When I worked in Baltimore, I was astounded at the ubiquity of anti-Asian prejudice displayed by a majority of my students. There is a widely held belief within Baltimore’s urban community that Asian shopkeepers are able to have their stores because the government gives them money to open stores so that blacks can’t get jobs (You see, Asian-American store-owners rely on family labor not because family labor is cheap but because they hate black people who make up the vast majority of their customers).

I could patiently explain the economics of why so many immigrants opened stores in urban areas (low rents, captive customers who did not own vehicles and could shop around for lower costs, etc.), but most of the kids doggedly insisted that is was all a government plot to give benefits to someone else. There was no reasoning with this.

I see an echo of this with the people who keep insisting that illegal aliens don’t pay taxes or social security, the facts be damned!

I have explained before why illegal aliens do both. But in my last post on the topic, a commentator tried to rebut my argument:

“But about illegals, your orsiginal contention here was that illegal immigrants are less likely than ordinary folk to commit further illegal activities once they’ve crossed the border. Now you’re talking about the money they’re losing by working under stollen or falsified Social Security numbers. If you or I stole or falsified a Social Security card, we’d be up for a prison sentence of not less than three years, and maybe as much as ten. It’s a fellony; plain and simple.

“…They do not get welfare or social security (becuase they are illegal)…”

Yes! Yes they are, but who told you they don’t collect Social Security?

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/senate-gives-illegals-aliens-social-security/

But what I find particularly disturbing is your constant refferences back to economics. You keep saying that something illegal is OK to do, if it makes you some money. But that’s exactly why we have laws. Many things that are illegal are also profitable, that doesn’t make them alright.”

Well, I linked through to the post that purportedly shows that illegal aliens get social security. You can click here if you want to see for yourself.

For my lazy clickers out there, I’ll post the first two paragraphs below:

The U.S. Senate blocked an effort on Thursday to limit SocialSecurity benefits for illegal immigrants who would become permanent residents under a sweeping immigration overhaul being debated by lawmakers.

The Senate immigration bill would give millions of the estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the country a path to citizenship as long as they pay a fine and back taxes and meet such requirements as learning English.

Now, your humble Smallholder may be a hayseed living out in the sticks, and make no claim to being particularly bright, but I seem to remember that “would” is a term indicating a conditional future. So in fact, the article shows that illegal aliens HAVE NOT and CURRENTLY NOT received or receiving social secutiry benefits in the past or present, but MIGHT get them in the future IF Bush’s plan turned those illegal immigrants into permanant citizens who were no longer illegal. So, even IF Bush’s plan HAD NOT been blocked by the Senate, illegal aliens WOULD NOT have gotten benefits even then - because, after pating fines and penalties, they WOULD no longer be illegal.

My commentor is also particularly disturbed by my constant referral to economics. I have dealt with economic issues, because the anti-illegal immigrant side of the debate like to trot out bad economics to prove that illegals are bad for America. Like many other elements of their stance, I simply took the time to refute their basic premises - folks who claim that illegal immigrants are a net drain on the national economy are either ignorant (in which case they ought to shut up), or, if they understand economics, are motivated by some other consideration and are lying about the economic reality knowing that ignorant people will parrot their arguments. Economics is complex. The folks who lie rely on the fact that most Americans don’t understand economics. So I took a while to explain exaclty why the anti-illegal economic claims were ridiculous. Complexity take a while.

But I don’t think that my discussions have been limited to just economics. The non-economic elements might have gotten fewer words, but that is only because they are easier to rebut (though the assimilation question will take some time - I just haven’t been able to devot ethe hours it will take to provide historical context to the question yet. But I shall try in the near future).

To refresh your memory, I have also refuted the argument that illegal immigrants increase crime rates. Well, actually I didn’t - I just linked to the FBI study that did it for me. One commentor ignored the evidence and simply restated the old anti-illegal canard:

“When you start with a population of proven law-breakers, you’re going to get a lot more of the worst of humanity than you would from a random sampling.”

Silly, silly, silly. As I said before, if we make no distinction between types and motivations for crime, almost ALL of us are technically lawbreakers:

One commentor… makes the farcical argument that, FBI statistics be damned, illegal immigrants must commit more crimes since they have shown a willingness to violate immigration law. As if any violation of any laws will lead to violent behavior. The Boston Strangler, after all, got his start driving 56 on the interstate. Almost all Americans violate some laws every day. Violation of one set of laws does not predestine one to become a violent felon. Examples:

If you do any of the following, society should fear you:

Smoke or use tobacco while underage.
Fish without a license.
Having sex outside of wedlock in Virginia.
Have oral sex in Virginia (or, if you are the Minister of Propagands, in 42 other states).
Break the speed limit.
Download music on Napster.
(In the future: Keep a backyard flock of chickens in Virginia. Breakin’ the law! Breakin’ the law!)

