Thread: CA-EDITORIAL: Beyond borders of decency

EDITORIAL: Beyond borders of decency

Los Angeles Times
July 15, 2009 Wednesday
BY TIM RUTTEN

No less than nature, politics abhors a vacuum.

The manifest irresponsibility that all parties in Sacramento continue to demonstrate toward the state budget already has had obvious economic and social consequences. The worst, however, probably is yet to come. The headlong flight by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the elected representatives of both political parties away from responsibility and into self-indulgent delusion also has created a dysfunctional vacuum in California's politics.

It's not a space that will remain empty for very long, and some of the ugliest currents in state politics already are seeping in. They'll soon have permission to function freely. The state's illegal immigrants -- 70% of them from Mexico -- are usually the target of choice when times get tough here, and this year is no exception. Some of the same people who tore California apart with Proposition 187, a 1994 initiative that would have denied illegal aliens state services had it not been held unconstitutional, are back for another turn at the wheel.

This time, as The Times' Teresa Watanabe reported Monday, they're raising funds to begin gathering signatures for a ballot measure that would deny welfare benefits to the 100,000 U.S.-born children of immigrant parents who would be poor enough to qualify for public assistance if they weren't in the country illegally. The children, of course, are U.S. citizens, and the proposal is almost certainly unconstitutional. Even so, it's probably only the first such measure that's going to surface. Given our dysfunctional initiative system -- which allows anyone with a few million dollars to hire professional signature gatherers to qualify virtually any measure for the ballot -- one or more of these dangerous and divisive measures is going to be decided in some future election.

Even the campaign to qualify the sort of initiative the anti-immigration factions now propose will be a wretched affair. In the state that is home to America's largest Latino population, such an effort to deprive mostly Mexican American children of their rights as U.S citizens is bound to engender understandable resentment and fear. In some ways, it could be an even uglier affair than the Republican-backed campaign for Proposition 187, which alienated Latino voters from the GOP in ways that have reverberated through our state's politics ever since.

It's a prospect made all the more pointless by the fact that in one of the places where government still functions -- Washington, believe it or not -- realistic steps are being taken to address the actual issues involved with illegal immigration. The fact is, there's little appetite in most quarters to uproot and deport the 11 million immigrants estimated to be living in the U.S. without papers. It takes very little imagination to foresee just how laced with multiple indecencies such a process would be. That's why most serious polls continue to show that a majority of Americans would favor some sort of "path to citizenship" for the 11 million without papers -- if the government simultaneously takes responsibility for seeing that their numbers are not constantly replenished.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said he will introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill sometime in the fall. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has begun a low-key crackdown on employers, as opposed to mass roundups of their mostly blue-collar workers. The White House recently said it would require companies seeking federal contracts to check their workers' status against the computerized E-Verify database, which contains Social Security and other personal records. At the same time, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has begun systematically examining the records of firms in industries known to make regular use of illegal immigrants. The $150,000 fine recently leveled against L.A.-based American Apparel for employing 1,800 illegals among its 5,600 factory workers was part of that effort.

In other words, what we're likely to see is proposed immigration reform that addresses both the human reality of the illegal immigrants already inside the U.S. and popular anxiety over the issue's dimensions.

There will doubtless be a fight over Schumer's proposal; there always is when the question involves immigration. Still, it's something of a relief to see government actually working, as opposed to the willfully feckless mess that both parties have made of things here in California.

And the debate over Schumer's bill may take many turns, but none will be as bad as the viciously loony idea of stripping children of their rights as American citizens, a proposal that has crawled out of the inexcusable political sinkhole where Sacramento used to be.

timothy.rutten@latimes.com

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/En ... 70&start=3

Some of the same people who tore California apart with Proposition 187, a 1994 initiative that would have denied illegal aliens state services had it not been held unconstitutional, are back for another turn at the wheel.

To my knowledge the only thing the law says illegal aliens are entitled to is emergency medical care and an education (K-12).

Given our dysfunctional initiative system -- which allows anyone with a few million dollars to hire professional signature gatherers to qualify virtually any measure for the ballot -- one or more of these dangerous and divisive measures is going to be decided in some future election.

Kind of sounds like ACORN now doesn't it ?

I cannot even read this shit right now! Tim Rutten is a traitor and he can take his opinion along with the pro-illegal LA Times and head to tijuana....

I guess the "resentment" Americans feel over being invaded by 20 million law breakers who have no right to be here means nothing! We are supposed to accept this invasion with no questions asked, and damn anyone who speaks out against it as being labeled "ugly or anti-immigrant!"

It seems that the illegals think THEY are the chosen people not the Jews. Why else could the illegals break into and/or overstay visa's and break our laws left and right and think that they somehow deserve health care, education, protection under our laws, citizenship for the babies they drop our like bunnies in heat, welfare and social services, and they offer us nothing but problems, and dis-respect in return?

