False alarm!

I didn't think Kelly was being very fair in his analysis in his post Where there is smoke, there is fire. The following is the thread of our discussion about the post.

Craig: Geeze - you really stepped on a landmine with that post
Craig: Since when did you drift over to such a liberal position on the illegal immigration debate?
Kelly: You just don't like that I dropped Ms. Coulter's name...
Craig: Well, actually, I don't care much about her - but [your post] is pretty politically charged
Kelly: I'm not so much taking a position as expressing observations
Kelly: What's wrong with asking why we don't raise the limits?
Kelly: What's wrong with asking why we're letting the misuse of 'Amnesty' slide?
Kelly: What's wrong with pointing out that deporting millions of workers would be disastrous to the economy?
Kelly: How's that for turning the debate around?
Craig: What's wrong with asking why we don't raise the limits? Good question - I'll give you this one.
Craig: What's wrong with asking why we're letting the misuse of 'Amnesty' slide?
Craig: b/c it's not a misuse
Craig: What's wrong with pointing out that deporting millions of workers would be disastrous to the economy?
Craig: strawman
Kelly: read the Wiki page on that [i.e., Amnesty] word
Craig: I did
Kelly: I disagree about strawman
Craig: One at a time:
Kelly: but I will grant you that I'm thinking of it theoretically
Kelly: go ahead
Craig: Amnesty: what you say is true, but you can't stop there. Changing of [the] law does not rule out that it's amnesty either.
Craig: By the fact that people are given a pardon of their past crimes by the government is what makes it amnesty - in this case, to become citizens in a way that rewards their illegal acts of coming and staying here.
Craig: The change in the law is just the way that pardon is granted
Kelly: I take issue with the characterization that changing the law to allow citizenship is tantamount to a reward.
Kelly: that is false logic
Craig: Well, you can take issue all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it's true
Kelly: Think of it this way, I own a small hotel and need unskilled workers for maintenance and/or maid service. I'd like to hire people who are legal but when peak travel season hits, I'll hire whoever wants to work. If I can't fill those jobs, because of roadblocks from new legislation or tighter enforcement, I have to shutter rooms and possibly go out of business. Think of a small grower who needs cheap labor to harvest crops. What are his options? Hope Americans are willing to work for next to nothing doing manual labor? Maybe they can get workers but at a higher price. There are enough sectors of the economy that use this category of labor that it would cause a nation-wide impact. Prices would rise and inflation would go with it which means higher interest rates. Economic growth would slow to a crawl while inflation would balloon. That sounds too close to 'stagflation' for comfort.
Kelly: Now, on the "reward" logic, let me ask this. If you're speeding down the highway and the police pull you over, you expect to get a ticket and rightfully so. When the officer decides to give you a warning, is he rewarding you for speeding?
Craig: We've been through this before - the presence of the illegal underground workforce depresses wages to levels that Americans cannot afford to work at those wages
Craig: Assuming Americans won't do that work is elitist at best
Kelly: I'm not saying that Americans won't do that work
Craig: Of course prices would rise. But the illegals wouldn't be treated like slave labor either.
Craig: Where is the humanity is the status quo??
Craig: <<>>
Craig: When they let all the speeders go, that is amnesty.
Kelly: but I just realized a logical fallacy in that argument
Craig: What argument?
Kelly: We always talk about how low unemployment is right now, like 6%.
Kelly: But there is an assumption that the unemployed could work at any of the jobs available
Craig: No - reset and reorient the market to pay proper wages that aren't artificially depressed by illegal workers who are outside of the system.
Kelly: but there are industries where working out in the fields between positions would be tantamount to professional suicide
Kelly: but raising wages will cause inflation
Craig: So?
Kelly: unfortunate but true
Craig: Prices are artificially low
Kelly: I'm just saying that it is appropriate to consider realistic economic outcomes in the debate on immigration
Craig: I think people are. At least the conservatives are.
Craig: Inflation is a small price to pay to treat people humanely
Kelly: not the people who want to kick 12 million workers out of the country
Craig: and make sure they are protected
Craig: and not taken advantage of
Kelly: so now you're a democrat?
Craig: No, I'm a Christian
Craig: Nobody thinks this [i.e., deporting 12 million people out of the country] is a realistic option
Kelly: Every time I hear "But your rewarding them for their illegal act"
Craig: But they can be encouraged to go back home if ICE would crack down on Employers illegally hiring
Kelly: I can't help but think that they are advocating the undocumented workers have to leave the country before they can return and work
Craig: That is the principle
Craig: And that is not a bad thing
Kelly: So, what if they stay even when no one will hire them?
Kelly: and their family starves?
Kelly: Are we morally free of guilt because "They should have known they needed to go back home"
Craig: They would go back home - the same thing that drove them here would drive them back home.
Craig: We'd have nothing to do with the guilt or innocence - it's just the way humans are motivated.
Craig: People go where the opportunity is.
Kelly: That position advocates shrinking the economy on the matter of principle
Craig: So did abolishing slavery.
Kelly: the principle of "We can't reward them for wanting to come here and work for a better life"
