Immigrants Are Not Miracle Workers Who Can Fix Any Broken Economy

Lessons from Detroit, Baltimore, and other struggling cities

(Page 2 of 2)

When they do, a city’s population loss is reversed rather quickly as immigrants move in to capture the openings left by departing residents. A 2003 Brookings Institution study found that five of six metropolitan areas, including New York, with the biggest exodus of residents in the 1990s also had the largest influx of foreigners. By contrast, Rust Belt cities such as Detroit have experienced only outflows since the 1960s.

Why? New Yorkers were mostly leaving for greener pastures elsewhere, while Detroit’s residents are mostly fleeing to escape a lack of opportunities.

Kaufman argues that a relevant experience for Detroit and Baltimore isn’t in New York, but in Israel’s development-town experiment in the 1950s and 1960s. The Israeli government tried to settle newcomers from North Africa, Yemen and Romania in Galilee and the southern part of the country to ease crowding in the cities and coastal regions. It offered big incentives to the new residents in hopes that they would stay and flourish. But the efforts mostly didn’t pan out, and the immigrants left to join their communities elsewhere.

It turns out, immigrants aren’t pioneers whose survival depends on conquering an inhospitable frontier. Yes, they can put up with far greater hardship than the native-born, but they aren’t clueless ingenues who are easily seduced. They have word- of-mouth networks that alert them to places that offer them the best economic and social fit, making it difficult to plunk them anywhere and expect results.

So what should Detroit, Baltimore, and other struggling cities do to become more attractive to immigrants? Offer them a decent quality of life at an affordable price. This means improving schools, tackling crime, creating an entrepreneur- friendly climate and keeping taxes reasonable.

In short, fix the economic engine first.

This column originally appeared in Bloomberg View.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    This

    They have word- of-mouth networks that alert them to places that offer them the best economic and social fit,

    probably goes a lot farther in explaining this

    He found that wherever there was economic growth, there was immigration, and wherever there was immigration, there was economic growth.

    than any alleged cause and effect relationship.

    If immigration created prosperity, the US and most of Europe should be experiencing an economic boom right now.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If immigration created prosperity, the US and most of Europe should be experiencing an economic boom right now.

    And compared to countries experiencing a brain drain, we are.

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    Compared to those countries, we always were. Brain drain, my ass.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Are you actually making an argument here, because, if you are, it's not an informed one.

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    You stated that compared to the countries experiencing "brain drain", the US and Europe were experiencing an economic boom. I'd like to know which countries those are, given that compared to the rest of the world, the US and Europe have been an economic powerhouse for centuries. Given that reality, I submit that any brains being drained have a negligible effect on the prosperity of either the donor or receiving countries.

  • ||

    You think importing educated laborers is a drain on a domestic economy?

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    Where did I say that? Quote me.

  • ||

    Okay:

    "I submit that any brains being drained have a negligible effect on the prosperity of either the donor or receiving countries."

  • ||

  • ||

    If immigration created prosperity, the US and most of Europe should be experiencing an economic boom right now.
    Compared to those countries, we always were.

    Hmmm....

    Doesn't this just reinforce the idea that immigration can affect economic prosperity? We've had more immigration than other places for years, and we've been much more economically prosperous for years. This includes, as you concede, RIGHT NOW, during a recession.

  • Bedonkedonk||

    Ah yes, that always popular false cause-effect tie-in.

    Two can play at that game:

    100% of car accidents were caused by people who had consumed H2O in the last 24 hours.
    Therefore, drinking water causes car accidents.

    Legislate accordingly.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Um...dude?

    Labor is a resource. You can't say it isn't.

    If having more and cheaper labor available is a drag on economic growth, then China must have had the slowest growing economy in the world over the last 20 years.

  • ||

    Chrysi Avgi = Golden Dawn

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    China has had a corner on the cheap labor market for something like 5000 years.

    Perhaps you'd like to account for their economy for the other 4980 of them?

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you've got statistics to show that labor wasn't a resource until 20 years ago, I'd like to take a look at it.

    In the meantime, when somebody says:

    "If immigration created prosperity, the US and most of Europe should be experiencing an economic boom right now."

    The correct response is:

    "If having more and cheaper labor available is a drag on economic growth, then China must have had the slowest growing economy in the world over the last 20 years."

    Personally, I suspect China being overrun by colonial powers (anti-capitalistic) may have been holding them back. And then being overrun by the Japanese (anti-capitalistic) may have held them back. And then embracing communism (anti-capitalistic), that may have been holding them back, too!

    Embracing capitalism? That seems to have done the trick!

    Putting restrictions on the flow of a resource like labor (anti-capitalistic)? I got a feeling that's not about to help our economy any more than being anti-capitalistic helped theirs.

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    If you've got statistics to show that labor wasn't a resource until 20 years ago, I'd like to take a look at it.

    Problem is, I said exactly the opposite - they've had plenty of that particular resource for millennia, in fact about a third of the worlds supply. Somehow, their economy hasn't developed in proportion to their labor supply.

    Personally, I suspect China being overrun by colonial powers (anti-capitalistic) may have been holding them back. And then being overrun by the Japanese (anti-capitalistic) may have held them back. And then embracing communism (anti-capitalistic), that may have been holding them back, too!

    Ok, let me get this straight - China was held back due to being overrun by anti-capitalistic powers - who, strangely enough, were doing quite well for themselves, anti-capitalistic notwithstanding?

    Putting restrictions on the flow of a resource like labor (anti-capitalistic)? I got a feeling that's not about to help our economy any more than being anti-capitalistic helped theirs.

