Party of 1

Mickey Kaus is concerned that Food Stamp recipients have not been stigmatized sufficiently. He finds that a “paleoliberal” message has been smuggled into this New York Times story: “When times are tough all your stigmatizing of welfare goes out the window.”  The opening of the NYT story notes that “a program once scorned as a failed welfare scheme now helps feed one in eight Americans and one in four children.” Kaus does allow this much: “It’s one thing to relax the stigma on welfare in times of epic economic decline. It’s another if the stigma doesn’t return with the possibility of employment.”

I follow Kaus regularly because he provides a helpful check-and-balance to liberal “conventional wisdom.”  At the same time, his pro-welfare-reform “liberalism” can be overbearing.  For instance, supposedly he wants immigration restricted so that wages will not be bid down. But if that’s what he wants, why support crack-the-whip welfare reform?

I’m sure there are dueling social-scientific studies to be cited, on either side of questions such as whether immigration bids down wages, or whether welfare reform has “worked.”  It may have “worked” in the sense of having made menial laborers more compliant.  But, what of whole panoply of policies advocated by Kaus — welfare “reform,” anti-card-check, anti-DREAM-Act, anti-”comprehensive”-immigration-reform. I suppose some of it will, at some level, contribute to a more smoothly functioning labor market?  But beyond that, will much more be achieved, other than rubbing poor people’s noses in the dirt? Just asking….

Peter Wallsten in the Wall Street Journal: Lou Dobbs “told Spanish-language network Telemundo he now supports a plan to legalize millions of undocumented workers, a stance he long lambasted as an unfair ‘amnesty.’”

Dobbs in an interview on Spanish-language Telemundo: “Whatever you have thought of me in the past, I can tell you right now that I am one of your greatest friends and I mean for us to work together,” he said, going on to anticipate “a national debate that we should turn into a solution rather than a continuing debate and factional contest.”

Timothy Noah comments on the illegal-immigrant provisions of the emerging health-care reform bill — which goes so far as to prohibit such immigrants from purchasing unsubsidized health insurance. “Illegal immigrants are currently permitted to purchase a quart of milk at the corner grocery. Should that activity be banned, too?… If this remains in the bill, those of us who aren’t illegal immigrants will end up paying for the health insurance of those who are. Call it a nativism tax.”

Such provisions are a manifestation of the “send ‘em all back” sentiment among a certain type of affluent white voter — the type of voter who carries so much weight in this system. It’s an understandable sentiment, I suppose. But the measures carried out for the sake of this “send ‘em all back” sentiment don’t accomplish much — except to rub poor people’s noses in the dirt.

And, even that assumes that the measures won’t boomerang, and harm some of the very same people who insisted they be put in place. The immigrants are still here, picking crops, cleaning out flower beds, changing sheets in motel rooms, and generally subsidizing the price of just about every product or service in the marketplace. If they are denied medical care, what if a contract swine flu in large numbers, and then that spreads to you or your family? Just asking….

American conservatives — and conservative Americans — appeared determined to deny health benefits to illegal immigrants. But, as Prof. Roberto Rodriguez of the University of Arizona points out, with the swine-flu virus spreading, “germs, viruses and diseases do not discriminate, nor do they ask for legal documentation. They cross borders freely in both directions, and neither walls nor moats can hold them back.”  Denial of care could end up boomeranging — and compromising the health of the entire population, including the “restrictionists.”

“Played out to its logical conclusion, this dynamic of not providing health care for undocumented immigrants, in the event of a pandemic, could lead to calls for widespread quarantines and calls for massive dragnet raids, incarceration programs and large-scale deportations.” In the “red-state” environment I inhabit, “send ‘em all back ” sentiment is not hard to find. I suppose people fall into this because they fear that the country is changing beyond recognition. But I feel obligated to resist such sentiments, because I fear that all that will be accomplished is to keep people while they are down, and rub the noses of poor people further in the dirt. As Prof. Rodriguez suggests, such sentiment could blow up in the restrictionists’ faces if a rapidly spreading communicable disease is thrown into the mix.

Rodriguez concludes: “It’s a health issue, stupid.”

