April 05, 2006
Democracy: where the possible becomes impossible by definition
I hate the immigration issue. I am sick to death of hearing about it, and I think a lot of people are. I hate it because it challenges my sense of libertarianism, and because it makes people emotional. And worst of all, it is incapable of solution.
To add insult to injury, what I hate the most is having to consider that my central argument may be wrong.
My central argument is that the country should simply regain control of its borders. (In lay terms, it's better to close the barn door than leave it open!) It seems painfully logical to me that if the problem is one of too many people having crossed the border illegally, that this should -- and must -- be stopped. People do not agree on either the principles or the details of such ideas as "guest worker" programs, or draconian crackdowns on employers or immigrants which would felonize tens of millions of people. But shutting off the flow by closing the border is the one very simple concept on which there is a huge national consensus. Without getting into what "should have" been done, shutting the border now is logical and the political consensus is there.
Add to logic and consensus common sense. It makes no sense at all to argue about what to do with 12 million people who are already here (and shrilly call for crackdowns on American economic freedom) when millions more are still crossing unimpeded.
While I hate having to admit I'm wrong as much as anyone, sometimes it helps to have someone point out the obvious, and the other night a friend simply told me that closing the border is physically impossible.
That's a tough word to overcome. No amount of common sense, logic, or consensus will work.
I can hope my friend is wrong, but now that I think it over, it occurs to me that there has not been one serious proposal to actually seal the border. Not even the draconian Sensenbrenner plan with its calls for beefed up enforcement does that.
Might it be that the leaders of this country know something that I don't?
In the context of terrorism, Tammy Bruce remarks on the irony of this grim but stubborn bit of conventional wisdom:
Here [Syrian President Bashar al-Assad] uses the fact that President Bush and the administration and the US Border Patrol insist constantly that closing the border is impossible. Of course, this isn't true--the Minuetmen and women have done so with overwhelming success, but you see how this absurd domestic position is so easily used by a maniac to undermine our efforts against terrorism. And he's right, if we supposedly can't close our border, why should we expect him to be able to close his?I'm inclined to think the answer is that "we" could -- if "we" wanted to.
Impossible has to be seen not in terms of physical impossibility (I think there is enough concrete, steel, and personnel in the U.S.), but political impossibility. In near unanimous agreement, politicians recite the "impossible" meme over and over again to the point where most people believe it.
The Economist argues that closing the border is impossible unless the illegal aliens are legalized:
The reformers' most important ally, though, is common sense. America has spent millions of dollars trying to tighten up its borders only to see the situation get worse. It now relies on illegal workers to pick its vegetables and build its buildings. Closing the border is impossible without some sort of legalisation for the millions in the country; mass deportation would do irreparable harm both to America's economy and to its traditions as an immigrant-friendly nation.I disagree that closing the border is impossible without legalization of the 12 million. If the border is closed, the 12 million will still be here as they now are, and whatever existing relationships they have with various employers will not be changed. What to do about these 12 million, whether to launch a draconian crackdown on employers, whether to pursue a policy of benign neglect -- these are independent issues from closing the border.
I have one question, and one question only. I want to know whether closing the border is impossible. If it is, then I am wasting my time.
Perhaps we all are.
Closing the border is impossible unless you're willing to kill hundreds of Mexicans a day.I'm not quite sure about the logic of that, as I don't think it is necessary to shoot border crossers.
Another bit of illogic from an anonymous commenter at TalkLeft:
"sealing" the border is impossible. the southwestern part of the u.s. was taken from mexico, california by terroristic means. what goes around comes around. you want to "seal" the border, the prepare yourself for berlin wall II. are you nuts?That's the "Reconquista" argument, which is not only a fringe idea, but has nothing to do with whether shutting the border is physically possible.
"What are people from Yemen and Syria and Iran doing in Mexico trying to enter the U.S. illegally? This is an issue that requires a wall," said Colin Hanna of Weneedafence.com. "We are absolutely not anti-Hispanic, we do not think the fence should be perceived as anti-Hispanic, or anti-Mexican, we are not anti-immigrant, we are pro-immigration, but we are pro- legal immigration."If the 80 percent figure is correct, it certainly belies the idea that sealing the border is politically impossible.
But how possible is a fence?
Temple University law professor Jan C. Ting (assistant commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1990 to 1993) opined in the Philadelphia Inquirer that fences work:
We know what works: a border fence. When illegals encounter an effective border fence, they are driven to unfenced sectors. Granted, sometimes this leads them into less hospitable territory, risking and sometimes losing their lives. The solution is to build a fence that can't be walked around, from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R., Calif.) has proposed such a fence.Regarding cost, weneedafence.com argues it's the same as four B-2 bombers:
The cost of a modern border security fence is in line with its national security priority: roughly the cost of 4 B-2 bombers."Impossible" doesn't strike me as the right word.
The word comes up a lot in any discussion about closing the border, but I think most of the people who use it don't mean it in the literal sense of physical impossibility. A lot of people use the word "impossible" to dismiss an argument they dislike. Or else they mean politically impossible.
Can something which is:
- physically possible; and
- supported by 80% of the voters in a "democracy";
really and truly be politically impossible?
Democracy sure is complicated in a republic.
posted by Eric on 04.05.06 at 06:50 AM
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?
Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood