Claire Guthrie Gastanaga Takes on the Immigrant Bashers

By: Lowell
Published On: 9/1/2007 6:25:33 AM

Claire Guthrie Gastanaga is one of the leaders in Virginia on immigration issues.  She is a reasoned, thoughtful, informed, moderate voice on a subject that arouses tremendous passions.  That's why I care what Gastanaga has to say.  Here, she courageously, and pretty much singlehandedly, takes on the "acidic rhetoric" and "vitriol" of the immigrant bashers of the Virginia blogosphere:

Whatever your intent, it is your very unwillingness to assign any validity to the rational concern about the predictable effects of your one-sided rhetoric, shared by many immigrants who are your neighbors, that invites many who listen to you speak or read your writings to doubt the sincerity of your mantra that you are simply "about the rule of law" and that your aren't "anti-immigrant" ?"some of your best friends are immigrants."

Like it or not, you are just as responsible for the effect of your words as for your intent. No one cares whether someone who yells "fire" in a theater as a joke was "intending" to cause a panic or not, and for good reason. They hold you accountable for the predictable effect of doing so.

Exactly.  Look, I have no problem with a health debate on this subject.  But using fear, demagoguery, and selective moral "outrage" to advance one's cause is morally wrong.  Bashing people and making them live in fear just because they follow the inexorable economic logic that our country's "leaders" set in place is morally wrong.  Inciting citizens on an incendiary subject and potentially putting peoples' lives in danger, simply to advance a political agenda, is morally wrong.  Claiming that your agenda is benign, when in fact it is specifically designed to divide pit people against each other, is morally wrong.  Failing to "welcome the stranger"  in your land, as Jesus instructed, is morally wrong.  (And please note that last point does NOT mean we shouldn't secure our borders, set sound immigration policy, enforce laws against corporations that hire and exploit illegal immigrants, provide a path to earned legal citizenship, etc., etc.)

Anyway, I'm glad there are informed, reasonable, compassionate people out there like Claire Guthrie Gastanaga taking on the immigrant bashers.  She could use some help.


Comments



It's the New Hate-Mongering Republican Wedge Issue (spotter - 9/1/2007 7:53:45 AM)
We have seen this Republican hate-mongering before, all cynical attempts to scare people into voting for the Party of Hate.  The blacks are coming!  Willie Horton!  The poor are coming!  Welfare queens!  (Well, the individual, not corporate, welfare queens.)  The gays are coming!  Gay marriage destroys our families!  They're after your children!  The Muslims are coming!  Ko-ran or Koo-ran!  Secular humanists are coming!  They'll teach your kids evil-ution!  They'll take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance!

Now it's "The illegal aliens are coming!"  Soon the Republicans will run out of groups to hate, and have to turn on white male pick-up truck drivers with Confederate bumper stickers.

The Party of Lincoln.  The Party of Hate.  A sad historical transformation.



Sticking with the Lincoln theme (Lowell - 9/1/2007 7:57:47 AM)
Lincoln appealed to the "better angels of our nature."  He also talked about "with malice toward none, with charity to all."  Unfortunately, these people appeal to the lesser angels of our nature, and unfortunately seem to have forgotten the "charity to all" part as well.  Sad.


COMMENT HIDDEN (HeathPulaski - 9/1/2007 10:46:39 AM)


Nice, so people who disagree with you (Lowell - 9/1/2007 11:00:48 AM)
are "lying."  Just make your case without resorting to ad hominem attacks. If your case is strong enough, you shouldn't need to question other peoples' motives.  Or is it that hard for you to accept that others have followed this issue for many years and come to different conclusions than you?


some wedge (JScott - 9/1/2007 11:34:18 AM)
I do not entirely agree in the "wedge" proposition but I will say what is morally wrong is to simply oppose something that the other side is perceived to have embraced as "their" issue of the moment solely because they are making it an issue. Is this issue cut right down party lines, I do not think so, we are not talking about something like abortion though many would have us believe that the it is be shaped the same way by the Reps. Immigration by far is simply one of those issues that should be the easiest to solve and yet it cannot get done. Maybe we ought to be addressing why that is. It seems to me that the people that we are talking about are being turned into politcal capital and the only folks who pay for it is main street America. Illegals cost my locality 2.5 million estimated a year, pennies to Washington, but alot to a county receiving less and less from the State. If we did not have to socialize these illegals existance where might we be better suited to spend that revenue, health services, education maybe pre-k, or god forbid on transportation. It seems to me we are saying that even though we know the illegals willingly  broke the law we should simply just reduce the offense and make it involuntary and sentence all of them to time served. It seems to me there are some that would turn the illegal alien issue into simply yet another social program to be funded by tax revenues and to me thats the least moral and fair thing of all.