ELE, I was glad to see you mention disrespect by illegals. I'm so amazed that people keep talking about them like they are a bunch of Little Red Riding Hoods. I live in an Hispanic community. All I see and experience is disrespect and rudeness. And, if you are unlucky enough to have to use a public restroom you get to see piles of toilet paper in the corner of the stall because in Mexico they have a water shortage and they can't put it down the toilet. Not to mention the dangerous driving habits, graffiti I'm treated to regularly, hearing about people being shot and dropped, and on and on and on. Plus, I get to see all the animals they dump. They are the most uncivilized people I've ever lived around. In the Bay Area in California I lived around a ton of Asians. They didn't even come close to these people.

A birthright the U.S. can't afford
The policy of granting automatic citizenship to children born in this country is an anachronism and doesn't mesh with today's realities.
By Mitchell Young
July 20, 2009
In his July 15 column "Immigration debacle," Tim Rutten uses Americans' natural reluctance to deport illegal immigrant parents of U.S.-born children as a weapon to attack efforts at immigration enforcement. Nothing new there. In his dissent to the majority ruling in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark -- the 1898 Supreme Court decision affirming that birth in the United States automatically confers citizenship -- Chief Justice Melville Fuller foresaw how this "birthright" would hinder enforcement of immigration law:

"[C]an the persons expelled be subjected to 'cruel and unusual punishments' in the process of expulsion, as would be the case if children born to them in this country were separated from them on their departure, because citizens of the United States?"

Rutten takes these objections a step further. He insists that American citizens are required to subsidize the households of those who break our immigration laws. And unfortunately, he is likely correct as a matter of constitutional law; the citizen children of illegal immigrants are entitled to the transfer payments due any citizen child, even though the money actually goes to those who have knowingly broken our laws. Fuller, writing at a time when the welfare state was nonexistent, doubtless never imagined such a development.

Rutten also goes beyond what the 19th century chief justice could possibly have foreseen by using these "mixed status" families as a sledgehammer to break down Americans' resistance to another amnesty. He offers a false choice between the "multiple indecencies" of "uprooting" the approximately 11 million undocumented people in the U.S. -- many no doubt with U.S.-born children -- and the "comprehensive immigration reform" with its "path to citizenship."

But people are not as clueless as Rutten seems to believe. Those who have crossed U.S. borders -- or overstayed their visas -- and worked in the country illegally are not ignorant. Neither are those who have offered employers "borrowed" Social Security numbers or other false identification. Contrary to Rutten's paternalistic assumptions, these folks knew that what they were doing was illegal. Surely Americans cannot then be subject to moral blackmail if illegal immigrants compounded their errors by setting up households and having children while here with irregular status.


Neither are Americans clueless. We were told in 1986 that offering amnesty, in conjunction with employer sanctions, would solve the illegal immigration problem. Instead, the problem has multiplied almost fourfold: In 1986, there were approximately 2.66 million illegal immigrants eligible for amnesty, and under the defeated 2006 version of "comprehensive immigration reform," there were an estimated 10 million who have been put on a "path to a citizenship." Rutten and other amnesty supporters tell us essentially that "it's gonna be different this time." Yeah, right.

So what's the answer? Certainly not "comprehensive immigration reform" that rewards lawbreaking and creates incentives for those not yet here to enter and stay illegally, in the quite sensible belief that yet another amnesty will emerge in the future. Certainly "uprooting" 11 million souls is not in the cards either, although the occasional raid with deportations would -- and indeed has -- served notice that the United States is serious about immigration enforcement. Better still, and here I agree with Rutten, is continued pressure on employers, including jail time for repeat violators. The use of E-Verify must be expanded. If these actions are taken, jobs for the undocumented will surely dry up.

If these enforcement efforts are implemented and succeed, life will undoubtedly become harder for some illegal immigrants. Some will drift back to their countries of origin, taking their U.S.-citizen children with them and thus avoiding family separation -- such children could return to the United States on reaching the age of majority. Other families might choose to place children with relatives or friends who are in the country legally. Many families will no doubt simply carry on as they are now, with "mixed status." Their "being in the shadows" may represent disregard for our laws, but certainly no more so than another de facto reward program for those who have broken them.

For the sake of the longer term, it is time to revisit birthright citizenship. The concept, far from being a cornerstone of liberal jurisprudence, is a legacy of feudal law. Everyone born in the realm owed personal allegiance to the sovereign. When the Supreme Court incorporated this feudal concept into constitutional law, it took weeks to voyage across the ocean or the sparsely populated desert of northern Mexico. The state was not nearly as involved in our lives and did not take as much of our income. In an age of jet travel, when "birth tourism" is possible and the size and composition of our population affects our quality of life and tax burden, automatic citizenship upon birth is an anachronism. Whether through congressional legislation or revisiting U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, we should join Ireland -- like the U.S., a common-law country -- and adjust to new realities.

