Page Two: The Business of America

While not exactly a given, there seems to be a widespread assumption on the part of much of the citizenry that the United States government is broken/has gone off the tracks/has been corrupted. This core belief, that the watch has sprung its springs, is widely held across the political spectrum – from one extreme ideological position, throughout all mainstream beliefs, to the furthest opposing extreme position.

Spread across this palette is a general acceptance of the main idea, but regarding how it is broken, who or what broke it, and how to fix it, there is not only a lack of general agreement, but in addition there exists almost every possible variation on those questions/issues. The problem, I think, has much more to do with a rose-colored view of the past – through which personal beliefs and nostalgia trump history – than with any systemic breakdown.

(As always, I exempt the current administration from this discussion because there is nothing you can say about it that is so bad that I won't agree with you – but rather than interpreting it as symptomatic of whatever one's beliefs are about federal failures, I still view it as an extreme, diseased aberration that, as with cancer, has its origins in many different political trends but is solely owned by none of them.)

If the government is functioning as best as can be expected, then why the widespread belief that it isn't? Unfortunately, the problem is We the People. Currently, the Goldwater dictum dominates political discussion: Moderation is not a virtue; extremism is not a disease (this is not to exclude this moment from its historical past, but it's an area I don't know much about). Worse, in dealing with current elected officials of all ideologies, on all levels, political compromise is regarded as the most heinous of crimes, while standing rigidly by one's principles is the greatest virtue. The Constitution views compromise as, if not the very purpose of our democratic, constitutional republic, at least the most reasonable and shared working area by which it operates.

In the same way overly promiscuous people sometimes regard themselves as serial monogamists (love the one you are with), in many ways it seems the electorate across the board comprises single-issue fanatics. Objecting to others' imposing their arbitrary morality on the populace, most of us are just as willing to demand legislation that matches our "organic" and "universal" morality. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals picketed Al Gore because he's not a vegetarian; activists throw blood on fur; staunch opponents of the government legislating personal morality are also staunch opponents of gay marriage and abortion; sincere believers in the separation of church and state, based on the Bill of Rights, are willing to argue conceptual minutiae over the Second Amendment in pursuit of abolishing gun ownership.

Over the next few months, this column will try to consider the above propositions in any number of ways. There are any number of areas of obvious controversy, from interpreting the Constitution to ideas as to the purpose of government to the many issues of the good of the community vs. the rights of the individual.

Our role as citizens is a crucial area of contention. Many insist that compromise on ideals is inherently corrupting and voting one's conscience is both noble and a democratic expectation. While some argue quite the opposite – that a core component of citizenship is accepting responsibility for the actions of our elected government whether you agree with it or not – in that case one's vote should be based on practicality: possible and long-term consequences. Voting your conscience, by these terms, is a privileged, irresponsible indulgence. Clearly, I lean toward the latter view, but that just opens up discussion and consideration rather than ending it.

This time, once again, the focus of this column is illegal immigrants. In a way this sets the tone for ongoing discussions: Here is a problem framed by the most outspoken advocates, who will accept no compromise but consequently have no possible workable solution to the problem as they frame it. Hardcore right-wingers love to label leftists and liberals as utopian idealists who are so out of touch with reality that they don't face up to the often brutal truths of modern lives.

Unfortunately, there is no greater group of idealists than these dogmatic right-wingers, who believe their beliefs and perceptions are the hardcore, realistic truth – standing apart from history and modern functioning society. They are earnestly convinced that their idealism and the way they think/wish things are and should be rock-solid, steel-hard, set-in-stone truths decreed by God. More than anything, their beliefs represent the most irresponsible, utopian fantasies; thus, despite an absolutely abysmal track record in terms of real-world achievements, they question neither themselves nor their view of reality.

Choosing to initiate a range of considerations by again looking at illegal immigration does not evidence any personal obsession with the topic but rather the view that, regardless of one's beliefs, the problem represents a near "perfect storm" in which forces dictate the impossibility of solutions and instead offer the model of a Möbius strip. If, as I do, you think the whole issue is hysterically exaggerated, the situation just emphasizes the absurdity.

Illegal immigration is a hot-button issue that motivates large numbers of political activists, politicians, and voters. Introducing the issue into politics has the same substantial electoral impact as such basically meaningless positions as being against gay marriage or flag-burning. Listening to all the GOP candidates – grown men in suits vying for the most important office in our country – on the topic, one hears shameless demagoguery, much more concerned with pandering to voters than addressing the issue. In one debate, John McCain, one of the few candidates of either party to actually think about the topic, offered the most backpedaling, mealymouthed solution. Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney quickly shot down the ideas, insisting that there was no compromise or moderation to the position of no amnesty, closed borders, and driving out all illegal immigrants by attrition. Some thoughts:

1) Okay, now how serious of a crisis is it? Some would argue that it is one of the most important issues facing the country. My position is that the problem is ridiculously exaggerated and represents a fictitiously constructed "crisis" that cherry-picks some studies and economic analyses while ignoring any that suggest another point of view.

