Pubdate: Thu, 18 May 2006
Source: Arizona Daily Star (AZ)
Copyright: 2006 Pulitzer Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.azstarnet.com/star/today/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/23
Author: Jonah Goldberg
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, DRUG WAR SIMILAR

President Bush hoped to tone down and sober up the immigration fight
Monday night.

But it amounted to a soft "shush" at WrestleMania.

The most interesting part of this political and ideological cage match
is that few of the usual labels have much utility.

The president and Sen. Edward Kennedy agree on a lot.

Weekly Standard editor and Fox News sage Bill Kristol declares himself
a "liberal" on immigration and "soft" on illegal immigration. Both the
Weekly Standard and the editors of The Wall Street Journal consider
National Review to be part of the mob of "yahoos" trying, in Kristol's
words, to drive the GOP "off a cliff."

So this seems like a propitious time to ask: What if illegal
immigrants were crack?

It's not such a crazy comparison, by the way. There's a reason why the
drug war and illegal immigration have similar scripts, even though the
actors reading the lines change. The overwhelming majority of drugs
entering this country cross the U.S.-Mexico border.

Indeed, in the 1990s, to the extent that the debate over building a
wall along the border got any traction, it stemmed from the war on
drugs, not a war on illegal immigration. The steel fence constructed
between San Diego and Tijuana -- which works quite well, by the way --
was built to stop drug traffickers, not gardeners.

Meanwhile, labels like "left" and "right," "liberal" and
"conservative" don't get you very far when debating the drug war, either.

For example, National Review is foursquare against the drug war
(though I dissent from my colleagues on this front). Meanwhile, the
Weekly Standard has been a staunch supporter of the drug war, even
taking hawkish positions on medical marijuana.

In 1996, NR's editors wrote that "it is our judgment that the war on
drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from
how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our
resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial and penal
procedures associated with police states."

Similar arguments -- from La Raza to Jack Kemp -- fill the air today,
with charges that immigration officials are a new "Gestapo."

There are other similarities, but for me the most interesting
similarity is the issue of futility and will. Drug-war doves claim
that you can't win the drug war because you can't defeat the laws of
supply and demand. As long as there is demand for drugs, there will be
a supply, and no acceptable amount of militarization of the drug war
will change that. This argument gets flipped on its head when it comes
to immigration. Suddenly, militarization is essential to the top
priority of cutting off supply. But the fact is, in all likelihood
your average illegal immigrant desperate to start a new life for
himself and provide for his family will be no less determined to sell
his labor as a drug dealer would be to sell his goods.

Some drug-legalization advocates hang their position on a lot of moral
preening about the absolute right of the individual to do what he
wants. But many of the same people will then argue that it is -- and
should be -- an outrageous crime to hire an illegal immigrant.

Well, conservative economic dogma considers the right to form
contracts with whomever you wish to be sacrosanct. My point here is
not to say one position is more right than the other. Drugs and
immigration are, ultimately, very different things, and it's the
differences that explain why the analogy isn't perfect.

Citizenship, sovereignty, rule of law: These things are rendered
meaningless if the distinction between legal and illegal immigration
is meaningless.

But the key similarity is important.

Most opponents of the drug war came to their position because they
consider the effort worthy in principle but ultimately futile in the
face of a more determined "enemy," and a bit silly since the gains of
winning aren't that important to them. The burgeoning war against
illegal immigration has already been preemptively surrendered by many
for roughly the same reasons.

What that says about America probably depends on what you think about
illegal immigrants or drugs.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake