If one leaves aside for a second judgments on the particular individuals on each side of the immigration debate (most Dems and Bush/McCain on one side and most Republicans on the other) and focuses on the actual issues involved, I think this debate which has been brought to the forefront in our country in the past week is truly fascinating. As in other areas of policy ranging from the First Amendment to domestic spying, the immigration debate can bring together truly strange bedfellows. For instance, lets say you are a principled conservative. You can take either of these two stances, and be at odds with yourself.
More after the jump.....
Stance 1: Allowing what amounts to amnesty (and what the current McCain/Kennedy bill as it now stands is essentially a longer version of amnesty for illegal immigrants) for the 10-20 million illegal immigrants makes good fiscal sense. There are a number of jobs in this country that we rely on illegal immigrants to do, from picking grapes to working in food processing plants to providing farm labor. If those jobs were not done by these immigrants, they would either (a) not get done at all or (b) be done by those who demand a higher wage, thus making the price of fruits, meat and goods in this country rise, also having an effect on low-income workers ability to purchase these goods. Thus immigrants help keep the economy strong and provide a necessary cog for its machine.
Stance 2: Illegal immigrants are ruining our country as it now stands, and if given blanket ability to stay without consequence, will continue to ruin it in the future. Illegal immigrants come to our country and take the jobs of ordinary Americans, and in doing so bring down the standard of living for those who have not been fortunate enough to receive higher degrees of education. In doing so, they bring down the standard of living for all poor Americans and they encourage employers to hire them thus taking even well-paying jobs away and putting average Americans without satisfactory jobs. By granting these individuals what amounts to amnesty, you are not only continuing this process, you are encouraging future law breakers.
Similarly, liberals or progressives can have two stances on the issue.
Stance 1: These immigrants come from some of the poorest countries in the world. They are searching for exactly what every American is looking for, a better life for themselves and a chance to live the American Dream. By not granting these individuals the worker status, we encourage the development of an under class in America where millions of people do the hardest work imaginable and live in conditions that should not be tolerated in this great country. By acting as if these people are not here and granting them only secondary status, we can deny them the services that they deserve as humans, while turning a blind eye to their suffering. While the current plan may not be enough, it is a good start to recognizing these people's humanity and letting them have a piece of the American dream.
Stance 2: It is very difficult for all of those in America who are at the bottom of the economic chain. For these working Americans, the ability to get jobs that can provide a stable living for their families has been decreasing exponentially over the last few decades. Part of that is the exportation of jobs to underdeveloped countries because of lower wages. With the increase of immigrants in this country from those countries the ability of Americans to have a living wage has substantially decreased. Because these immigrants are willing to work for such significantly smaller amounts of money, it lowers the wages for all Americans and makes it virtually impossible for a person to have a middle-class life on a "blue-collar" job. It is not that I don't care about these people and their suffering, but even if they have the best of intentions, their influx has brought down the standard of living for all working Americans and such a policy cannot be encouraged.
Now I know the various summaries of stances is not complete and may be a bit simplistic. I just post it here to acknowledge how difficult an issue this can be for either side. I find all four stances that I posted to be the type that can be consistent with a broader ideology, but also at odds with each other. I have left out the "we are losing our culture" argument of someone like Pat Buchanan, because I do think it is unworthy of respect. But the other arguments can be rooted in well-meaning philosophies.
I know many on here are skeptical about the plan that has Bush's support and may be skeptical about Republicans who are against or Democrats who don't sign on. But what is fascinating about this debate to me is to what extent all positions can not only be argued with intelligence, but also can be compatible with a larger conservative or liberal world view.