2) Even if you find this the greatest of problems, can the country really stand to lose at least 10 million people from its economy, especially when they constitute such a large part of the manual-labor workforce? If even half that number left the country, what would the real-world consequences be?

3) Never trust anyone who tells you he or she is not a racist or that someone else is. (I usually fall closer to the latter category.) Despite emphatic insistence that the immigration issue is legality and not racism, to a significant extent it is racist. Some obsessed with illegal immigration claim that they would feel the same way if those in question were Scandinavians or Canadians rather than Latinos. Yet a serious part of the argument against massive illegal immigration asserts that this is an assault on our culture, language, and country, essentially being an invasion with long-term goals of assuming political leadership.

4) Often in the making of arguments against illegal immigrants, history is distorted, made up, raped, and abandoned. Suddenly, all previous waves of immigrants came here full of gumption and determined to be Americans and assimilate. This ignores the prevalence of many urban neighborhoods that were ethnically defined – where German, Italian, Russian, Yiddish, Polish, etc., was the dominant language. There were films made in Ukrainian, Yiddish, and Polish for audiences still uncomfortable with English, as well as newspapers in many different languages.

5) The most recently proposed immigration reform congressional proposal was shot down as being nothing more than disguised amnesty. The legislation was ludicrous: Illegal immigrants had to leave the country, return to their home countries, and wait. It was impractical, but evidently not impractical enough. This legislation that offered a bizarre, torturous process was shot down because, for an overwhelming number of those who take this issue the most seriously, any related legislation cannot offer even a hint of amnesty or any other relatively lenient or convenient route to citizenship. Illegal immigrants are, by definition, "criminals."

6) One argument is that a permanent legal solution is needed. Toward this end:

a) The accepted first step has to be a sealing and controlling of this country's borders.

b) The most consistent popular response to the question of how to deport this country's entire undocumented immigrant population is "by attrition." Any proposal short of that is regarded as "amnesty." The argument is that enormous legal, financial, and economic pressure is put on those who employ illegal immigrants, the jobs for them will disappear. Without jobs, there is not only no reason for illegals to come to this country; they won't be able to afford to stay.

Core to this consideration is that the problems as posed do not have realistic, but rather fanciful, solutions. Let's consider this attrition model. During the current administration, the Republican ideologues have favored business. Consistently, environmental restrictions have been watered down or ignored, with the same happening to even basic government regulations addressing safety, health, labor, fiscal responsibility, operational integrity, and health issues, as well favoring business over government regulation. A free market and limited government are key conservative positions. In one of his primary victory speeches, McCain stated: "I will leave it to my opponent to claim that they can keep companies and jobs from going overseas by making it harder for them to do business here at home. We will campaign to strengthen job growth in America by helping businesses become more competitive with lower taxes and less regulation."

In order to get millions of illegal immigrants to leave the country, almost all the pressure will be applied to business management. People are calling for jail terms or at least heavy fines for employers who hire illegals. Now, some employers may well be blatant, consciously corrupt offenders in terms of hiring illegals, but this won't be true of all employers and maybe not even most of them. The attrition plan will require more severe monitoring of millions of employers. All employers, regardless of their track records, will be required to maintain extraordinary and expensive amounts of paperwork on every employee. The government will have to hire thousands to monitor and enforce the laws. They will indict employers who knowingly hire illegals. But they will also indict employers who made mistakes, as well as make mistaken indictments of employers who have done nothing wrong.

An aside: Any conception of this scenario that sees it as effortless, requiring neither excessive paperwork nor frustrating and unnecessary litigation, accompanied by a new government bureaucracy to enforce and maintain, might just as well suggest that the Justice League of America and Casper the Friendly Ghost enforce these laws. There are not just constitutionally mandated presumptions of innocence and individual citizens' rights to consider, but the inherent difficulties of monitoring and enforcement within those confines, as well. Stepping back to the national argument over whether or not this country should respect the rights of terrorists finds the very wording is misleading. The federal government does not absolutely know who is a terrorist and who isn't. The issue comes to be about the rights of "suspected" terrorists, some undoubtedly guilty while others just as undoubtedly innocent. The idea of our basic rights is not to protect terrorists but to protect us, specifically from the government – especially as a prosecuting entity by which not only are mistakes made, but often an enormous number of them, whether intentional or not.

The solution to the (made-up) problems of illegal immigration on the part of significant numbers of Americans would be the most expansive, expensive, and burdensome assault on American business in the history of this country.

The consequences of that are likely to be unimaginably cataclysmic. The bureaucracy to handle this will make kudzu look like tame growth in a home garden. The costs will make the most outlandish, one-sided estimate of the cost of illegal immigration seem a bargain. Not to mention the social devastation and overall cost to consumers. Finally, let's be realistic: The first serious step toward dealing with this "problem," given its scale, would have to be universal ID cards for all U.S. citizens. In other words, you would always have your papers on you.

Even if you really believe illegal immigration is a serious crisis, I can't help but believe realistic solutions are almost inherently going to create much broader and far worse problems than now exist.