Immigration Reform Is Broken
2011-05-14 · Guest: Elise Foley and Sophia Campos (Huffington Post reporter and activist) · 53:33
Federalization of local police through Secure Communities
Bob Zadek explores the “Secure Communities” initiative, arguing it represents an unconstitutional federalization of local police. Guests Elise Foley and Sophia Campos discuss how the program often targets non-criminals and creates fear in immigrant communities, while Bob advocates for a free-market approach to immigration.
Topics: Immigration Reform, Secure Communities, Federalism, 10th Amendment, Elise Foley, Sophia Campos, Department of Homeland Security, ICE, Amnesty
Speakers:
- Bob Zadek: Host
- Elise Foley: Reporter for the Huffington Post
- Sophia Campos: Undocumented student and activist
- Caller (Dmitri): Listener from Walnut Creek
- Caller (Ed): Listener from San Francisco
The Federalization of Local Police [00:00]
Bob Zadek: Welcome to the Bob Zadek Show. Sundays at noon, 910 AM, Fox News Radio. I’m your host, Bob Zadek. We are the leading libertarian talk radio show in the Bay Area and around the country. The show of ideas, not attitude. Follow us on Facebook. Call us with your thoughts: 800-345-5639.
One of the concepts that our Founders feared the most, one of the concepts which they fought most strongly to avoid, is the thought of a federal police force. Now, we have a lot of federal bureaucrats running around packing heat, no question about it. FBI, Alcoholic Beverage Control, toll takers—everybody’s wearing a gun these days. But we do not have a federal police force. Or do we?
Compliments of Janet Napolitano, she has found a way to conscript every police force in the United States to do the bidding of the federal government. This is an issue which must be followed. It is insidious in the sense that we are federalizing every local police force. Under the Constitution, the police power was delegated to the states, and to the states alone. Janet Napolitano has found a way to get around the 10th Amendment and to usurp local police power, all under the wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing label of, get this, “Secure Communities.”
Understanding the Secure Communities Initiative [01:31]
Bob Zadek: An initiative, whatever that means, to combat illegal immigration. Here’s how it works. And to help me understand all of this, I’m delighted to welcome to my show Elise Foley. Elise is a reporter for the Huffington Post in Washington. She has followed immigration issues for a really long time. She covers Congress. She has written a piece introducing us to the creep of Secure Communities. Elise, welcome to the show.
Elise Foley: Hi, thanks for having me.
Bob Zadek: Elise, tell me about Secure Communities. Tell the audience how Secure Communities is seeking to—in my words, not Janet Napolitano’s—federalize local police. And what is Secure Communities all about?
Elise Foley: Okay, well, so Secure Communities is an Immigration and Customs Enforcement program. Basically, the way it works is that fingerprints that are taken by local police are then run through a DHS system to screen for people who have crossed the border illegally or are otherwise known to be undocumented and in the US. The fingerprints already go to the FBI to screen for people who are fugitives and have crimes in other states, things like that. But now they’re also going to DHS. So it effectively allows DHS to net a whole lot of other people that it wouldn’t be able to catch using just ICE enforcement officials.
Bob Zadek: ICE is, of course, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The federal government is full of acronyms. And DHS is, of course, Department of Homeland Security. Now, this is labeled by DHS as an initiative, which means, “Hey, local governments, if you want to do it, if you want our help in ridding your community of undesirables, just sign up.” So isn’t it all pretty voluntary?
Elise Foley: Well, that’s what they originally said. It was interesting because originally they said this is a voluntary program. Jurisdictions can choose to participate. And it was all based around these memorandums of understanding that they had with each state. And so there are certain states that have been more hesitant to join—you see that in Massachusetts, some other states—while other states signed on quickly.
But what they ended up finding in cities such as San Francisco, Santa Clara (also in California), Arlington, Virginia, other places around the country, was that when they actually tried to opt out of the program, they ended up finding out from the federal government that they weren’t allowed to decide that they didn’t want to send their fingerprints to immigration enforcement. So effectively, it ended up being somewhat mandatory. And the most recent activity with this is that the entire state of Illinois—the governor said they wanted to terminate the memorandum of understanding, they no longer wanted to participate on a state level. And DHS confirmed to me last week that that was not really going to be an option. They were going to continue using the fingerprints from Illinois despite Governor Quinn of Illinois’s actions on that.