Mitchell Young teaches comparative government at the London School of Economics. The immigration-related publications he has edited include "Nationalism in a Global Era: the Persistence of Nations" and "Issues on Trial: Immigration."

www.latimes.com

A birthright the U.S. can't afford
The policy of granting automatic citizenship to children born in this country is an anachronism and doesn't mesh with today's realities.
By Mitchell Young
July 20, 2009
In his July 15 column "Immigration debacle," Tim Rutten uses Americans' natural reluctance to deport illegal immigrant parents of U.S.-born children as a weapon to attack efforts at immigration enforcement. Nothing new there. In his dissent to the majority ruling in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark -- the 1898 Supreme Court decision affirming that birth in the United States automatically confers citizenship -- Chief Justice Melville Fuller foresaw how this "birthright" would hinder enforcement of immigration law:

"[C]an the persons expelled be subjected to 'cruel and unusual punishments' in the process of expulsion, as would be the case if children born to them in this country were separated from them on their departure, because citizens of the United States?"

Rutten takes these objections a step further. He insists that American citizens are required to subsidize the households of those who break our immigration laws. And unfortunately, he is likely correct as a matter of constitutional law; the citizen children of illegal immigrants are entitled to the transfer payments due any citizen child, even though the money actually goes to those who have knowingly broken our laws. Fuller, writing at a time when the welfare state was nonexistent, doubtless never imagined such a development.

Rutten also goes beyond what the 19th century chief justice could possibly have foreseen by using these "mixed status" families as a sledgehammer to break down Americans' resistance to another amnesty. He offers a false choice between the "multiple indecencies" of "uprooting" the approximately 11 million undocumented people in the U.S. -- many no doubt with U.S.-born children -- and the "comprehensive immigration reform" with its "path to citizenship."

But people are not as clueless as Rutten seems to believe. Those who have crossed U.S. borders -- or overstayed their visas -- and worked in the country illegally are not ignorant. Neither are those who have offered employers "borrowed" Social Security numbers or other false identification. Contrary to Rutten's paternalistic assumptions, these folks knew that what they were doing was illegal. Surely Americans cannot then be subject to moral blackmail if illegal immigrants compounded their errors by setting up households and having children while here with irregular status.


Neither are Americans clueless. We were told in 1986 that offering amnesty, in conjunction with employer sanctions, would solve the illegal immigration problem. Instead, the problem has multiplied almost fourfold: In 1986, there were approximately 2.66 million illegal immigrants eligible for amnesty, and under the defeated 2006 version of "comprehensive immigration reform," there were an estimated 10 million who have been put on a "path to a citizenship." Rutten and other amnesty supporters tell us essentially that "it's gonna be different this time." Yeah, right.

So what's the answer? Certainly not "comprehensive immigration reform" that rewards lawbreaking and creates incentives for those not yet here to enter and stay illegally, in the quite sensible belief that yet another amnesty will emerge in the future. Certainly "uprooting" 11 million souls is not in the cards either, although the occasional raid with deportations would -- and indeed has -- served notice that the United States is serious about immigration enforcement. Better still, and here I agree with Rutten, is continued pressure on employers, including jail time for repeat violators. The use of E-Verify must be expanded. If these actions are taken, jobs for the undocumented will surely dry up.

If these enforcement efforts are implemented and succeed, life will undoubtedly become harder for some illegal immigrants. Some will drift back to their countries of origin, taking their U.S.-citizen children with them and thus avoiding family separation -- such children could return to the United States on reaching the age of majority. Other families might choose to place children with relatives or friends who are in the country legally. Many families will no doubt simply carry on as they are now, with "mixed status." Their "being in the shadows" may represent disregard for our laws, but certainly no more so than another de facto reward program for those who have broken them.

For the sake of the longer term, it is time to revisit birthright citizenship. The concept, far from being a cornerstone of liberal jurisprudence, is a legacy of feudal law. Everyone born in the realm owed personal allegiance to the sovereign. When the Supreme Court incorporated this feudal concept into constitutional law, it took weeks to voyage across the ocean or the sparsely populated desert of northern Mexico. The state was not nearly as involved in our lives and did not take as much of our income. In an age of jet travel, when "birth tourism" is possible and the size and composition of our population affects our quality of life and tax burden, automatic citizenship upon birth is an anachronism. Whether through congressional legislation or revisiting U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, we should join Ireland -- like the U.S., a common-law country -- and adjust to new realities.

Mitchell Young teaches comparative government at the London School of Economics. The immigration-related publications he has edited include "Nationalism in a Global Era: the Persistence of Nations" and "Issues on Trial: Immigration."

www.latimes.com