Legalization is the answer (Just Saying - 9/1/2007 4:17:40 PM)
"Illegals cost my locality 2.5 million estimated a year, pennies to Washington, but alot to a county receiving less and less from the State."

And how much do those 'illegals' pay in taxes a year? You do realize the most undocumented workers pay taxes? Sure, they're using a fake social security number to do it, but they pay taxes into the system like everyone else. So, they really aren't costing your locality 2.5 million, you have to subtract what they pay into the system from the costs and then you'll know the true benefit or cost of undocumented workers. Note: everytime local govts and even the federal govt do this, it always comes out the same, undocumented workers pay more into the system then they take.

"If we did not have to socialize these illegals existance where might we be better suited to spend that revenue, health services, education maybe pre-k, or god forbid on transportation"

You do realize that the way to fix this problem is to legalize them, give them social secutiry numbers and have them pay taxes?

"It seems to me there are some that would turn the illegal alien issue into simply yet another social program to be funded by tax revenues and to me thats the least moral and fair thing of all."

This is almost non-sense, another social program? By having them pay back taxes and fines?



Undocumented workers pay more into the system then they take. (loboforestal - 9/1/2007 5:19:33 PM)
I'd love to see a serioius report that doucments that.

What I did find googling around was this :

http://www.cis.org/a...

Among it's point are


- Although they create a net drain on the federal government, the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion.

-However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or about $6,950 per illegal household.

-Employers do not see the costs associated with less-educated immigrant workers because the costs are spread out among all taxpayers.

I did search for dissenting opinions on this but found little  hard research.  If anyone can find something, let me  know.  Please find a study that looks at illegal rather than  legal immigration, though.  Again, the question is are illegals a net tax drain?

It certainly doesn't negate your point that legalization may help.  I doubt however that there's going to be enough political support for it until the Feds secure the border, curb employer sponsored guest worker programs, impose employer sanctions and outline a plan for a simplfied, middle of the road immigration program.  There was too much pork for certain industries in that last bill and not enough serious reform.



You do realize (Just Saying - 9/1/2007 6:52:36 PM)
You're quoting statistics from a conservative, Republican think tank whose main mission is to REDUCE IMMIGRATION?

From their mission stated on their website:

"The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants..."

Moreover, if you look closely, you'll find that the CIS is GUESSING at who is or is not an illegal immigrant for the purposes of the study. They've used Census Data statistics, and fyi, the Census does not ask if someone is illegal. So CIS has "guessed" by using "characteristics common to illegals" whatever that means.

In addition, they are using reported info from the Census to determine how much is paid in taxes. Most undocumented workers don't answer that question particularly accurately given that they are using someone elses social security number.

Taxes paid by illegal immigrants is a HUGE WINDFALL for, at the moment, the Social Security Administration. But that money is being held in limbo by SSA. Why do you think SSA doesnt' inform people when they find out someone has been using their SS# to work illegally?



Because Agriculture, Restaurants and Construction dont want it. (loboforestal - 9/1/2007 9:19:41 PM)
Why do you think SSA doesnt' inform people when they find out someone has been using their SS# to work illegally?

Because Agriculture, Restaurants and Construction dont want it.

The estimated 9 Billion in illegal alien payroll taxes is less than 1 percent of the approximately 2.6 trillion paid in Federal taxes paid every year.  With studies showing lower wages from illegal aliens, it's not clear there's a net benefit here in terms of Federal taxes and federal benefits and fair wages being paid to workers. It sure looks like a subsidy to certain industries.  With long term real wage declines in these industries, it's not clear it's a good investment.

If the CIS is so slanted, please cite another source.  Regardless of their objectives, their scholarship seems pretty sound.  I'm certainly open reading the research of any serious person on these issues. We should make decisions on sound analysis, not both sides playing the race card.

They've used Census Data statistics, and fyi, the Census does not ask if someone is illegal. So CIS has "guessed" by using "characteristics common to illegals" whatever that means.