The 10th Amendment and Federal Bullying [03:29]
Bob Zadek: So this is despite the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which makes it as clear as clear can be that the federal government cannot compel states to do anything. Despite the 10th Amendment, we have Janet Napolitano, the police chief in chief now, telling a governor, “Governor, we have decided what your police departments have to do, and you have no choice.”
Now, just to be clear, she didn’t—and DHS doesn’t—come out and say, “Pat Quinn, Governor of Illinois, if you don’t do this, we’re going to arrest you.” No, it’s not that kind of compulsion. But rather, “If you don’t do it, we’re going to pull all kinds of grants and other money from you, and we’re going to bleed you to death.” So using the coercive federal power of the purse, threatening to take away the allowance, if you will, we have Janet Napolitano bullying a governor and bullying police chiefs and mayors into doing federal bidding despite the fact that local governments and governors do not choose to do so. Now, do I overstate the case, Elise?
Elise Foley: Well, it’s not exactly like that. What really happens is that instead of threatening that, you know, we won’t give them funding anymore, basically they’re saying, “Look, our partnership is with the FBI, and we’re taking the fingerprints from the FBI.” So what they’re basically saying is if you don’t want to share your fingerprints with DHS, which ends up netting this large swath of undocumented people, then what you need to do is no longer send fingerprints to the FBI. Obviously, not sending fingerprints to the FBI causes a whole host of problems. That would mean not catching a lot of really bad people who are fugitives, who are running from the law, who might be using a false name, things like that. So it’s not really a real option. And so basically, it’s not even that they’re saying, “No, you can’t opt out or else you’ll do this.” They’re basically just saying you can’t opt out. They’re basically just creating this system where it’s impossible for them to even choose not to send their fingerprints to immigration enforcement.
Catching “Bad Guys” vs. Reality [05:59]
Bob Zadek: And the program is designed—it is offered to Americans as a worthwhile program which will help the federal government catch illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes. So it is offered to Americans as “this is efficient law enforcement.” Because rather than chasing students who have overstayed their visa, we’re going to try to direct DHS resources to weed out bad guys and not just the average run-of-the-mill illegal immigrant. Now, that seems to be a worthwhile, efficient program. But as we will learn, it doesn’t really work out that way, does it? Elise, how does this program affect average run-of-the-mill illegal immigrants and does it actually filter out only the bad guys?
Elise Foley: It doesn’t. And I think that there are a lot of people in the immigrant rights community and in the Latino community that would absolutely support a program that did function that way. And in some cases, it does. It ends up deporting people who have committed really serious crimes, who have committed robberies, murders, things like that. But the problem is that it also has deported a large number of people who have never been convicted of a crime at all, or have never been convicted of any sort of serious crime. Actually, it’s pretty high numbers, like one in four people who have been deported under this program have never been convicted of a crime.
Bob Zadek: 60% in Merced, California.
Elise Foley: Yeah, it’s much higher in certain areas. So there’s a lot of fear that the program is causing racial profiling, that people who, say, report domestic violence—there are numerous instances reported of people who have reported domestic violence and then have ended up in this program just because of the way law enforcement works. So there’s a real problem of people who are just trying to go about their daily lives, maybe try and cooperate with police to turn in the real criminals, and then are ending up being deported by this program.
Impact on the Latino Community [08:25]
Bob Zadek: So we have a program which was sold with what seems to some people to be laudable goals: efficient use of law enforcement, weeding out bad actors. But instead, it’s being used to weed out, if you will, good actors and people whose only crime—and bear in mind, being an illegal immigrant is not a crime in the United States—but those people who are in the country illegally are being swept up in this net and deported contrary to the wishes of local law enforcement.
