And now, some interesting news from down under. The beautiful country of New Zealand is in the final process of rounding up 40 illegal immigrants (aliens? undocumented workers?) of Desi descent who entered the nation under the guise of a Catholic pilgrim group. The 40 had entered New Zealand in the run up to the Pope-sponsored World Youth Day in neighboring Australia –
About 220 Indians came to New Zealand as part of Days in the Diocese, a pre-World Youth Day event that gives pilgrims time with Catholic families and acclimatises them to the host country’s culture. For the first time, Days in the Diocese was extended beyond the host nation, with Sydney’s organisers asking New Zealand to be included.
During those days, though, 40 Indians went missing at different times in what appears to be an orchestrated attempt to stay in New Zealand.
…Parish priest Fr Peter Murphy said host families were “obviously upset” that the young people went missing, some leaving in the middle of the night - even jumping out windows.
<
p>Interestingly, the local Sikh society played a key role in the drama & in rolling up the ring –
Scamsters in New Delhi had reportedly told them they had bought the right to live in New Zealand – at around $17,000 each…[Sikh Society spokesman Daljit] Singh, who has been in contact with some of the missing Indian pilgrims, says some are as young as 16 and thought they were coming here to study.But he says it is very upsetting for all the pilgrims, as they are now realising they have not bought a new life and were cruelly swindled.
<
p>
<
table id=rp_picture_table style=”border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; margin-top: 10px; float: right; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; border-left: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0″ >
<
p class=caption-text style=”font-size: 80%; margin: 3px 5px; line-height: 110%” >Anand Satyanand, the Governor-General of New Zealand – Probably worth a blogpost at some point 
; FWIW, he happens to be Catholic.
The 39, masqueraded as Catholics while some are Muslims and Hindus, were billeted with Catholic families in Auckland on their way to the celebrations in Sydney.New Zealand Federation of Ethnic Councils’ president Pancha Narayanan said that some Bollywood movies are portraying New Zealand as an easy destination to migrate, thus giving a wrong impression.
For me, having spent a good chunk of my life in 2 states grappling with illegal alien (errr.. “undocumented immigrant”?) problems, one of the most interesting aspects of this was the crucial role played by the local (documented?) immigrant communities. Although sometimes stereotyped as turning a blind eye if not actively encouraging illegal immigration, in NZ the legal immigrant community was instead instrumental in lawfully & humanely rounding up the 40 –
[3 men] made their way to Tauranga, where they had heard there was a large Indian community and good prospects of finding work, and paid a taxi driver $550 to take them.[Sikh Society president] Manprit Singh said he had agreed to provide the men with shelter as long as they fronted up to Immigration New Zealand, and he encouraged the remaining 36 men to do the same.
Manprit Singh brought the three men to Auckland to meet officials yesterday. Daljit Singh was also at the meeting. He said the men were told they had to comply with their visas, which expires on August 5 or they will be “forcibly removed” from the country.
….A further 12 of the group that went awol have made contact with the Society in the past day and Daljit Singh said he was trying to arrange for them to meet immigration officials.
…The New Zealand Indian Central Association yesterday urged its members to help the authorities trace the remaining missing men, whom a Department of Labour spokesman said they were still trying to locate.
Some of the statements from the broader Indian community leadership are particularly fierce and it’s unlikely we’d ever see the equivalent from the leaders of LULAC –
[NZ Indian Association general secretary Veer] Khar says they are trying to stay illegally in the country and the Immigration Service should be doing all it can to catch them. He hopes immigration comes down hard on them and sends them straight back to India, saying they are damaging the reputation of all Indians in New Zealand.[Indian NewsLink Editor Venkat] Raman says it is extremely naive to think money can buy them residency in New Zealand. He says they should have known they would not be able go to a western country without proper documentation or secure employment.
I suspect for many, the reaction of the local legal immigrant community to the illegal newcomers is an interesting socio-political litmus test. At least in this case, when their loyalty to the Rule of Law in New Zealand was pitted against co-ethnic loyalty to fellow Desis…. Rule of Law won. Should, whether & to what degree this happens in other communities & countries is a crucial, if not well articulated, underlying factor in the (illegal) immigration debate world wide.
<
p>
[UPDATE] Since a bunch of the comments are interested in what I personally do (or should) believe about this case, lemme put a few simple points out there
-
I make a strong distinction between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration
-
LEGAL Immigration is GOOD–> there should be more, of all races, creeds, ethnicities, etc.
-
ILLEGAL Immigration is BAD –> there should be less, of all races, creeds, ethnicities, etc.
