Imaginary War, Part II.

Well, that didn't take long.

The McCain-Kennedy "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" (discussed in this post) has come under attack from Michelle Malkin's "Immigration Blog."  Chris Kelly's headline:

KENNEDY AND MCCAIN INTRODUCE MASSIVE ILLEGAL ALIEN AMNESTY PLAN

Writing without an apparent sense of irony, Chris adds:

Kennedy specifically denies that this is an "amnesty", but any difference between SAOIA and amnesty is purely semantic. Expect semantics - or, more properly, doublespeak - to be a major part of the debate on this bill.

Uh huh.  Returning to reality, McCain-Kennedy requires illegal immigrants to pay substantial fines and undergo stringent background and other checks in order to become legal guest workers.  It's an "amnesty" program in the same sense that levying fines against convicted tax cheats and OSHA violators are amnesty programs.  In other words, it's not an amnesty program in any sense of the word.

Semantics and double speak?  Indeed.

UPDATE:  Digger of Digger's Realm acknowledges that immigrants have to pay a fine of two grand to get temporary worker's Visas under McCain-Kennedy (he ignores the other requirements), but he still calls McCain-Kennedy an "amnesty" program.   Yeah, sure, just like Eliot Spitzer is out on the street corner handing out "amnesties" to folks he thinks may have violated New York's consumer fraud laws.   Or you get an "amnesty" when the cop tickets you for speeding.  Hey, mom, I got a $1000 amnesty when the cop caught me with a dimebag of marijuana!  Hooray!

Digger also complains:

Good to see some people are willing to sell our citizenship for so cheap, especially someone who is sworn to uphold our country's laws.

Digger is apparently unaware that there is a distinction between a temporary worker's Visa and citizenship.  But, hey, don't let facts, reason, or the law stop you when you're ranting from your high horse.

Conspicuously absent from either Kelly's or Digger's posts, of course, is any mention of how they're going to pay to kick  ten million illegal workers out of the country, or the effect it would have on the businessness that employ those workers.  Because, y'know, if they actually said they wanted to increase your taxes to pay for hundreds (if not thousands) of new bureaucrats to scour and "bust" legitimate American businesses -- well, then they'd just look ridiculous.

When the system is broken, you fix it.  The system is broke. McCain-Kennedy may not be the fix, but it's a good start.

Comments

[praktike]

malkin's obsession with immigration sure is bizarre.

[Edward_]

Good to see some people are willing to sell our citizenship for so cheap, especially someone who is sworn to uphold our country's laws.

OUR citizenship? This drive me nuts. How many generations away from immigration is Diggers himself?

Really. When is it ok for an American to start complaining about immigration is such us-vs.them terms? If they are born here? If their parents were born here? Their grandparents?

We need another vocabulary here. One that's more self-aware. The current one is laughable.

[cleek]

malkin's obsession with immigration sure is bizarre

it'd be even more bizzare if she went by her real name.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Digger is apparently unaware that there is a distinction between a temporary worker's Visa and citizenship.

And that there is a difference between a temporary worker's visa and permanent residency status, and that you have to be a permanent resident for five years before you can apply for citizenship.

[Gary Farber]

cleek says: "it'd be even more bizzare if she went by her real name."

I can't stand Malkin, but this is a tad ironic to read on a blog comment thread where, of course, no one is respected unless they're posting under the name on their birth certificate. Ah, "real" ("true") names: it's the only way to go. (Or maybe not.)

[liberal japonicus]

I don't know Gary, don't you think that the fact she retains copywrite in her maiden name of Maglalang,but she does things like attacking Teresa Heinz-Kerry for using a hyphenated name, and has made her focus as immigration, essentially portraying herself as a 'good immigrant' while deriding anyone who wants to retain some of their original culture as not only being a bad American but a potential terrorist doesn't deserve a bit of a call-out? There are any number of good reasons for taking on a handle (there are a lot of crazy people out there), but taking on what some might argue was a false identity in order to make one's opinions more attractive to the niche you want to target is not one of them.