And it gets even worse because local law enforcement around the country says we rely upon having cooperation within the Latino and other minority communities. And once they become fearful of having any contact with the police, they don’t dare cooperate. So therefore, we lose cooperation. We have relatively benign, if you will, illegal immigrants swept up. We have DHS now wasting its time and money deporting people who have done nothing wrong, all under a phony program of catching illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes.
I’d like to welcome on the show Sophia Campos. Sophia has been on my show before. Sophia is, I dare say, an activist, but Sophia perhaps will qualify that. She was an undergrad at UCLA and she has been very active in the DREAM Act attempted legislation, an act which I support. Sophia, welcome to the show.
Sophia Campos: Thank you, Bob.
Bob Zadek: Now, Sophia, what is your perspective as somebody who lives within the community that is threatened by DHS? What is your read on the Secure Communities Act from the perspective of somebody in the Latino community and living in Southern California?
Sophia Campos: Right. So I am an undocumented student, currently in my fourth year here at UCLA. And I am a productive member of the society despite my undocumented status. I really think that the Secure Communities and their implementation really has a negative impact on a lot of students, a lot of undocumented people who do a lot of good work in this country, who are productive citizens, and who do nothing but try to promote this economy and advance this country forward.
And so not only does it deport people who do a lot of good in this country, but it also pushes us away from being able to talk to the police about crimes that we see, right? Because if we hear about collaborations between police and ICE, we feel a lot less comfortable, a lot less safe going to the police when, for example, we see a crime happen. Because what if there are repercussions for us for even talking to the police? What if the police chooses to hand us over to ICE, for example? These are the thoughts that go on in people’s heads when they hear about Secure Communities and this increasing collaboration between ICE and the police. They’re just common sense, right, that we would think about these kinds of things in our head. So I would also want to note that as part of one of the negative implementations or negative impacts of Secure Communities.
The Economic Burden of Unfunded Mandates [11:43]
Bob Zadek: So Secure Communities has the effect of chasing Latinos and other undocumented residents, if I can use that phrase, chasing them further underground and pushing them further away from mainstream society, now out of fear that if they go to report domestic violence, if they have any contact with law enforcement, their biometrics get sent to the FBI, who sends them to DHS, and before they know it, in exchange for their cooperation or as a result of their cooperation and simply participating in the system, they become subject of deportation. Exactly what DHS said was not going to happen, but is happening in many communities, in the majority.
So rather than focus DHS attention on serious felons within the illegal immigrant community, it is focusing on everyday people, which was the sworn non-purpose of DHS. Elise, is that a fair summary?
Elise Foley: Yeah, I think that that’s definitely fair. And I mean, just to give DHS possibly a little bit of credit, they are—they did say that they are working on a review of this system. They’re trying to figure out a way to make it so that it really does target criminals and serious violators rather than other people and trying to, you know, figure out if how to get rid of these racial profiling concerns and all of that. But at least right now, from what the advocacy community sees, it’s not working the way that they say it does.
Bob Zadek: This is Bob Zadek. I’m talking with Sophia Campos and Elise Foley. We’re talking about the alleged Secure Communities initiative, a federal program designed to rid us of the least desirable of illegal immigrants. They do so—they being DHS—does so by conscripting local police departments. And they expect to have the whole country under the control of the Secure Communities initiative by 2013. Which will mean by 2013, unless the right things happen in the 2012 election, they expect to have the entire country’s local police forces doing the bidding of DHS in tracking down illegal immigrants.
Is this the proper relationship for federal government and local communities? Does the Secure Communities initiative make any sense? Now, it is another byproduct of Secure Communities is that it represents an unfunded mandate. It is yet another way for the federal government to force local governments to spend money without being reimbursed by Washington. Watch how this works.
Local law enforcement who is forced to be in the program—it has no choice, as you have heard from Elise, it is not voluntary—they have somebody enter their system. They then send fingerprints to the FBI, who sends them to DHS. DHS says, “Ah, this is somebody we have an interest in. Okay, local police force in Fresno, hold that person in one of your cells, feed them, keep them there until we get around to picking that person up.”