-
I think the “documented” vs. “undocumented” language is occasionally silly, often intentionally obfuscating, and at worst, tries to introduce a 3rd rail by casually making opponents sound racially opposed to all immigrants. The central distinction isn’t whether an immigrant carries “documents.”
-
-
Opposition to Illegal Aliens on a Rule of Law basis is radically doesn’t make you racist / classist / etc.
-
too many counter-arguments depend on blithely introducing racial / ethnic / class / “uncle tom” / etc. 3rd rails
-
I certainly have a tremendous sympathy with the plight of the individual illegal alien (not unlike the sympathy I have for stories of parents who steal to feed starving children)
-
-
If there were no positive rights with living in the US, I’d consider making ALL immigration legal
-
Given that positive rights are here to stay (and, in all likelihood, will increase), the distinction between LEGAL and ILLEGAL becomes even more material in the future
-
-
The socio-cultural pervasiveness of respect for Rule of Law is one of the primary things that makes some countries fantastic places to live and others crap…. so, I’m generally impressed with the NZ Desi community
Suki, are you really a white guy pretending to be Indian? Someone made this claim about you on an earlier thread too. It would certainly put your commenting history in a different and very negative light. I guess if you are a masquerading white guy I don’t expect you to honestly answer this question. Why have you spelled your handle name as Dillon instead of Dhillon?
The reason I use Dillon instead of Dhillon is cause I reject the caste system as Dhillon is a jatt name. I could care less about being a jatt[sorry no jatt pride for me]. My legal last name is still Dhillon[and way too much of pain to change it], but I like using Dillon here cause it does drive some other people crazy that I do that, which I kind of enjoy.
But this whole people think that I’m white is really funny. It is cause I don’t want half of the punjab to move to the west, cause living the past 6 years in the biggest punjabi community outside of India has had an effect on me and shaped my views plus some of the personnal things that I want through my life due to backwardness of punjabi culture.
This might surprise some here, but I think that Japan is country that the west should look for immigrants, plus others like South Korea, Chile and Argentina.
Yeti: Yes, there is tons of empirical proof throughout California that you are correct….facility with English and education have no bearing on success. The second generation American children of undocumented workers don’t crowd the prisons. Props to mama/papa Yeti for whelping such brilliant spawn.
Several months ago a Canadian immigration offical named brain hudson was tired of the immigration fraud out of punjab and said that Canada should look to South India for immigrants.
“Alleged comments by a Canadian visa officer, Brian Hudson in New Delhi has sparked outrage among a B.C. panel of college and university leaders who were on a visit to India in December. Mr. Hudson had said he did not understand why the heck we were recruiting in the Punjab; the state of the Punjab has the highest crime and forgery rate anywhere; the highest human-trafficking statistics in the world, and that we should be recruiting in South India;”
51 · Suki Dillon said
LOL say what? by removing a “H”, it makes it okay? why not just go for Singh? you is one crazy mofo!
i don’t think its a white guy, it is probably some Gujju guy who got shot down by a Punju girl
amitabh,
i would lay off this line of questioning–i literally never agree with Suki but i’m pretty darn sure that he is who he says he is (and i’ll not be as crass at KT and post it on the thread).
the west doesn’t actually look for immigrants anywhere. people from different countries take it upon themselves to try and move to western countries. and consequently, friends and relatives of people already settled here decide to move on too.
56 · priya said
like Germany? They certainly didn’t ‘look for’ labor. The US during the bracero years didn’t either. they just made it known that it was easy to get in.
why should we care about what some unimportant canadian office worker called brian says. what person in their right mind would want to move to a country where it’s minus 30 celsius for half the year. and whose people have so little self esteem that the government praise a book called “why i hate canadians” as being the quintessential guide to canada. the book was written by a canadian, btw.
sorry to go on on the same subject but i spent a few months in toronto for work once and i just remembered that a canadian friend of mine called canada “negative space”. it’s healthy to be a little self deprecating but this is just too much. in fact the caucasian canadians i met all had a huge inferiority complex about being canadian even though there are positive things about canada. the people from immigrant backgrounds were much more sorted out, together and down to earth. it was unbearable for me to spend time with the caucasian canadians, even though some of them were very nice people, because i hate listening to constant complaining and whining.
Europeans migrated to the Americas and Australia and inhabited 4 continents illegally. They plundered Africa and Asia and their future generations are still reaping those benefits. Illegal immigration happens from poor Bangladesh and Nepal to India and people cry in a similar tune about the passive support of Muslims for those immigrants and vote banks etc. Follow the law but don’t be anti illegal immigrant. They are the poorest of people who are looking for a better future for themselves and they have a right to do so. If we talk of a really just world, let these so called corners of prosperity demolish the artificial walls around them.
Again, you haven’t actually provided this proof, and you’re also clearly unable to read sentences longer than three words. You do a sloppy job of mixing parts of different arguments with one another to make your point, troll. I didn’t say facility with English and education have no bearing on success, I said they have less bearing on the value of a given immigrant group as a labor force depending on the circumstances (and this is self-selecting; thus you’re not going to see a bunch of MD’s come over who have no ability to speak English or at least learn quickly).
I also said that predicted “integration” is overrated as a metric for whether or not immigrants should be allowed in. Also, regarding your “point” about the prisons: second generation kids would have been raised and educated in the US, which means that your incoherent argument about immigrant education and English fluency is once again irrelevant.
Oh, and what happened to the whole sociopath point? Dropped that one pretty quick, didn’t you?
Keep it coming with the witty one-liners. I wonder if you’re like this in person.
Vinod, I see what you’re getting at with being pro-“Rule of Law,” but I think the argument is a bit too conclusory. Say I was in India during the License Raj. Would I have been wrong to, say, smuggle in VCR’s? It seems pretty clear to me that, from either a libertarian or welfarist perspective, I would be quite justified in doing so. If you accept that, then you accept that sometimes breaking the law is OK. And, if smuggling goods is sometimes OK, then in principle disobeying laws inhibiting the free movement of persons is sometimes justified as well. So, again, the invocation of “Rule of Law” really can’t do the heavy lifting you’re assigning it. Now, I suppose you could go meta and say that my smuggling of VCR’s is contributing to an environment where other, bad things are more likely to happen (theft, bribery, etc.). But, (1) that argument would need to be made out in detail, and, more importantly, (2) any such argument seems to me to fall victim to David Lyon’s (widely accepted in the mainstream) demolition of rule utilitarianism (See “Forms and LImits of Utilitarianism”). (I.e., roughly speaking, act utilitarianism is the only plausible form, so I should still perform acts (in my example, smuggling the VCR’s) that are welfare-increasing even if a “rule” (or, law) prohibits it).
Say I was in India during the License Raj. Would I have been wrong to, say, smuggle in VCR’s? It seems pretty clear to me that, from either a libertarian or welfarist perspective, I would be quite justified in doing so. If you accept that, then you accept that sometimes breaking the law is OK.
Not OK even though I lived in India during the pseudo-communist phase. Replace VCRs with AK47s. Now, there is no free market that allows aam junta (citizens) to buy these for protection. However, only a special set of folks get these instruments of motivation. The Rule of Law is important since aam junta abides by it.
63 · amaun said
You answered a question that wasn’t asked. Fail.
Rob@62 — solid considerations as always.
louie at #46
My experience is that pretty much any kind of immigrant would set us(as in USians) back on race relations. I’ve travelled a fair deal and am currently living in Europe. The kinds of incivilities I’ve seen, here and elsewhere, would be shocking back in America. Living in France and listening to them, for instance, is like a page out of Mungo Park. That said, some nationalities are better and some are worse.
I appreciate your clarifications, Vinod. However, who should be allowed to immigrate legally? Everybody? Restrict people on the basis of geographical and/or professional quotas? Allow everyone to come in as long as infrastructural and environmental capacity standards on not compromised? This is somewhat tangential to this post — as there are consequences for violating current immigration policy (unless some exceptions have already been written into the law). But it seems to me like a libertarian, in good conscience, must support free movement of all people (as long as the capacity of the host country allows it) as an ideal theory, whether or not positive rights exist (most libertarians don’t consider positive rights to be a good thing, btw).
62 · rob said
You’d be right in smuggling in the VCR, ie breaking an unjust law, but you’d still have to recognize the rule of law as socrates, thoreau, gandhi, and king did. Meaning break the law but wilfully accept punishment for doing so until the law is changed. Civil disobedience.
63 · amaun said
Rob’s argument still stands, because proliferation of AK47s among various factions of the public is not likely to be welfare enhancing. So it’s not permissible under a welfare-enhancing framework. In contrast, smuggling VCRs/babyfood is most likely welfare-enhancing, and therefore, permissible (even though it entails violating a law).
the problem is this would allow for non-libertarian nations like mexico to send their poor people to more libertarian nations thus delaying their libertarian revolution, as the poverty their system created gets exported.
libertarians believe freedom is indivisible, you cannot pick and choose, so yes ideally they would demand freedom of movement for all people, but that presupposes that all nation-states guarantee all liberal freedoms for their citizens.
