Neighborhood Covenants
The covenants of the Old Mill™ addition clearly state that thou mayest not sell thy house to an Italian. Neither a moor, not a mongoloid of any type. It is all right out. So say the covenants.
Of course, these bylaws have not been enforced, nor has anyone attempted to enforce them in a great long count of years, though perhaps that is only because no obvious Italians have proven so bold as to move onto the street. Got some Mexicans, though, and I'm sure the rule would have included them if the writers had the foresight.
What is the force of a law that is not upheld?
When the ark is returned to Israel from the Philistines they are dumb enough to open it, because they are unsure whether God in Heaven is still insisting upon His sovereignty. And so they died.
Stare decisis. The binding precedent. And the law that ceases to be enforced ceases to be binding.
And so, my sympathy is actually with illegal immigrants who have made their abode lawfully and peacefully after the first offense of coming to the country uninvited.
Because we may not have invited them, but we absolutely left the door open and turned our backs. The signal was clear, and it was sent by the legitimate political authorities of the country. We've not been serious about border enforcement or deportation for decades. We might be more serious about it now, and the number of people coming has dropped precipitously. I would posit that is not because we suddenly have iron control of the border, but also because of the signals we are sending. We shut the door, and now the people who are coming in know they are breaking in.
So what do you do with all the people that came in during the era when the door was wide open? Well this is where I think we get to be a little arbitrary. I am not team "send them all back." If you have more or less knowingly let someone squat in your house for two decades you don't really get to throw them out if they have been doing the dishes and helping with the care and maintenance.
If they have lived peaceable and quiet lives they should stay. They should not get to skip the line to citizenship, and probably they are going to have a bill for back taxes, but it is as much our fault that it has taken us so long to put our house in order. People act according to the incentives, and we left all the incentives on the side of coming here illegally. We enforced the law lacksidaisically.
Do you expect a speeding ticket in the mail for every time you went 8 over to arrive in your mailbox tomorrow? No, because we all tacitly understand that those laws are there as a curb against recklessness.
Now I think one can argue that residency controls rise well above the level of speed limits--obviously so. That has not stopped us from enforcing them like speed limits. And so people increasingly treated them like speed limits.
What is done is done? Let the broken result stand.
If you came here illegally and thereafter lived a life of hard work and virtue, welcome to America. Enjoy your stay, pay your taxes.
If you came and lived a life of vice or crime, then into the outer darkness with you, or as they call it in the mother tongue, Canada. Where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Can you imagine living most of your adult life in a place, where the authority looked the other way while you arrived, where you had kids, made a community, and were home, and then decades later someone comes and tells you that it is time to go.
That may technically be the law, but it is not justice.
I am for the serious enforcement of the border. I am for the deportation of anyone who has not lived blamelessly. I am for measures that will effect assimilation of those who have come here, legally or not.
But we need to own that we effectively let all these people in, and for the people who have been here for ages, they are effectively our countrymen now. They have lived, worked, and--in blue cities--voted right alongside the dead.
We can look back and shake our head and ask how the heck we let all this happen, but there are a lot of these people who this is home for now.
The St. Patrick's parish that I used to walk through to work is significantly less sketchy than it was, and the miracle that made it happen was that a bunch of Mexicans moved in and fixed it up. The did not eradicate all the sketch, but we are past the era of a shooting on Masterson every summer. I would bet 1/3 in that neighborhood are illegal immigrants, and only that few because their kids make up another 1/3 and birthright citizenship is still a thing.
That neighborhood no longer lights up the same way on the crime map that it once did.
And I understand that there have been plenty of sketchy people that came as well. Send them away! If they have dealt in drugs, robbery, or murder, then away to the gallows. Public executions are good for the civic spirit. But actually, if you look at arrest statistics, Latinos actually commit offenses at lower rates than their representative population across most categories of crime. I mean, there are obviously outliers--they make up over 80% of immigration prosecutions, for instance.
Turns out when you are keeping your head down you tend not to shoplift as aggressively as people who will get community service rather than a deportation order.
We have done poorly in not enforcing our borders. Not enforcing our borders has been destabilizing, in that it has led to the uncontrolled accumulation of poor folk who need support in high concentrations in particular areas. It has allowed some very bad people in, and had given the cartels in Mexico easy access to an affluent American market.
You can shut all of that down. You can mandate English across government administered programs: drivers licenses, schools, and make them a condition for continued residency. You can make assimilation the wise choice.
But am I in favor of sending a 50 year old with no criminal record, a steady job, and a family back to the old country because they snuck in 30 years ago? Don't be ridiculous. This shit should have a statute of limitations.
Lock. Down. That. Border.
But also recognize that we left it open a long time, that the people who have been here for decades are your neighbor now, and that you do owe them something more than the people who don't live here. We don't have to like it, but it does not make it less true.
Sometimes, we need to accept that we let all the Italians move in, and figure out how to live with the good ones, and still find a way to chuck out the ones we don't like.
Someday I'd like to understand why it seems obvious to so many of my friends that the default ought be to let very few people in. My own instinct is the opposite: we ought to let anyone in, unless there is a clear and compelling reason not to; just as free speech means that the default is for people to be allowed to say what they want to say, and free exchange means that the default is for people to be allowed to trade what they want to trade. The burden of proof is always on the state, when it wants to prohibit and punish.
ReplyDeleteUsually when I bring this up in a conversation, the person I'm talking with will then ask me if I'd be more open to restrictions if it were clear that the tide of immigrants was significantly damaging a country, and I will answer "yes". Then I ask them something like, "But don't the data indicate that immigrants on average commit less crime and pay more taxes than natives? And don't we we benefit from increasing our population, since our birth rate is below replacement, and falling?" Then they either answer "no", or answer "yes" and follow up with reasons why those facts don't matter. (So far, the reasons given at this point have never really impressed me, although they do always give me something to think about.)
Also,
ReplyDelete"They have lived, worked, and--in blue cities--voted right alongside the dead."
If you do not strongly hold this belief (the belief that significantly many fraudulent votes were cast in the names of dead people), I am going to earnestly ask you not to legitimize it, as it is part of a trend that is literally destroying our constitution, country, and possibly world.
If you DO strongly hold the belief, then I would be fascinated to learn why.
Of course I strongly hold the belief. I do not hold that it is a new practice, but that is has been prevalent since before Tammany Hall, and has been common since. Places with improbable vote tallies is not that uncommon. Places with impossible vote tallies happens on occasion.
DeleteThis is actually why I thought the Iraqi elections requiring in person voting and a thumb dipped in purple ink was brilliant back in the early 200s. Very difficult to falsify.
I also have little faith in digital controls, because I work in an industry with strong controls against falsification against records, and election tech is not there. Until each record is SHA-2 encrypted the provenance is questionable.
If one would wonder how I could be such a skeptic, look at most of the state legislatures in the union attempting to gerrymander beyond all honesty. No one is playing by the rules, and it is that, and the refusal to enact clear accountability controls, that breed the wilder conspiracy takes.
Bad practice leads to bad outcomes.
And I just realized there is a question behind the question. I don't believe in 'the steal' but I know some very intelligent and generally reasonable people who do or did.
DeleteWhat I believe is that the electoral process should be above reproach, and currently it is pretty lacksidaisical, and controlled by the political machines of colors matching the counties where they occur.
I don't believe a perfect system exists, but again, a system this lax would get a company in my industry shut down if they were are loose with consumer rights and elections.
"I don't believe in 'the steal' but I know some very intelligent and generally reasonable people who do or did."
DeleteThis exactly, emphatically my point. I know many such people. I estimate that the *majority* of my family and friends think that "the steal" is significantly likely to be true... along with a variety of other ideas (largely invented by and existing for the benefit of DJT personally) that I struggle to find plausible.
Having informally studied this disconnect for more than a decade now, I believe that it's mostly due our media diets. Echo chambers abound; social media algorithms dynamically reinforce existing beliefs; almost nobody I know makes even a moderate effort at finding disconfirmatory evidence. Okay, none of that's exactly groundbreaking, but it's true, and so is this: the more you hear something, the more reasonable it tends to sound, and today's politicians and pundits are adept at talking *about* something or *implying* it endlessly, while technically avoiding saying it outright (which might expose them to liability).
The way this applies to "the steal" is very simple:
Step 1: (Optional) Say that the 2020 election was not stolen.
Step 2: Talk about how important election integrity is. Bring up proven cases of election fraud. Mention unproven cases. Talk about things that could go wrong with mail-in voting. Ask people if they care about election integrity. Point out that making it easier for people to vote makes it easier for people to vote fraudulently. Talk about how easy it is to get an ID. Remind people that politicians frequently lie and use legal loopholes to their advantage. Talk about a hypothetical senior who was confused about the voting process. Interview a charismatic Trump supporter. Interview an uncharismatic liberal. Interview a socialist. Joke about dead people voting. Joke about illegal immigrants voting. Joke about space aliens voting. Joke about Democrats rigging the local school election for their kid. Joke about how few people actually voted for Biden. And so on and so forth.
This process can consist entirely of true statements and jokes. It can be repeated by people with no malice and no scheme. It is Maxwell's demon, transforming random energy into energy that flows in one direction. It is functionally propaganda, and as far as I can tell, there is currently no defense against it which is both effective and scalable.
When I ask about the possibility of "significantly many" votes by the dead, I mean, "enough to flip the result, or at least make it too hard to call, relative to comparable elections". Yes, a single fraudulent vote is serious, and normatively unacceptable. Yes, every election of sufficient size will have some votes tallied incorrectly. Yes, bogus elections occur frequently throughout the world and throughout history. All that is, sadly, the water we swim in. The claims made by DJT (and repeated by his supporters, and unchallenged by the cowards in Congress) are very specific claims about a very specific election.