So now local law enforcement has to spend its money on somebody which it has no particular interest in because it has piqued the interest of DHS. Well, this cost, while it sounds minuscule, is getting to be substantial. And so we have local law enforcement who is now deputized and spent its money when its local community hasn’t asked it to, simply on the whim of DHS. Elise, have you looked into the economics of this program?
Elise Foley: Yeah, I have. I’ve talked to some people, you know, local law enforcement, and they have brought up that concern. DHS claims that it never makes anyone be held longer than, say, 24 hours, but there are stories of people having to be held much longer than that. Many times people aren’t—don’t even end up being charged with a crime, and so they would have been completely let off the hook, and then they’re kept in a jail despite that because of an immigration concern. So it’s definitely something that local police are concerned about.
Bob Zadek: And they’re forced to spend money for which they are not generally reimbursed by Washington. Is that correct?
Elise Foley: Right.
Bob Zadek: So we have this—if you’re a libertarian, one of the words you learn to fear, indeed, if you are involved at all in local government, one of the words you learn to fear is “unfunded mandate.” Those words simply describe a process whereby Washington compels local governments to do something which local governments have to pay for without getting reimbursed by Washington. Washington gets the “political credit” for doing good work, and they are doing it on somebody else’s dime, in this case, local law enforcement. It is a pretty sick process which turns federalism on its ear.
Secure Communities is a bad initiative. It is racially motivated, or at least in how it is carried out. It targets specific communities and it does not especially accomplish the goals that it was intended. Elise, thank you so much for sharing a half hour of your time with us and educating us on the Secure Communities initiative.
Elise Foley: Thanks for having me.
Bob Zadek: This is Bob Zadek. We’re discussing illegal immigration, Secure Communities, and the overreach of DHS. Sophia, you’re welcome to stay with us until the next break. 800-345-5639. Illegal immigration is the subject. Federalization of local police forces specifically. Back in 90 seconds.
The Case for Open Borders [14:59]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show. I’m your host, Bob Zadek. Sundays at noon on 910 AM, Fox News Radio. We are the leading libertarian talk radio show in the Bay Area and around the country. We are the show of ideas, not attitude.
Today we are talking about illegal immigration, the Secure Communities initiative. Illegal immigration causes so much heat. It gets people so worked up. And what’s interesting about illegal immigration as a topic is that it transcends typical Democrat-Republican, liberal-conservative lines. I dare say that there isn’t any clear Democratic or Republican position on illegal immigration. Indeed, it’s even a bit difficult to discern a libertarian position on immigration. It’s a mighty tough issue.
And what’s really interesting to me is that so many people have such strongly held opinions on the immigration issue, but yet the opinions don’t seem to be database-driven. They seem to be driven by so much emotion and in many cases, really unpleasant and nasty, sometimes racial undertones. I just don’t get it.
My view on illegal immigration, just in case you are interested, can be summed up in four words: let them all in. I favor as open a border as we can possibly have, just so long as we have some basic system to weed out the baddest of the bad, to weed out people carrying disease and people with very serious records. But the everyday, nothing special about them except they want to be here, immigrant ought to be welcome in this country.
The history of our country has been we have prospered not in spite of, but as a result of open borders and the healthy flow of immigrants from all over the world. And while everybody, including me, opposes illegal immigration, the interesting concept is, and the question I’d like to pose is: what is there that you oppose? Do you oppose the illegal part or the immigrant part of those two words? And that produces quite interesting results. Because if you oppose illegal immigration, then the question is, well, what if we simply made immigration legal? If we let almost everybody in, so anybody flowing into this country who wants to be here would be here legally, now they are an immigrant, but they’re not illegal. Would those of you who say, “I hate illegal immigration,” would you then say, “Okay, I only hate illegal immigration, that is, legal immigration is fine with me”? Would you then find your attitude towards immigrants to have been changed? Hmm, I wonder.
So I say, is the problem with illegal immigration—is it that the statutes criminalize and make illegal behavior that ought to be legal, or is the problem that we simply don’t want immigrants? 800-345-5639. What is the reason that you have formed whatever opinion you may have towards illegal immigration?