70 · Manju the problem is this would allow for non-libertarian nations like mexico to send their poor people to more libertarian nations thus delaying their libertarian revolution, as the poverty their system created gets exported.
libertarians believe freedom is indivisible, you cannot pick and choose, so yes ideally they would demand freedom of movement for all people, but that presupposes that all nation-states guarantee all liberal freedoms for their citizens.
Wait, so you’re saying that if 99 countries are libertarian, and one isn’t, it’s precisely that non-libertarian society’s citizens who should have restrictions placed on their movement? That seems counter-intuitive.
there is room in civil disobedience theory for revolution though. if you believe that the system is fundamentally wrong you don’t have to accept punishment for breaking the law. MLK, however, believed the American system fundamentally good, but contradictory, thus he was not a revolutionary and therefore followed thoureau’s advice vis a vis taxes and slavery…displaying his fundamental respect for the system.
Gandhi, interestingly, was a revolutionary but still choose civil disobedience. socrates was even more radical, accepting the punishment of death rather than violate the principle of rule of law. Rand would clearly disapprove of that.
71 · rob said
Yes. the non-libertarian rulers don’t get to pick the one freedom that happens to benefit their oligarchy. Its up to the free nation. we may treat them like cubans (let them come here!) but if they pull a Mariel Boatlift the libertarian nation reseves the right to restrict their movement.
71 · rob said
Which comes down to my belief that most of today’s libertarians just want to make excuses to build a system that will allow them to retain and enjoy the fruits of their social position and wealth, without actually contributing back.
70 · Manju said
i love how the top priority for all libertarians is free movement of capital, even though capital regimes aren’t uniformly liberalized the world over nor do we see a uniformly free-trade promoting policies. when we talk of people, the rule of law is invoked as real persons fester in a machete controlled banana republics. perhaps, if libertarians loved people as much as money, they might win over some converts. [end rant] manju, in response to #70, I did say that as an ‘ideal theory’ must endorse free movement of people; just like in an ideal world, communists would want a stateless society.
and meanwhile, here is a working paper from philosopher Nicole Hassoun, ‘Why Libertarians Should Be Welfare Liberals?’ She is asking for comments, and her brief description of her argument is nice.
74 · glibertarians said
well, when you argue politics via motives you’re always going to assign bad faith to your ideological enemies, allowing you to disregard their argument s in favor of attacking their motives.
this is one of the reasons marxism failed.
72 · Manju said
Manju, is there any excuse that you’ll find not to pay taxes? 🙂 Chanelling Thoreau, Gandhi, and MLK to the capitalistic dark side is a new low. You may keep Ms. Rand, however.
75 · MFA said
well, wasn’t that my argument. you’re justified in withhold otherwise libertarian principle (freedom of movement, free trade) if regimes aren’t uniformly liberalized.
That doesn’t mean you necessarily withhold, as you may want a gradual revolution…but you can justify it within the libertarian framework.
76 · Manju said
i don’t need to attribute motives. the rampant inconsistencies damn them.
74 · glibertarians said
Also, within the context we are speaking this criticism is really misplaced. Big business and the ruling elite in america clearly benefit from illegal immigration, as a larger labor supply obviously leads to lower wages not to mention what would we all do without maria taking care of the household duties.
so, assuming the libertarian is wealthy, they are really acting on principle if they are opposed to illegal immigration. but if the libertarian is a laborer, you then may have a point.
77 · MFA said
Hey…didn’t thoreau refuse to pay taxes (b/c he didn’t want to supposrt slavery0?
78 · Manju said
true, i’m only chiming in with glibertarians at #74, that most of today’s libertarians are not consistent within domains, and thus, appear/are merely opportunistic. why not support a gradualist policy over many domains? why only emphasize markets and capital regimes? and leave out people and third world trade policy? i’m actually very interested in any genuine arguments made by libertarian scholars in the immigration debates (should you have any recommendations). most of the work i’ve seen is only done by either applied ethicists. and yes, lou dobbs.
79 · glibertarians said
Well, if you read the original libertarians, classic liberals, they where less concerned with philosophical consistency. modern libertarianism has been reduced to debates regarding whether or not nude dancing is a form of free speech, and should thus enjoy first ammedment protection. but the enlightenment guys really wanted a system that would work. that’s probably why their revolution has lasted for so long while other sit in the dustbin of history.