Kelly: There is much support for the idea that slavery itself being an impediment to the economy
Craig: There is nothing wrong with people wanting to come here and work for a better life -
Craig: but they must do so within the legal framework we have established.
Kelly: So, why can't we raise the cap?
Craig: I have no problems with raising the caps
Craig: That would be a great thing to do
Kelly: Why isn't that an option I've heard in the debates?
Kelly: It's also the simplest solution
Craig: B/c everyone thinks "comprehensive reform" is the only option,
Kelly: Don't change any of the rules, just change the number allowed per year
Craig: and businesses don't want the illegals to come out of the underground b/c they would be forced to pay more.
Craig: That would be just fine with me
Kelly: It's "comprehensive reform" because do-gooders think they can design a better way to hand-pick new citizens
Kelly: that whole point system reminds me of the mess we have with our tax-code
Craig: Our current laws more than serve us, if they would be respected and observed
Craig: We don't need new ones
Craig: I was ecstatic when the immigration "reform" bill was killed in the Senate.
Kelly: I was too.
Kelly: So, back to my question, why has no one been more vocal about a simpler solution?
Kelly: The whole "close the border" rallying cry didn't sit well with me
Craig: As long as there is an underground workforce, Congress won't raise quotas
Kelly: I'm all for the process of law
Kelly: but I think there are too many people who never question the fairness or justice of laws
Kelly: Black/White thinking can be scary in these situations
Kelly: Throw out the baby with the bath water...
Craig: Yes, it can
Kelly: Cut off your nose to spite your face...
Craig: But there is nothing unjust about current immigration law, except that it is not enforced
Kelly: Those cliches sound like they are describing people who cling to black/white logic
Kelly: I'm actually fine with the current law and would support higher caps
Craig: I am too
Craig: and would as well
Kelly: I'm not sure what that does for the 12mil already here though
Kelly: Here is another fictional scenario:
Craig: They would go back home once the current laws are enforced through crackdowns on the Employers and the erection of an Employer Verification System
Craig: that is mandated by the 1986 law
Kelly: You drive up to the entrance to a toll-road that is 120miles long
Kelly: If you drive at the posted limit of 60 mph, you should reach the exit in 2 hours
Kelly: Now, you're in a hurry and have a fast car so you drive 120 mph and arrive in 1 hour
Kelly: If you were caught, you would be ticketed for the serious offense of speeding and you'd deserve whatever punishment the judge would throw at you. (note: tongue in cheek)
Craig: yes
Kelly: In your relief at getting their on time and not getting caught...
Kelly: You turn a corner, forgetting to use your signal, and get pulled over by the police
Kelly: When the officer approaches, he sees the toll receipt on your dash and can tell that you took 1 hour to drive 120 miles
Kelly: Here is the question:
Kelly: Can he ticket you because he knows you broke the law even though he didn't see you do it?
Kelly: Is your mere presence outside the tollway enough evidence to prove your guilt?
Craig: Is this a "What does Craig think it should be" question or "What does the current law say" question?
Kelly: Are you in danger for the rest of your life (statute-of-limitation be damned *sarcasm again*)?
Craig: Just as a preemptive - I know the parallel you're trying to construct - I don't think the analogy holds.
Kelly: Or are you in danger just for the next hour, because if you took 2 hours, you wouldn't have committed any heinous speeding.
Kelly: I want both answers. What does Craig think and what does the current law say.
Craig: You'd do better to draw a hypothetical picture to a thief breaking into a house
Kelly: I'm not interested in "But the law says this and that's all there is to say"
Craig: But I'll answer your questions, for fun.
Kelly: humor me on this one then I'll be interested to hear the house-breaking thief scenario
Craig: OK.... I don't know what the current law says.
Craig: So that leaves us with: What does Craig think?
Craig: I think the cop shouldn't ticket you unless he sees you committing the act
Craig: You're not breaking the law once he sees you
Craig: of speeding that is
Kelly: you mean unless he sees you?
Craig: No. I mean when he sees you, you're not speeding so he shouldn't be able to ticket you for that
Kelly: ah
Craig: That fits with the way I understand the law works, but I could be wrong on that.
Craig: The fact that he doesn't catch you doesn't mean you didn't break the law.
Kelly: I guess I'm in favor of a policy towards immigrants somewhat like the policy towards Cuban refugees.
Craig: what? send them back, like Elian Gonzalez?
Kelly: If you make it here without getting caught, you're fine. You're undocumented which *should* mean you can't get a job.
Kelly: If you get caught in the act, you get sent back
Craig: But the fact that such a soul is here means they are in the act of breaking the law as long as they are here
Craig: which is why your analogy doesn't hold.
Kelly: While I do believe that is possible to construct a law that does that, I no not support such a law.
Craig: a law that does what?
Kelly: I'm also not sure that that is what the current law says.
Craig: you lost me, sorry
Kelly: that your undocumented presence here is enough to prove your guilt
Craig: That is what the current law says
Craig: That is why ICE can detain someone who can't prove their legal residence here
Craig: and haul them before an Immigration judge
Kelly: What if my twin brother loses his birth certificate in a fire at the hospital and county courthouse that store it