Rhetoric is becoming more heated on Capitol Hill, as the interconnections between health-care reform and the immigration issue come to the surface. A war of words is breaking out between pro-immigration coalition America’s Voice and anti-immigration group FAIR. The Washington Post reports that the former group “alleged that FAIR and related organizations play on nativist, racially charged fears to drown out debate.” FAIR president Dan Stein responded: “”They’ve decided to engage in unsubstantiated, invidious name-calling, smearing millions of people in this movement who simply want to see the law enforced and, frankly, lower levels of immigration.” For his part, Frank Sharry of America’s Voice offers this rejoinder: “These talk-show guys and FAIR, this isn’t about immigration policy, as much as they think there are way too many Latinos in this country and they want to get rid of a couple of million of them.”

All this appears to have been occasioned by the dispute over whether health-care reform legislation will lead to insurance subsidies for illegal immigrants, as dramatized by Rep. Joe Wilson’s Wednesday night outburst. The WP summarizes the dispute: “… critics say Democrats are not doing enough to verify that illegal immigrants will not receive expanded health coverage at taxpayers’ expense…. Supporters say research indicates that abuse is rare, that enforcement costs outweigh savings and that U.S. citizens may be improperly denied help.”  As with so many other things in life, it looks like the truth here is a muddle….

It sounds as though some of these people would benefit from a get-together in which they hold hands and sing Kumbaya, although I wouldn’t be holding my breath. In the meantime, we’re sure to be hearing more about this….

“If you saw a woman struck by a car, would you call an ambulance right away? Or would you first ask for her papers to make sure she was not an illegal immigrant?” So writes E. J. Dionne in this morning’s Washington Post, in a column ostensibly devoted to Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst Wednesday night.

Hanging over the health-care-reform debate has been the issue of whether a reform bill would enable illegal immigrants to receive benefits at taxpayer expense. Those who consume right-of-center media will have encountered the claim that, while supporters cite provisions that are supposed to prevent this,  these provisions lack a sufficient “enforcement mechanism.”

Here is the pushback from Dionne: “The framers of the various Democratic health-care bills did all they could to make sure their proposals wouldn’t help illegal immigrants. Yes, a few might slip through the cracks and — horrors! — get assistance. But the health reformers wrote language as tough as it could be to make sure this wouldn’t happen, short of creating provisions so draconian that some who are here legally would also be denied coverage.”

The pressure from the opposition has come largely from Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies. The idea is that Democrats will use reform to buy votes from illegal immigrants, I suppose.

We’re sure to be hearing more about this….

Virginia has had the reputation of being a hardline state on the immigration issue, but the Washington Post reports this may be changing. “Those on both sides of the issue say interest in immigration has waned because of the growing economic crisis, a clearer understanding of the state’s limitations on a largely federal issue and backlash at the voting booth…. More recently, immigration turned out to be a less popular election issue than some lawmakers had hoped. As a result, state officials appear to be shifting their focus from fighting illegal immigration to assimilating the ever-growing population of legal immigrants.”

Are Hispanics demanding open borders? Not according to Ruben Navarrette Jr.: “As for the thorny immigration issue, contrary to what many conservatives assume, it’s not that Hispanics want an open border. They don’t. Most Hispanics recognize that the United States has the responsibility to protect its sovereignty. They don’t like the idea of building more walls and fences, but most of them have no problem with adding more Border Patrol agents and giving them the best equipment to do their jobs. What Hispanics object to is the tone of the debate. They’ve had their fill of ugliness, racism, hypocrisy and falsehoods spread by opportunistic politicians offering nothing more than simplistic solutions and overheated rhetoric.”

Two of the most prominent voices addressing issues of concern to Americans of Hispanic descent disagree about the prospects for immigration reform in the new administration.

In her column, which should be appearing in newspapers across the country this week in both English and Spanish, Maria Elena Salinas of Univision Noticias (that’s “Univision News” to you Anglos) writes: “More importantly, will Obama keep his promise to pass legislation on immigration reform in the first year of his presidency? With a stronger Democratic Congress and a new attitude of ‘bipartisanship,’ there should be no excuse for not complying.”