Sophia, in speaking to people, because you pay a lot of attention to this issue, what have you found to be the core of the animus towards illegal immigration?
Sophia Campos: You mean to say like why people oppose it?
Bob Zadek: Yeah, why people—especially—now, it’s anecdotal to be sure, but why do you think—if you have formed an opinion—why are people so worked up over this issue?
Sophia Campos: Right. Well, it’s a lot of what you said. A lot of people have very extreme emotions about this issue without really knowing the facts, without being educated about all these different dynamics and facts that are part of this system. Right? A lot of people don’t understand that our immigration system is in fact broken, that there is no one line that people can get into in order to become permanent legal residents here in the United States.
So it’s really difficult to form an educated opinion about illegal immigration and to find solutions for this when you don’t really know or understand the system and how broken it is. And it’s really hard to understand that system unless you’re in it, like myself, for example. I had no idea about immigration before my senior year of high school. But once my senior year of high school hit and I found out about my status as an undocumented person, I quickly began to realize how broken our immigration system is and how hard it is for somebody in my situation, even though I have been here in the United States of America since six years old and have grown up in this educational system and I’m now a college student here.
And I really do consider this my home in every sense of the word. There is no pathway for me to gain my legal residency here. There is no legal pathway for me to do that. And that’s why the DREAM Act is so important. That’s why also immigration reform is very important because there are 12 million undocumented people in this country. We can’t seriously deport them all. We need to address this problem as soon as possible. And that’s why we advocate for immigration reform.
But I would really call people—call on people to learn about this broken immigration system, see exactly why it is broken, what makes it broken. And I think that’ll really give people more insight into the reasons why we have so many undocumented people in our country and why it’s important for them to not feel like they have to live in fear, right? Because of Secure Communities, because of collaborations between police and ICE. It’s really important for them to actually be visible and, you know, continue paying their taxes, which we already do. That’s another common stereotype, right? That undocumented people don’t pay taxes. But again, I prove that wrong every year. My parents prove that wrong every year. And so do millions of other undocumented people. So I think there’s a lot of misinformation out there, a lot of stereotypes in the media that are propagated. In addition to that, a lot of people think it’s only Latinos that are undocumented, but there are many other communities that are also undocumented—Asian people, I mean, people from all over the world. So there’s a lot of information that just needs to get out there and a lot of awareness needs to be raised about our broken immigration system and about our undocumented community here in the United States of America.
The Amnesty Debate [20:59]
Bob Zadek: When I—every once in a while, some public official will suggest that the fix to the immigration problem—and I think the problem is in the law, not in the number of immigrants—but the fix to the problem would be to simply grant amnesty to the—and sometimes the number is as much as 12 million—presently undocumented residents in this country. Just give them amnesty. Just say, “Okay, you’re welcome. Come down to this address and pick up all of your documentation. We welcome you. You’re in the system. We grant you amnesty.”
Now, as soon as some public official dares to make that proposal, there is all this indignation where a lot of the public and many people on the right especially will say, “Hold it, hold it, hold your horses. We cannot tell people you break the law and there are no consequences.” All of this righteousness pops out. And I say, what utter hypocrisy that is.
When we had Prohibition and we then repealed Prohibition with the 21st Amendment, that meant that people who were felons a day earlier are no longer felons because buying and selling alcohol was now legal. Did anybody say, “Ah, but those people who had committed a felony while Prohibition was in effect should still go to jail”? Of course not. They got amnesty in recognition of the fact the law was really dumb.
Further, taxing authorities—the federal government, the states—constantly offer amnesty programs to people who have misstated their tax liability. And they do so because they announce, “Okay, if you fess up, if you prepare an amended tax return and tell us how you have cheated, we will collect the tax that’s due, but we will waive the penalties, felonies, and waive the jail time. Just pay us the taxes.” And that produces buckets of money as people come forward now to take advantage of amnesty.