[liberal japonicus]

Sorry, copyright. I think. Apparently losing my first language. I just read an article that talked about "hoards of insects", and while I knew something was wrong, it took me a couple of minutes to figure out what it was. Sheesh.

[Gary Farber]

Short answer only; see my last blog entry why. I think Malkin deserves to have all sorts of dumb things she says and does smacked around (and plenty have done a good job on her), but I don't see what name she goes by as other than trivial.

And I do think the phenom of people writing under pseuds criticizing others for not using "real" names (what makes a "real" name important?) is sufficiently ironic to be worthy of note. It amuses me, anyway. I don't know what reasons Malkin might have, but do we want to put forth the standard that people have to first justify not using the name on their birth certificate? Seems like there'd be a rather long list of statements that needed to be filed by regular commenters here.

[Phil]

Really. When is it ok for an American to start complaining about immigration is such us-vs.them terms? If they are born here? If their parents were born here? Their grandparents?

I have relatives on my mother's side who show up in the second US Census (1800), so all y'all can get the heck out! :)

[liberal japonicus]

Gary, Just went by and your last blog entry is about your accident (odaijini as they say here), so this should not be taken as responding to anything you may have written.

I use a handle because about 6 years ago, in getting into some discussion on an email list and then taking it off list, the person took offense and wrote to my employer claiming that I had harassed him because I asked that we take the discussion off list and he took phrases from the emails and recast them as repeated emails that were unsolicited. He also posted selected points, with his comments, to several places on Usenet, asking that other people write to my employer and some of them did. Fortunately, I am a email packrat and I was able to show that he was lying (this is one reason I can be anal about quoting people), but assembling all of the evidence and presenting it to (a completely sympathetic, thank god) committee took a helluva a lot of time, especially since I had to present it in Japanese. (as I understand it, the harasser has now been ordered off the internet, or at least has disappeared from it) The handle is obviously only a small barrier (much like the one you tripped over) but the purpose is not to make myself invunerable, but to merely slow up those with very poor impulse control.

I should also add that I am half 3rd gen Japanese-American and Malkin-Maglalang's book really infuriates me, so in some ways, her antics are a personal attack on me. Everyone has their buttons, and this is one of mine.

As an attempt at trying to set forth a standard (that would then apply to Malkin-Maglalang and not me ;^)) I would suggest that if someone does write for a living or at least for a wage, they should be upfront with their life experiences. If there is something that they don't want to talk about, they shouldn't write about it. I don't think you have any problem decrying 'op-ed writers' getting paid by the admin to present particular points of view without revealing those payments. In a sense, what Malkin-Maglalang is doing is an attenuated form of this. If I write 'my views on this have been shaped by my experiences in X country' and you ask me to tell about those experiences and I refuse, I think you would be justified in calling me out.

While I don't think it is fair in mano-a-mano blog combat, I think it is worth a thought to wonder why Malkin-Maglalang feels the need to reject her heritage publically, but maintain it privately (or at least in terms of copyright) (I have some suspicion that her family feels she's rejected them and what they stand for)

I have a feeling that you aren't going to agree with this, but my feeling is that as the platform grows taller and more obvious, more transparency is demanded. I'm not saying that this is a great thing, but because it is applied to everyone, to give one person a pass amounts to an unfair advantage.

I do think that the question of multiple identities is an interesting one and I don't automatically (obviously) reject people who go use one (or several). But for a case like John Lott, who manufactures identities to provide the illusion of support, I think it is wrong, and an identity manufactured to obscure points rather than to illuminate them is basically wrong. I think this ties into some previous threads by Edward about the ethics of outing gay legislators/staffers and his conclusion, if I remember correctly, is that it is appropriate only if the person is actively seeking to promulgate anti-gay legislation in an attempt to maintain position or power.