Ruben Navarette Jr., who leans toward the Republicans politically, is skeptical. In his syndicated column dated Wednesday, he writes: “It’s true that President-elect Obama owes Latinos an enormous debt for giving him two-thirds of their votes. But Obama and congressional Democrats also owe a lot to labor. Those IOUs are headed for a collision…. Expect Latinos to get the shortchanged – again.”

My post office box brings the November issue of Harper’s Magazine, and with it an advertisement  from “America’s Leadership Team for Long Range Population-Immigration-Resource Planning.” This is a coalition of five anti-immigration groups, including FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform). The ad  pitches immigration limits as a means to deal with environmental and resource problems. These are the same sorts of people who bid to win control of the Sierra Club in 2004. The same ad  appeared in the New York Times and The Nation earlier in the year; I see it also appears in the first issue of the newly redesigned Atlantic Monthly, which I have just received.   A blog post here, by an individual associated with the mainstream progressive organization, Center for American Progress, critiques the ad.

The incidents that have been reported at McCain rallies around the country suggest that there are a fair number of “Bittergate” voters  who are frightened and apprehensive about the course that the country may now take  — although, as of this writing, it appears that they may come out on the short end of the election. This apprehension  frequently appears to take the form of  anti-immigrant sentiment. It should be recalled that Senator McCain  always takes pains to insist that immigrants are God’s children. He was forced to adjust his position in the direction of that preferred by the Republican “base” during the primary campaign. (I understand that he was caught on an audiotape remarking: “Oh, all right,  if they want their wall, then give them their g-dd–n  wall.” (From memory, not a verbatim quote.)

Having taught at two institutions that serve large numbers of people of color — and, furthermore, having watched too much televised soccer, and consumed too much pan dulce and other Mexican delicacies  — I cannot bring myself to share  these sentiments.   Apparently some people absolutely fly into a rage upon hearing the sound of Spanish being spoken. They see a brown-skinned child as nothing but a drain on their pocketbooks in the form of higher taxes for public benefits. (One problem involves young males of Mexican descent who play their boomboxes too loudly in mixed blue-collar neighborhoods.) I hope some such people will make an effort to keep Senator McCain’s stipulation in mind.

This old world contains many hundreds of millions of people who circumstances are desperate to one degree or another. We have built a globalized economy in which we all benefit from economic intercourse with such people; just look in your closet at the tags on your clothes and see where they have been made. Galveston lies in ruins in the wake of Hurricane Ike, and, according to all reports, the rebuilding will be done largely by immigrant labor. I suppose apprehensive white Americans  want to build a wall or a moat around the country –  in such a way that they can keep away from brown-skinned people while still getting the benefits of their labor. I understand the apprehension, but I am afraid the measures we might undertake out of such motives will only have the consequence of rubbing the noses of poor people in the dirt. They will end up working under more and more difficult circumstances, with some losing their lives in the scorching Sonoran Desert trying to get into this country.

The problem is that the immigration reform that was passed during the Reagan administration failed to limit immigration. As Senator McCain discovered, apprehensive white voters will not accept reform that is limited to more legislation of the same sort. A country has to have control over its borders. I suppose I am prepared to accept some sort of measure, even a wall, in return for the acceptance of those who are already in the country. (Someone said: If there must be a wall, let it be a wall with doors.) That would go too far in the direction of “amnesty” for some  — but I do not know whether we have the will to do even that. Republican business interests want the labor, Democrats want the votes, and activists from the Latino/Latina community fear that any restriction will result in all individuals of Hispanic descent being treated as suspects, even those who are American citizens.

Having been socialized into being a good liberal who believes intolerance of diverse racial and ethnic groups, I suppose I don’t have it in me, don’t have the heart to become an immigrant-basher.  Nevertheless, the stipulation needs to be offered that open borders are part of an economic-liberal package that also includes free trade, hostility to taxation, and deregulation.  The possibility that immigration has been a   drag on wages cannot be dismissed, although, like most such matters, it is subject to considerable dispute. I suppose that for many apprehensive white voters, immigration represents the spearhead  of centrifugal economic forces to which they have been subjected. I fear, however, that we are being pressured toward scapegoating helpless people, whereas the true responsibility for the predicament we have gotten ourselves into over the past generation and a half lies with individuals far more powerful than they.