot of things.
Sep '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
"And finally, why this obsession with a fence? What is this, the Eastern Bloc?"
This is bumper-sticker drivel. The difference - in case you don't know - is that the Eastern Bloc made fences and walls not to keep people out (no one wanted to immigrate into those countries strangely enough) but to keep the "citizenry" in.
So what is your point again?
Sep '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
I'm going to take a shot and ask whichever Ricochet editor who decided this was a worthy post to promote, on what basis he/she did so. I'm sure it will generate comments. Is that it? It can't be the logic of the argument itself.
Edited on January 15, 2012 at 2:19pmDec '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
Franco: "And finally, why this obsession with a fence? What is this, the Eastern Bloc?"
This is bumper-sticker drivel. The difference - in case you don't know - is that the Eastern Bloc made fences and walls not to keep people out (no one wanted to immigrate into those countries strangely enough) but to keep the "citizenry" in.
So what is your point again? · Jan 15 at 5:12am
The point is that we have no need to "keep people in." So why do we give credence to politicians who talk about erecting a fence as if it is a sensible way to address immigration issues?
Edited on January 15, 2012 at 2:19pmDec '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
John Marzan: The idea of Cultural Preservation is underrated. It's one of the reasons the Moros in the southern philippines are still at war with the Philippine Gov't (Christian). they want something similar to what hezbollah got from lebanon (a state within a state, or substate where they can practice sharia). this is our version of "multiculturalism".
the muslims used to be the majority in mindanao (spaniards and americans were unable to fully colonize the south). now they're the minority. because of demographics. · Jan 15 at 2:31am
I appreciate your concern but is immigration policy really the way to address it? Or, if it is, why not address voter ID laws or place a more stringent requirements on citizenship, like proficiency of the English Language. I agree that there should be tighter regulation on services illegals can pilfer from the US's welfare system, but putting the cultural make-up of the country in the hands of bureaucrats seems like a bad way of going about it, and that seems to be the inevitable consequence of your concern.
Edited on January 15, 2012 at 2:26pmOct '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
Beasley
Franco: "And finally, why this obsession with a fence? What is this, the Eastern Bloc?"
This is bumper-sticker drivel. The difference - in case you don't know - is that the Eastern Bloc made fences and walls not to keep people out (no one wanted to immigrate into those countries strangely enough) but to keep the "citizenry" in.
So what is your point again?
The point is that we have no need to "keep people in." So why do we give credence to politicians who talk about erecting a fence as if it is a sensible way to address immigration issues?
It may not be sensible way to "address immigration issues" (depending on what that means), but when done properly an erected fence is a very sensible way—a very practical and cost-effective way—to help control the flow of humans across a nation's borders. I think that was the (irrefutable) point being made.
Oct '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
Beasley
I appreciate your concern but is immigration policy really the way to address it? Or, if it is, why not address voter ID laws or place a more stringent requirements on citizenship, like proficiency of the English Language. I agree that there should be tighter regulation on services illegals can pilfer from the US's welfare system, but putting the cultural make-up of the country in the hands of bureaucrats seems like a bad way of going about it, and that seems to be the inevitable consequence of your concern.
Aren't you ignoring the point that the courts (and others) simply refuse to allow these sorts of remedies? At a minimum, it will be long hard slog to get (for example) English language proficiency rules past the Leftist intelligentsia who dominate our political establishment. And don't you think "children going hungry" will continue to be a political trump card against a desire to rationally dispense welfare benefits? As 47% of wage earners pay no Federal income tax, why would that large block of voters much care if OPM (other people's money) goes to illegal immigrants? Have you noticed who is not for voter ID rules?
May '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
Most countries allow essentially zero immigration.
Jan '11
Re: Coulter on Immigration
Todd, I was puzzled at first, but now I get it. You were being sarcastic.
Oct '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
I think promoting unlimited immigration while simultaneously depriving immigrants of all benefits is a good way to foment civil unrest. The benefit-less become our version of the Roma (or the Copts ).
Sep '10
Re: Coulter on Immigration
Well, it's not really free, John. In North Carolina at least, most school revenue is derived from county property taxes. Federal money, of late (which as we know is absolutely not free), has been used to keep local governments from having to cut teachers. And, yes, counties with large immigrant populations are struggling to to keep up with the increased population without additional revenues. They're not very creative, though. After Katrina, lots of people went to Houston, and the schools held classes at night to deal with the influx. Year-round and evening classes might provide an answer.
disappointed with coulter. she's just interested in increasing the size of the white population in the US Why not asian immigrants too?
On this I completely agree and winced when she said that. The idea of contribution should never be linked to anything so varied as skin tone or cultural background, especially since a lot of people who come here are seeking to escape the limits of both.