Kelly: Now he can't prove he was born here
Kelly: The State can kick him our because he's undocumented
Craig: The State has his birth certificate on file.
Kelly: That's the copy that was destroyed
Craig: It's computerized
Kelly: a fire at the courthouse
Kelly: They have been lost before.
Kelly: My point is that the situation you describe with ICE sounds too much like 'guilty until proven innocent' for my taste
Craig: Of course it does.
Kelly: If the courthouse that stores birth certiticates burn down, then what?
Craig: They aren't stored at courthouses
Kelly: For the sake of argument, the hospital where you were born burns down too
Kelly: Let's say that they were
Craig: They are stored on disk farms that are backed up and archived
Kelly: The point is that since things like that can happen, it is not a good idea to say "Well, you prove that you should be here"
Kelly: and hold you in detention until you could
Craig: I think the 14th Amendment favors your view.
Kelly: There was a flight attendant that was arrested on charges that she committed a crime
Craig: If you are here, you are an American, you are one of us.
Kelly: the problem was she was in the air with 200 witnesses who could say otherwise
Craig: 1. she'd get a lawyer
Kelly: because the criminal stole her name, the State felt justified in arresting the Ms. "Smith" in their records
Craig: 2. the State would know if she is a citizen
Craig: 3. she'd go before a judge on habeas corpus grounds
Kelly: Even with a lawyer it took her weeks
Kelly: she did go before a judge
Kelly: the feds said, we have the right person
Kelly: It was a case of mistaken ID because the criminal stole it
Craig: 4. she should sue the State when she gets out for wrongful imprisonment.
Kelly: the innocent can't say "I'm not Ms. Smith" because she is.
Craig: But she can say I'm not the Ms. Smith you're looking for
Craig: A person's ID is established more than by just a name
Kelly: But the Feds never do anything wrong, it's wrong to accuse them of it or to insinuate that the good federal employees never make mistakes
Kelly: *sarcasm again*
Craig: You Statist!
Kelly: hah!
Kelly: I'm glad to hear about the 14th
Kelly: but Bush has done such a good job making Terrorists such a bogey man that we should ignore our rights
Craig: says who?
Kelly: They create an environment where it becomes difficult to question their actions
Kelly: Think Rumsfeld and his 'voting for a Democrat supports Terrorists'
Craig: So it's up to the People and the courts to push back on that
Kelly: which is why I'm hoping Congress grows a back-bone on the illegal wiretap subpoenas
Craig: Me too
Kelly: From one point of view, the Executive branch is 'The State' while the Legislative is 'The People'
Craig: Interesting analysis.
Craig: And what are the courts?
Craig: God?
Kelly: with the Judicial being a neutral third party
Kelly: that depends on whether you're asking DeLay...
Kelly: So, I know it galls some people that there are illegal immigrants in the country
Kelly: but is it not possible to find forgiveness in our hearts?
Kelly: and welcome them to the most wonderful country on Earth (note: no sarcasm)
Craig: "The hiils are aliive with the sound of muuuusic"
Craig: la la la la
Kelly: While it may be true that their presence has driven down wages
Kelly: It can be said that things would not instantly get better if they all went home
Kelly: Since they are already here, let's share the bounty of opportunity
Craig: Oh, I am certain things would become very hard for a time.
Kelly: We have more than enough to go around
Craig: Tell Parkland that
Kelly: which is proven by the fact that their presence has not make unemployment spike like so many other countries with large immigrant populations
Kelly: Parkland would have that problem regardless. Maybe to a lesser degree
Craig: I doubt it
Kelly: We'll always have resource allocation issues
Craig: At least it wouldn't be exacerbated
Kelly: So, unemployment is low, inflation is low, interest rates are low.
Craig: wages are depressed
Craig: there is an underground workforce
Kelly: Kicking out 12 Million people wouldn't make our 6% unemployment go down significantly
Craig: Yes
Kelly: but I'd bet that inflation and interest rates would skyrocket
Craig: Yes, I am sure you're right
Kelly: So, we like being the melting pot of the world
Kelly: but we only want to share with a small number of immigrants a year
Kelly: and we're willing to put our economic health at risk because we believe that the undocumented don't deserve the opportunity because they 'cheated'?
Craig: You make that sound like it's evil.
Craig: We accept the number of immigrants Congress says. The others should wait their turn
Kelly: Hence the 'cut off your nose to spite your face' comment
Craig: Just because they cheated to get here doesn't make them saints, or obligate the rest of us
Kelly: that sounds good in theory but now let's talk about reality
Kelly: I agree
Craig: You assume that is cutting off your nose
Craig: We've heard all this before, you know
Craig: It's more than just about the 12M here -
Kelly: how does letting them stay and continuing to earn a living a pay taxes obligate the rest of us?
Craig: we tried this amnesty plan before in the 80s
Craig: and it only encouraged more to come
Kelly: You can't blame the 80's amnesty for this.
Craig: Either the immigration laws mean something or we should just open the borders to any and all
Kelly: Blame poor enforcement
Craig: It's [the 80's amnesty bill] directly responsible
Kelly: Poor foresight
Kelly: Why do people resist the idea of raising the cap?
Kelly: The Dem's argument comes straight from organized labor
Kelly: "They'll depress wages!" is their cry
Kelly: I hate to break it to them but the cow's already out of the barn
Kelly: People who cry about amnesty being a reward are doing one of two things
Craig: 1. Concerned about the law
Craig: 2. Fair and humane