Any good study will of this sort will detail its methology, which since you ask is here : http://www.cis.org/a...

There are serious repercussions of Federal policy, winners and losers.  Assessing these remains important.



According to the Udall Center, they are a huge net positive (Lowell - 9/2/2007 8:28:50 AM)
in Arizona.


Thanks. (loboforestal - 9/2/2007 10:05:10 AM)
I noticed this when you first posted it.  It does study immigration as a whole, not concentrating on illegal.  Notes in the study mention that they didn't do enough disaggregation of illegal vs. legal immigration.  It's also concentrating solely on state finances, not federal except in mentioning that the Feds do pick up the costs in some cases.  A missing analysis is the effect on native wages.


nope (JScott - 9/2/2007 9:02:32 PM)
The gatherings at 7/11 in places like PWC that continue to be documented across the state where illegals are paid $100 a day day labor in cash my friend. I sincerely do not believe they are filling out tax forms claiming that income.


Most (Just Saying - 9/3/2007 2:31:59 PM)
illegals do not work as day labors. Don't take one small part of PWC and assume that applies to the ALL undocumented workers.


By the way, all caps kind of equates to yelling (Lowell - 9/1/2007 11:01:26 AM)
And most people don't take kindly to people yelling at them.


Actually (Just Saying - 9/1/2007 4:06:49 PM)
That is flat out untrue. 90% of the amendments offered up by the GOP during the debate of the immigration bill were requirements that effected ALL immigrants and had very little to do with "illegal immigrants."

The only part of the legislation that was killed that actually dealt with illegal immigrants was the "path to citizenship."

The rest of it-- the strict regulations for family immigration, the refusal of the GOP to increase the flow of legal workers etc-- were all amendments that directly effect LEGAL IMMIGRANTS in this country.

Get a clue. The GOP has declared war on immigrants and they're using the "it's really about illegal immigrants" talking point to dupe people like you into supporting ANTI-IMMIGRANT legislation that targetes ALL IMMIGRANTS (not just the undocumented immigrants).



Nation of Immigrants (connie - 9/1/2007 10:29:49 PM)
Unless one is native American, our ancestors came here seeking a better way of life just like today's immigrants. Sure, we have to have reasonable immigration rules to protect our physical and economic security, but those who are just outright against anyone coming here for opportunity are forgetting where they themselves came from.  Taking the position that we should "keep them all out" is a bit like making it up to the top of the heap and pulling up the ladder so as not to help anyone else. 


the truth(funny) about Immigrants (pvogel - 9/2/2007 8:27:55 AM)
For the most part, they arive in the usa very conservative, very republican. They loved reagon.They dont mind the tax giveaway to the rich( They are going to be rich themselves)

As soon as racist republicans start on the anti Immigrant railroad, and
Immigrants are threatened, they overwhelingly turn to the democratic party.

This is not a crisis, its an oppourtunity



Karl Rove is well aware of that. (Lowell - 9/2/2007 8:32:46 AM)
He always tried hard to win Hispanics over to the Republican Party by being welcoming and avoiding immigrant bashing at all costs.  Most likely, he saw what happened with Pete Wilson and the 1994 Proposition 187, which arguably moved California solidly, and permanently, into the Democratic camp.  Interestingly, Bush and Rove had a very different strategy in Texas, and that state is solidly Republican.  Right now, it looks like Virginia Republicans are hell bent on following the Pete Wilson model.  Good luck with that, guys!  *snark*


The proof in the puddin (JScott - 9/2/2007 9:23:08 PM)
And there we have it, immigration is not a moral issue, its not a security issue, its not an economic issue, what it has become is solely a political issue. The Hispanics are being played in a politcal game to see who can fill their ranks fast enough with them to push up the very bases of the party. Thats why the issue of illegal immigration has never been solved. The Hispanic population is one if not the fastest growing population with America and just as Corporate Amercia seeks to exploit this group from a commercial perspective the parties seek to do the same from a political one. Its sad but true. Its a fact of politics today. The Hispanics are merely considered as potential political capital by those seeking to make all illegal aliens legal citizens of this country all the while refusing to hold the standard of law. This just like so many issues in Washington falls deaf to many b/c if the law is wrong and these illegals should merely be made citizens, then pass legislation ending the laws that make them illegal. When Dems take control of the Senate will they have the will to end these laws?