I have to apologize, my family and I are headed out right now and if we get back in time, we are going to go out again, so I can't immediately respond to what I am sure will be an interesting response by you. I don't think that we should automatically reject the use of anonymity/pseudonymity as such, but I think that the path Malkin-Maglagang (and I admit that it's not a mere academic debate at this point) has taken requires that she be called out. FWIW

[cleek]

I can't stand Malkin, but this is a tad ironic to read on a blog comment thread where, of course, no one is respected unless they're posting under the name on their birth certificate.

hey, if my "cleek" made me sound more Anglo than my real name, and i spent my days ranting and raving about the horrible foreign invaders destroying my country, i'd take that personally.

but, after my current employer asked me, during the interview, about some postings i'd made (under a different pseudonym) on Slashdot, i decided maybe it'd be better if i kept things on the down-low as much as possible.

sadly, my real name is tied to well over 10,000 postings on a very popular programming forum, where most of my comments are in the political board. so, even this is only partial cover. still, i do what i can.

[Gary Farber]

I respect, cleek, that people may, and often do, have good reasons for posting under pseuds.

And I've dealt with some problems resulting from my own doing so, but, I agree, we all have different circumstances. What I'm not willing to do is to start denouncing people I disagree with for engaging in the same exact behavior as people I agree with. Either the principle holds that people shouldn't be required to explain why they're posting under whatever name they do, or not.

Given that my name, phone number, address, and more, are on the public record, I'm not embarrassed to make this point. (And I'm not going into the sort of minor harassment I'm still experiencing, because mostly it makes me laugh at the jerks who think I should react otherwise.)

Either we have a standard of presumption that it's fair for people to post under names not on their birth certificate, or we have another standard.

But either people posting under pseuds criticizing other people for their posting under pseuds is hilarious, or not. (Or, of course, it's only hilarious whether they are One Of Us; whatever.)

[Gary Farber]

"And I've dealt with some problems resulting from my own doing so...."

That was utterly unclear, since what I meant was "resulting from having always chosen to put my name, address, and phone number out there online, and goddamm the f--king consequences...."

Etc., and for over a decade, etc. Not precisely a new issue. Which is part of why I find selective, ideological, inconsistent, responses on this issue rather funny. I can tell my own stories about having never hidden. But I don't (these years; I was dumber in my first few years online, back in the 20th century) regard that as a point of personal superiority that allows me to blast people in other circumstances.

[Anarch]

Either we have a standard of presumption that it's fair for people to post under names not on their birth certificate, or we have another standard.

More precisely: we either have multiple standards (presumably depending on the context), or one principle with more subtle conditions. Were Malkin merely a blogger, I wouldn't give a damn what name/pseud/moniker/nom-de-plume she cared to post under... as indeed I don't about any of the bloggers I know. [And I, of course, am pseudonymous too without any unease.] As someone her earns her professional keep by opinion writing, however, I do expect some kind of parity to be maintained between her origins and her presentations. I can't yet articulate the principle at stake here, but the confluence of the following facts rubs me the wrong way:

1) She's a professional opinionist/pundit.
2) She has inflammatory views on immigrants and immigration, specifically in attempting to curtail immigration and speaking ill of immigrants. Indeed, one could argue that she earns her keep in part by such rhetoric.
3) She herself is an immigrant.
4) Her professional name appears to me to be a deliberate attempt to Anglicize -- and therefore mask -- her immigrant origins.

Removing any of the four pieces strikes me as being acceptable. Put the four together and I feel that a principle is being violated. I'd also feel that principle would be violated if an actor of (say) Jewish origin made his living by supporting movies hostile to Israel, or if an African preacher attacked indolent blacks, while under Anglicized pseudonyms.

[Yes, those are crappy examples. I haven't thought about this long enough to come up with something compelling.]

PS: My usual question, here. Anyone know from whence Malkin's family hails in the Philippines? I know her folks emigrated from Metro Manilla; I'm curious to know whether her roots are Ilocano.

[sidereal]

Malkin also uses her photograph with her byline, suggesting her name change has nothing to do with pseudanimity.