So amnesty is a legitimate public technique, a legitimate policy device to accomplish a certain end. And if we declared amnesty, we would relieve law enforcement of a huge economic benefit and society a benefit because now undocumented residents can come out of hiding and participate fully in the system. But yet, try to propose amnesty and you have to all of a sudden go into hiding because you’re proposing something which is perceived to be outrageous. So there is so much emotion involved in the issue of immigration. And I try so hard to find the data, the facts which drive these opinions, but it’s mighty, mighty difficult to find out what the heat is all about on the subject of illegal immigration.
As a policy matter, it seems to me America is harmed so profoundly by attempting to close its borders. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. And it is mean-spirited. I just wish as we go to break, I wish America would simply adopt the policy, the sensible policy of: let them all in. When we come back, we’ll examine the position of some leading public figures on the complicated issue of illegal immigration. Bob Zadek, 800-345-5639. Back in 90 seconds.
Listener Calls: Jobs and the Welfare State [25:58]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show. 800-345-5639. Today’s hot-button topic: illegal immigration, the federalization of local police forces by Janet Napolitano and her crew over at DHS, Department of Homeland Security. The first attempt that I can recall where the federal government is actually deputizing local law enforcement to do the bidding, the misplaced bidding of Washington bureaucrats. Illegal immigration is the topic. Dmitri in Walnut Creek, welcome to the show.
Caller (Dmitri): Hey, Bob.
Bob Zadek: Dmitri, what’s on your mind this afternoon?
Caller (Dmitri): Well, I’m listening to your show on the illegal immigration and there’s a few points I haven’t heard discussed. So I’m looking at this thinking we have a huge population of unemployed and underemployed people with lower or marginal skills that could be employed in those jobs that are taken by the low-skilled illegals. Now, as an employer, I think—and I’ve seen this typically in construction and other and manufacturing where once the employer starts hiring illegals, they bring in more and more. I mean, I’ve been in factories, I’ve been at construction sites where it seems like almost the entire labor force is what I believe to be illegal immigrants.
Bob Zadek: What’s wrong with that?
Caller (Dmitri): Well, what’s wrong with it is we have a huge number of citizens that are unemployed and underemployed.
Bob Zadek: Let them work for less.
Caller (Dmitri): Well, why not let them work at these jobs the illegals are taking?
Bob Zadek: Well, what if the illegals were the same human being, but this person who’s willing to work for very low wages was in this country legally? Would you have a beef?
Caller (Dmitri): Well, my concern is that by allowing these people in, which are currently illegal, they are motivated and they are taking jobs and we have a responsibility first to our own citizens.
Bob Zadek: Responsibility to what? To make sure they don’t work too cheaply?
Caller (Dmitri): Well, we could always cut the welfare programs to motivate them a little more. I mean—
Bob Zadek: Different topic.
Caller (Dmitri): Well, but it’s related. I mean, if we’re providing subsidies to people not working, they’re going to be less motivated to get a job. Here’s the core question, Dmitri. If somebody came into this country legally and had very little skill and was willing to do any job for any wage, would you have a problem?
Caller (Dmitri): Well, if somebody has very little skills, we shouldn’t be inviting them into this country.
Bob Zadek: Why? What about people who are here with no skills?
Caller (Dmitri): Well, we have plenty of unskilled people here already that we need to put to work.
Bob Zadek: We don’t need to put them to work. We have no need to put them to work. Let them put themselves to work. It’s not my job to get somebody trained.
Caller (Dmitri): No, but we do need to create an environment where those people do—those domestic under and unemployed do go to work. I mean, we’re paying taxes, we’re subsidizing their situation and we shouldn’t be doing that. I mean, look back at the Bracero program, which I thought was quite successful. The immigrants came in, they worked for the season, went home, and everybody was reasonably happy except Cesar Chavez. So I disagree with the direction your argument is going. And I think we need to focus on getting our own unemployed back to work. Yes, we need immigrants, but we need the highly skilled, perhaps those bringing a wealth to our society, and we don’t need day laborers coming in without documentation.
Bob Zadek: Anybody with a strong back and a willingness to work is welcome in my country. Dmitri, thanks so much for your call. We appreciate your thoughts. Ed in San Francisco, welcome to the show.