81 · Manju said
Yes, if you didn’t pay taxes until the government opened its borders and abandoned trade protectionism, I’d support you. However, Manju, you strike me as a man who would have more in common with Thoreau’s grandfather than Thoreau himself 🙂
82 · MFA said
Hey, what world ore you living in? we have de facto open borders. big biz, poor mexicans, the mexican oligarchy, libertarians, bush, the WSJ, and the american elite are all in cahoots to let as many poor people in as possible. we may curtail it a bit as one must be careful to not upset the natives too much, but otherwise, open borders it is.
84 · MFA said
Hey, I haven’t expresssed any opinion on illegal immigration, other than to point out that controlling borders is not necessarily contradictory to classic liberalism,as it is to anarcho-liberetarianism. but i am pro nude dancing.
84 · MFA said
But, I can’t argue with that.
no offence taken but why is it ridiculous to oppose illegal immigrants. I am curious to understand your logic in greater depth. For many immigrants a big reason to move to countries like Oz / Usa is overcome ‘jungle law’ of a semi-failed state like India. If someone is an illegal immigrant that person clearly cant understand the concept of “Rule of Law”. The Law may be an ass but as long as it is the law – it behoves one to follow it. If you dont to play by the rules dont come here. I certainly dont want neighbours who are illegals. I know becoming a legal migrant in the USA is hard but it is relatively easy in Australia / NZ. Takes way less time and less paperwork. A state that deeply upets Australia(ns) is Singapore with its corporal punishment esp for Drugs. But I say If you dont want to follow the rules – dont go there.
Word. Many Indians in the US had someone they can reach out to if they get hassled: IAS/IPS officer relatives, MLA uncleji, judge . So India “works” for them. I think it takes having the govt steal your land, the police bribed to harass you and having no recourse to understand why you don’t want certain elements of the desh following you here.
88 · melbourne desi said
In the state of Virginia, it is illegal to make jam and sell it to your friends. It is also illegal to sell unpasteurized dairy products. Why even the mixing of spirits, wine and beer is prohibited (hello misdemeanor sangria consumption!) Should I worry about ‘rule of law’ when it comes to these utterly ridiculous examples?
Say MB, you were traveling to Bali for a spot of vacation. They ‘randomly’ open your bag at the airport and discover 8 kilos of ganja, cocaine, heroin etc. The law of the land in Indonesia is heavy penalties (including death) for simple possession. Will you take your 20 years in Kerobokan singing the praises of the ‘rule of law’?
Nayagan, you’re conflating silly laws with unjust ones. Either way, MLK would say, sell the jam, drink the sangia, then take your punishment:
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
90 Nayagan said
Schapelle Corby case. However, in that case it was 4kg not 8. Either way, if you knowingly take drugs into any south-east asian nation, you’re a bit of a tool, and I would say live with the consequences. We (those living in Australia) get told repeatedly, by our travel agents, by DFAT, by the airlines and even before we land (although that’s a bit of a pointless exercise) that many ASEAN member countries have a tough policy on drugs. So if you disregard all that advice and still walk in with drugs on you, then sorry mate, you’re a bit of a dill. What I always do is take photographs the night before travelling of all my bags, just in case. Does that sound a bit paranoid?
OMFG! the FIRST time i see the nz flag on sm and it turns into this…
could we cover that whole ‘our governor general is indo-fijian’ again please? or the cute new movie apron springs which was created by a samoan-indian cultural collaboration?
grrrr
If it bothers you so much, you should change the law or lobby to get it changed.
if you are talking about the Bali drug dealers from Australia – I have no sympathy for them. Serves them right. Let them rot /die in jail. In Oz such scum would be set free after 3-5 years.
If I were innocent, I would fight tooth and nail to be free. If not, well that is life.
Btw bad example – Indonesia is not a bastion of rule of law – on the contrary.
yes that is pretty amazing. Although purely ceremonial. Btw the Governor General for Victoria is a Sri Lankan – i think a burgher
90 · Nayagan said
So, do away with all laws? I don’t get your argument.
90
Anarcho-MFAs would do well to consider the fate of Piggy in Lord of the Flies
ANARCHO-MFAs?!?!?!?
That is just awesome. I love it. I’m not even being sarcastic. LOL!
97 · louiecypher said
just so we clear, the MFA on this board is (clearly) supporting liberal democracy and real free trade. Anarchism is usually associated with a brand of libertarianism. But of course your MFAphobia comes in the way of reading. And while anarcho-MFAs might be undoubtedly awesome, I’m sadly not cool enough to be one.
88 · melbourne desi said
Uh, illegal immigrants are sometimes forced to move because of the lawlessness, rampant crime, and severe economic dysfunction prevailing in their own societies. The fact that are forced to migrate illegally does not reflect a contempt of law, but lousy luck.