You said yes? You felon!

No one would seriously argue that the above behaviors (full disclosure, I have at one time or another, done all of the above except the Napster thing. But I’m told it is widesprad.) will predict criminal behavior. But somehow crossing the border is signifigantly different. Perhaps we are more likely to believe them Hispanics are capable of crimes because they are…. icky.

I’ve also dealt with the myth that hard working Americans are losing jobs to illegal aliens. I thought about that again today when the local radio station announced that Harrisonburg’s business community has sold 1.1 billion dollars worth of goods this year. The two driving engines of the local econmy are JMU and the illegal-alien heavy industrial chicken manufacturing. I wonder if some of those merchants who are hiring new workers owe some of their financial success to the purchasing power of the illegal community? Oops, economics again. Sorry.

To get back to the original point, I don’t think that I “keep saying that something illegal is OK to do, if it makes you some money.” My economics points are simply a point by point addressing of false claims made by the anti-illegal immigrant side. Even when I directly attack the false belief that illegal immigrants increase violent crime, I have just been pointing out the ridiculous link people make between any type of lawbreaking and future crime. Let me state for the record that I don’t encourage lawbreaking (in general).

But since we are talking about morality, let me ruminate for a bit.

Breaking one law is not inherently as immoral as breaking another law.

I, for one, and I hope you agree, think that all crimes creating victims are immoral.

Rape bad. Murder bad. Armed robbery bad.

But we have also made many things illegal that have nothing to do with victims.

In order to sell tomatoes by the pound, I would have to invest several hundred dollars in a certified scale that won’t be any more accurate than my kitchen scale. I get around this by selling tomatoes on a “per box” basis - and then use my kitchen scale to measure out one or two pounds per box. But let’s assume that, radical criminal that I am, I decide to sell by the pound to happy customers. Would that be immoral? Now, I do make money doing it. Does the fact that I make money in the transaction change to morality?

Now, I don’t have to break the law in that instance because the law is easily avoided by selling by the box. But I also abide by stupid laws that are very inconvenient. I can’t sell meat by the pound. I have to sell a live animal to my customers, and can then provide the free added service of delivering the animal to the butcher and arranging cutting instructions. If a customer wanted to buy just steaks and hamburger, would it be immoral for me to sell them just because it broke a law designed to make it more difficult for farmers to compete in the marketplace?

Going the speed limit on the interstate is actually more dangerous than going with the flow of traffic. Speeding in this context (merging with traffic flow as opposed to pretending you are on your own personal Autobhan) doesn’t create victims. It likely reduces the number of victims by making the interstate safer. Is speeding immoral?

A group of teenagers who aren’t going to drink and drive and have a few beers in someone’s basement - are they as immoral as a seriel killer?

I think we can all agree that victimless crimes are less immoral than crimes that produce victims.

And illegal immigration is a victimless crime. In fact, because of the positive economic benefits, it actually helps Americans. Oops, economic again. Sorry.

So excuse me if I don’t jump on the bandwagon of condemning the morality of people who want to work hard and build better lives for their families. But I’ll confess that this isn’t the same slam dunk case as there is against the economics and crime stuff. Different people can reach different conclusions.

But one can ask the absolutists: If any and all lawbreaking is immoral and ought to be punished, why aren’t you speaking out against other lawbreakers? Why single out illegal aliens?

I alsways have the same thought when you see those Christians who are so rapidly homo-hostile Tje Bible condemns a lot of things. Of all the things the Bible condemns, why is it that you are so worked up about gays? Unless I am mistaken, Jesus never addresses homosexuality but spent a huge amount of time condeming the acquisition of worldly possessions. Why aren’t the same people wanting to deny equal rights to gays demanding the disenfranchisement of rich people:

“Rich people, not having given away their money to the poor and immorally hording it, have demonstratd that they are dangerous to society. They ought to be denied the ability to raise children because they will only infect their children with greed. Children are better off in foster care than if they were adopted by greedy people who are going to burn in hell since it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a capitalist to get to heaven!”

Actually, that might be a better argument than the one against letting gays adopt. Being gay is innate and isn’t influenced by your parents (at least for males). But I would think that being greedy is a value that can be inculcated.

My challenge to the absolutists: Use your next Smallholder-bashing post to explain how your “lawbreaking is always wrong” applies to those innocuous crimes everyone ignores. Please explain why illegal entry to this country ought to be treated more harshly than other victimless crimes.