The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron is a pretty good kid's show I watch with my son, and I will perpetually find it hilarious that one of the character's names is 'Sheen Estevez'.

[liberal japonicus]

Ah, Gary I now understand that your last blog entry explains why you can't go into the detail you are justifiably noted for. Apologies for being so dense and my apologies for putting up a lot of stuff when it's probably difficult for you to respond. The whole question of identity is something that really hits me where I live, so I would love to discuss it, but I'll grit my teeth and leave it here. Again, sorry about reading too quickly and missing the point.

[jerseycityjoan]

Amnesty or not? I won't argue with anyone about that.

Let me point out, however, that a person who entered this country at age 25 and made $15,000 per year for the next 40 years would have earned $600,000.

What's a fine of $1,000 or $2,000, plus a background check, against $600,000?

You tell me.

[von]

Agree with Gary's 5/13 8:57 post; that Ms. Malkin chose to take her husband's name when she got married is not worthy of discussion.

[P. B. Almeida]

Let me point out, however, that a person who entered this country at age 25 and made $15,000 per year for the next 40 years would have earned $600,000.

What's a fine of $1,000 or $2,000, plus a background check, against $600,000?

You tell me.

It's a lot of cash.

I repeat, for someone making $15k a year, $2,000 is a lot of money. Your $600k figure is a bit absurd, as one rather suspects that, on the way to earning $600,000, your typical immigrant would have spent the vast bulk of that on taxes, food, rent, clothes...you know, just getting by.

If you're point is that the $2,000 fine is unlikely to deter many people from taking advantage of the program (and ultimately from sneaking into the country), I'm in agreement. People risk their lives trying to come here, so, the knowledge that they may have to come up with a substantial sum of money to get papers is hardly likely to deter them. As long as wages and living conditions are substantially higher in the U.S. than in some other country, the folks in the latter are likely to possess an incentive to come here. I believe the legislation in question focuses solely on the idea of bringing illegals in from the cold, not on trying to prevent their continued arrival.

For the record I don't have a problem with calling the proposal an "amnesty" bill, because that's precisely what it is. Until we get serious about immigration reform -- and this means both much higher immigration quotas and much more stringent security on our borders -- this issue is going to come up once a decade or so to deal with the five or ten million illegals who have, over the previous ten years, built American lives for themselves in contravention of our laws.

[Dave Schuler]

I'd have no gripe against McCain-Kennedy if money is actually appropriated for enforcement. The history of such legislation is that it won't be and, without enforcement, it's an amnesty bill.

Regardless of what one's beliefs about whether unlimited immigration is good or bad for the United States we must slow the rate of immigration across our southern border for security purposes. The enormity of the current flow is too much for any reasonable border patrol to handle and, in order to reduce the likelihood of people who wish us harm from using our border with Mexico as a means of entry, something must be done.

[liberal japonicus]

Regardless of what one's beliefs about whether unlimited immigration is good or bad for the United States we must slow the rate of immigration across our southern border for security purposes.

Dave, I would think that we don't have to slow it, just monitor it. If you are arguing that the rate is so high as to not be able to monitor it, so we have to slow it, I understand, but if there is another reason you had in mind, could you flesh it out a bit? Thanx.

[Dave Schuler]

If you are arguing that the rate is so high as to not be able to monitor it, so we have to slow it, I understand, but if there is another reason you had in mind, could you flesh it out a bit?

Yes, that's my point.

[liberal japonicus]

Thanks for responding. My feeling is that attempts to slow the flow result in creating a large group of people who are able to immigrate illegally, which then prevents enforcement officials from getting cooperation because the entire group is outside the law. For example, the recent story of illegal chinese immigrant who was trapped in an elevator. While I don't want to suggest that we simply scrap all immigration requirements, I do believe that an emphasis on reducing the flow creates other problems down the line. Though it may seem paradoxical, the US would be better served by "increasing" the flow, by which I mean making the legal percentage of the flow greater than the illegal percentage.