Kelly: They're saying that they feel so strongly about the principle of the rule of law that they're willing to sacrifice their economic well-being
Craig: yes - as were the abolitionists
Craig: The slave holders wanted to keep slavery around in the name of economic progress and health
Kelly: Which is all well and good (except the doubts I have about the lurking xenophobes)
Kelly: but what they're also saying is they want others to make that same sacrifice. Those others may not feel quite so strongly about the issue
Kelly: Is it fair for the, sometimes stridently, vocal minority to make that decision for everyone?
Craig: Then those others need to do what it takes to restore humanity to the people being treated as slave labor
Kelly: The abolitionists may be a good example
Craig: Right and there is more than one reason to uphold the law. If it's right and just, yes!
Craig: How about the Civil Rights Movement?
Kelly: but I think that they were willing but their sacrifice was unneeded but they didn't know that.
Craig: They were asking the rest of the country to change its behavior and attitude based on what is right and just
Kelly: The CRM was about humanity
Craig: So is this
Kelly: People crying about amnesty are not putting the principle of humanity at the top of their priority list
Craig: ??
Kelly: Kick'em out, I don't care if they starve in Mexico.
Craig: How do you know that [i.e., their motivation]?
Craig: You can't divine their motives
Craig: Who said that??
Kelly: They don't care what the effects will be.
Kelly: Ok, I'm only putting words in the mouths of the most extreme ones
Craig: You make a lot of accusations that you have no way of backing up with objective facts or quotes
Kelly: (that's more fun anyway)
Kelly: and the politicians in power do otherwise?
Craig: But you're not a politician in power. Ha!
Kelly: Even if you give them a fact, they'll spin it like a top
Kelly: Can we agree that facts and politicians aren't very good neighbors?
Craig: Isn't that what a politician calls "work".
Kelly: heh
Craig: For many that is true
Craig: Not all
Kelly: A politician who is willing to bend that fact is less concerned with accurate facts than they are perception of facts
Kelly: Where do you see the immigration debate being about being humane?
Craig: I see enforcing the current laws as humane to dry up the illegal labor market. Have you seen how undocumented workers are treated by some businesses. Third world and salve labor conditions.
Craig: It all needs to be brought out to the light of day
Kelly: ah, I see where you're coming from now.
Craig: There is nothing humane about the current state of affairs
Kelly: listen to understand...
Craig: yes
Kelly: but that doesn't apply to all undocumented workers
Kelly: There are some that would like to be here legally but we've put so many roadblocks up that they might as well feel like we don't want them here.
Kelly: it's almost snobbery
Craig: You'd have to get to specifics before I could agree or disagree
Craig: As a broad brushed statement, it doesn't stand.
Kelly: I don't care that you work, pay taxes, raise a family, own your home. If you aren't documented, you don't deserve to be here
Craig: yes
Kelly: So we kick everyone out because a portion of them are being treated inhumanely?
Kelly: what of the ones that are being treated fine?
Craig: Why do you keep trying to frame the debate as "kicking everyone out."
Kelly: Are we punishing them because we're trying to be humane to the abused ones?
Kelly: My apologies
Kelly: It's the conservative line that has stuck in my head
Kelly: It's what I hear when 'Amnesty' comes up
Craig: I am not aware of a single conservative that has advocated the position "to kick them out"
Craig: Everyone agrees that that is not doable. It can't be done.
Kelly: When I've heard about various compromises
Kelly: that provide ways for undocumented immigrants to become either legal or even citizens...
Craig: That only means conservatives don't want to validate their illegal activity
Kelly: the opposition characterizes the compromise as "Amnesty" and unacceptable
Kelly: that's why I wonder about the vehement response from those conservatives.
Kelly: I wonder whether they're hiding some other agenda
Craig: They're mads b/c amnesty was done in the 80s and it didn't work
Craig: We're still dealing with the same problem
Kelly: Do they really feel that anything except 'kicking them all out' is just another amnesty?
Craig: yes
Kelly: or are they hiding racial or xenophobic motives?
Craig: I don't think they have racist or xenophobic motives, but what if they did?
Craig: Does it matter?
Craig: The principle of upholding and honoring the law is still front and center.
Kelly: and since they are so vocal, my perception is that they represent those who don't want reform
Craig: That's just an unfair association on your part
Craig: The vocal anti-war crowd is not representative of the majority of people who want to hold the President accountable for the debacle in Iraq.
Kelly: Their motives are important because their intent for support or opposition should be taken into account when deciding the worth of their argument
Kelly: somewhat like, consider the source
Craig: Their argument stands on its own merits
Craig: Not the motivation of the argument's supporters.
Kelly: Right but they refuse to let others speak sometimes. As if disagreeing is the same as being disloyal.
Kelly: "I'm going to keep shouting my position until everyone agrees with me!"
Craig: That's just bad manners....
Kelly: It's like they don't want other positions to be heard
Kelly: are they so afraid of not being in the majority?
Craig: If the abolitionists were motivated by wanting to send all the non-whites to Africa, did it dilute the rightness of their argument to abolish slavery?
Kelly: You're onto something there
Kelly: but it's not the only reason to abolish slavery.

