Satirizing the Open Borders cheerleaders
The Seattle Times offers us a guest editorial from software executive Greg James entitled "A pragmatic approach to illegal immigration". At first glance you might think this is a factually-incorrect, simple-minded, ethically-challenged Open Borders screed. But, would a responsible newspaper like the Times print such a thing? Of course not!
I believe this editorial to be an excellent attempt at satire, and I'd like to assure James and the Times that we're laughing with them, not at them. Some clues:
A decade ago, there was a big fuss in California when some concerned citizens decided that the illegal immigrants in their state were a big strain on the budget... An interesting thing happened next. Someone else did a follow-up study, and found that what the state saved in economic costs from the use of migrant labor in agriculture was over three times what it cost in health care and education to those same workers... The big fuss quietly went away and nothing much changed in California...
Oh man, that's good satire. Now, at first you might think referring to Prop. 187 as a "big fuss" is sub-Patt Morrison, but in actual fact he wants you to learn about what actually happened concerning Prop. 187. It was passed by 59% of the voters, then left out to dry by since-recalled governor Gray Davis with the assistance of a judge, "American" legislators, and... the Mexican government. As for that study, I'm sure a little research would reveal who funded it and its biases.
Simple questions need to be asked: Are Americans willing to pay $4 instead of $1 for a head of lettuce?
You'll note that he didn't go overboard and tip his hand to this being satire by discussing $10 a head lettuce. No, he kept it reasonable. Of course, everyone knows that the labor costs account for just 10% of the cost of lettuce, and James has probably even read "How Much Is that Tomato in the Window?" and knows that without illegal labor costs would rise only slightly.
The big owners of agribusiness know the answer to these questions, as do the politicians they support.
Of course, James now wants you to say something like, "do we really want agribusiness to determine our immigration policy? Can we trust them to put their country ahead of their profits?" A true master satirist at work!
Then, he goes on to discuss how our politicians are corrupt and how we're employing desert Darwinism to get the strongest workers, including this:
As a bonus, if the "illegals" cause trouble, they can be deported without enjoying any of the rights a U.S. citizen would enjoy.
Of course, James knows it would be nearly impossible to deport millions of people, and he knows you know that too. In fact, he knows you know that if we tried to deport millions of illegal aliens it might result in thousands of casualties and billions of dollars of property loss due to the riots that would probably ensue. And, he also knows that you know that the more illegal aliens who are here the more difficult it will get to deport large numbers of them. Rest assured that he knows this.
He ends with this:
What's more, it would appear obvious, looking at recent history, that several presidents before George W. Bush figured out the same thing. To care about national security is to often make compromises. In this case, the angry voice of conservatives in his own party is the price this president pays for continuing a policy that, while difficult to actually articulate, really makes quite good sense.
Dean Swift has some competition that's for sure! Congratulations to James and to the Times for this cry for a sensible immigration policy.