Caller (Ed): Hi, Bob. You know, Milton Friedman used to say that illegal immigration is only good because it’s illegal. Because he said that the big problem with immigration is immigrants that are coming here to work the welfare system.
Bob Zadek: You’re exactly right, Ed. I was hoping to have time to discuss Milton Friedman’s views. Milton Friedman believed that open borders and a welfare state could not coexist. That open borders would bankrupt us with a welfare state. And he believed we had to undo the welfare state first. Or if immigrants come here through open borders, you have to deny them welfare benefits. But so you’re exactly right, Ed, in what you said about Milton Friedman.
Caller (Ed): Well, do you agree with that? Do you think we need to undo the welfare system before we have a policy that you advocate of open immigration?
Bob Zadek: I would say Milton Friedman acknowledged that it was a non-starter to undo the welfare state. Don’t discuss it because you can’t do it. And I agree with that. So therefore, Milton Friedman argued, since you can’t undo the welfare state, then through gradualism, you have to tell now legal immigrants who are here legally, “Okay, you can participate in the economic system, but not in the safety net.” And you simply have to tell them so they know when you come here, there are certain social benefits you cannot have. And so immigrants now legally here would be denied for a period of time until they become into the system. They’d be denied, for example, food stamps, other welfare benefits. So they will come here with the only hope of being here is to work, have work visas, which is a system that Gary Johnson, my favorite candidate for president, proposes. Have them come here with the only valid motivation be to work. They can’t come here to take advantage of the safety net. So we aren’t pulling something out from under them and they will come here, work, and they will not drain the system because they won’t participate in the welfare state benefits. I think that’s—my first choice, Ed, would be of course to undo the welfare system. That’s not going to happen. Too pragmatic for that. So then you simply deny welfare-type benefits to legal immigrants and you get the best of both worlds. What do you think?
Caller (Ed): No, I agree with you. I agree with you. Thanks for the great show. It’s a great topic.
Bob Zadek: Ed, thanks a lot for the call. We appreciate you listening. Bye-bye.
Closing Thoughts [18:31]
Bob Zadek: This is Bob Zadek. 800-345-5639. We are talking about the subject of illegal immigration. What drives it? I scratch my head as I see this issue being fought about with so much heat. And I don’t really have my arms around what is the driving force. Where does all this—the strongly held beliefs come from? Is it a belief that it is bad for our country economically to have more workers willing to work for very low wages taking very undesirable jobs? Is that bad for our country? Well, of course it’s not. It’s not bad.
So any data would indicate that it’s good for our country economically. So who is it bad for? Well, some people will complain, “Well, they’re going to take away my job.” Man, do I hate that phrase, “my job.” It is not your job. Nobody owns a job or has a right to a job. It is your job so long as you do the best performance for the lowest wage. Only then is it your job. So if you feel threatened, it simply means you better do better at your job and you won’t be threatened. And what right do you have to expect to have no competition for your job? That is as un-American as a concept can be.
We thrive on the free market and on competition. And the fact that you, whoever the “you” is, feels compelled to have to compete for your job lest somebody do as good a job as you’re doing for less money—well, get a life. That’s what America is all about. The free market means the best survive.
So illegal immigration—it’s hard to find objective data supporting a restrictive immigration process. The data just isn’t there. And many of the people who oppose immigration can’t be doing so on the basis of studying data because the data is too inconclusive. So it has to come from some uglier root, I’m afraid. And I wish it didn’t.
My view: let them all in. Open the borders. Fix illegal immigration by making all immigration legal and the problem of illegal immigration goes away. That’s the approach. Ron Paul sort of agrees with this. Gary Johnson agrees with it quite a bit. George Will—hard to discern his position. The Democrats don’t have a clear position on immigration. So this is an issue which transcends party affiliation. It transcends everything. And I just say my gut, my just American DNA says with a moist and gauzy eye: let them all in. That’s how we got to be who we are and that’s how we will survive in the 21st century. Thanks so much for listening. This is Bob Zadek, 800-345-5639, bringing you libertarian talk radio in the Bay Area and around the country. I’ll be back next Sunday at noon. Thanks so much for listening.