Where there is Smoke, there is Fire

The recent national immigration firestorm may be dying down but I'm left with some questions.

Why is providing a path to legal status or citizenship considered "Amnesty" by some parties in the immigration debate? Consulting Wikipedia tells us that changing a law does not equate to "Amnesty". Is this true concern for the rule of law or is this a smoke-screen used by xenophobes to feed the fire?

Here are some observances:
The sheer size of the group, an estimated 12 million undocumented workers, tells us several things.
- there are plenty of low-wage jobs to go around
- they keep coming, sometimes braving death
- our economy would be seriously hurt if they went home; who seriously thinks that all those jobs would be filled by US citizens were we even capable of deporting the entire group.

The fact that so many are willing to risk so much just for the opportunity means that we have something of extreme value. The fact that so many are here working and raising families means there is an abundance of opportunity in this country.

It's like we're a kid whose father owns a candy store but we insist on keeping our classmates out because we want all of the candy to ourselves despite the fact that we'll never be able to eat it all ourselves.

So, maybe we'll never agree on what to do with the 'illegals' already here. Kick 'em out and trigger a recession or let 'em stay and watch the conservatives have a conniption fit. I can just see Ann Coulter having a seizure and babbling on about ".. but they're illegals!"

We have an embarrassment of riches. We have so much economic growth that we can't fill all the jobs with our own citizens. What options does that leave us?

Problem: Too many jobs
Solution 1: fire the illegals and hope more citizens want to work backbreaking low-wage jobs
Solution 2: let them stay and pay a fine or otherwise become documented; this generates an undeserved whirlwind of "Amnesty"
Solution 3: send all the extra jobs overseas; ok, maybe we've finally found the theoretical limit to offshoring jobs, this is illogical for harvesting crops or landscaping

and the most overlooked?

Solution 4: raise the cap on the number of immigrants allowed into the country per year

If the supply of jobs is so high and the demand for them is even higher, why keep letting so few in? Our current policy is akin to rationing water during a rainstorm but making it illegal to use what is freely falling to our feet.

Of what are we afraid?