    Currently we have an unemployment rate of 8.8%. Exactly which resources are we lacking such that we need to import them? Be specific. Vague meanderings about "entrepreneurship" don't cut it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Problem is, I said exactly the opposite - they've had plenty of that particular resource for millennia, in fact about a third of the worlds supply. Somehow, their economy hasn't developed in proportion to their labor supply.

    You mean since the industrial revolution, right? Circa 1840?

    The British won the First Opium War in 1840. Imperialism pretty much dominated China until the Japanese invaded Manchuria. The communists dominated after that...

    If China wasn't prosperous since 1840, it wasn't because they had too much labor. It was becasue they didn't have enough capitalism.

    Incidentally, I haven't heard anyone argue persuasively that Europe's economic problems are somehow immigration related.

    Their banks made too many shitty loans. Their governments spent more than they could take in or borrow. Their governments were already taking such a huge chunk of the economy, it starved the economy off...

    None of that had anything to do with immigration.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Currently we have an unemployment rate of 8.8%. Exactly which resources are we lacking such that we need to import them? Be specific. Vague meanderings about "entrepreneurship" don't cut it.

    There are lots of benefits. Among them, immigration helps keep wages for unskilled labor low. Single-moms depend on immigrant labor for daycare. Elderly people depend on immigrant labor for doing yard work, and people hire immigrants to help watch and take care of their elderly parents. These are things people couldn't afford otherwise--if the labor wasn't so cheap.

    There are probably millions of women out there who would have to stay at home with the kids--instead of work--if it weren't for immigrant child care. Those women are productive members of society--and they don't owe you anything.

    Oh, and for those people out there who can't compete with cheap immigrant labor? You should stop snorting so much crank, or you shouldn't have gotten convicted for that felony. ...cause anybody that can't compete with people who typically only have an 8th grade education and can't speak English? Are people for whom I have very little sympathy.

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    That's some fancy tap-dancing there, but you still didn't answer the question. Specifically - how many chemists do we need that aren't available domestically? How many fruit-pickers? How many software developers? How many yard laborers? How many child care professionals?

    You won't answer that because you can't. You claim there are "a lot of benefits", but you can't back up a damn one of them with any specifics. All you have is the typical libertarian black box labeled "Here a miracle occurs".

    You'll excuse me if I'm not convinced.

  • ||

    So unemployment is equally distributed among all professions/skills?

    Again, stop masturbating to Hitler and use your brain.

  • ||

    Oh wait, my mistake, I was assuming you have a brain. You probably sent it to the gas chamber.

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    I never said any such thing. In fact, I requested specifics - which professions/skills are we domestically lacking such that we need to import them? Numbers, please.

    *Hitler rant and crickets chirping forthcoming*

  • ||

    No you merely implied it by saying that we have unemployed workers and therefore don't need other workers.

    And I think you're stuck in the '40s mindset. We don't "import" immigrants in cattle cars, dude. They import themselves because we have jobs they need.

    You're so fucking retarded you don't get that there is no such thing as a need to import immigrants. Immigration is a fluid system whose supply and demand can't be controlled, just like any other market.

    Now fuck off, Golden Dawn Nazi fuck.

  • Chupacabra||

    Holy fuck, you're ignorant.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Specifically - how many chemists do we need that aren't available domestically? How many fruit-pickers? How many software developers? How many yard laborers? How many child care professionals?

    You're starting to sound like a central planner.

    Employment is a marginal thing. If companies prefer to hire one person over another, they do it for whatever reason they see fit. It doesn't matter what I think about it. Each of us should be free to choose what we think is in our best interests. That goes for single working-mothers who need childcare, too! If they're out there looking for more immigrants to hire, then we still need more immigrants. If there are people out there looking to hire someone, but they can't find any Americans who are willing to work that cheap, then we need more immigrants.

    It's not up to me or you to decide how much is enough for everybody else. I certainly don't need the government to make such choices for me. If I'd rather pay more and hire some native born American, that's up to me, too. Just like it's the native born American's choice not to work at child care for as cheap as immigrants choose to do.

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    If companies prefer to hire one person over another, they do it for whatever reason they see fit. It doesn't matter what I think about it. Each of us should be free to choose what we think is in our best interests.

    Do I need to remind you that in the 1960's, companies found it to be in their best interest to dispose of industrial waste in public waterways, such that Lake Erie was at one point declared a fire hazard?

    And it was in their best interest - but clearly not in the interest of the public at large.

    When your "best interests" have consequences that impact others besides yourself, then yes, those interests are legitimate candidates to be addressed by public policy, or "central planing" as you care to call it.

    Clearly, immigration has impacts beyond the benefit of cheap labor to employers.

  • ||

    Clearly it's in the public interest for you Neo-Nazi fucks to jump off the nearest skyscraper. I guess by your argument we should enforce that by law.

  • ||

    You heard it here folks, immigrants are like pollution, according to a fascist fuckstick.

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    I think the public can decide for itself what it finds in it's interest. Between Neo-Nazis and mass immigration, which do you think the public is more concerned about? Why the bug up your ass about the Neo-Nazis, anyway? Afraid they've got your number, or what?

  • ||

    You're right, no one should be concerned about you insignificant little retards. That being said, ending your lives would STILL be a greater public good than stopping any number of immigrants from entering the country. You fascist fucks are a tony but very loud stain on humanity.

  • General Butt Naked||

  • General Butt Naked||

    You fascist fucks are a tony but very loud stain on humanity.

    Typo, but funny. And true.

    NeoNazis and their ilk have a progressive streak a mile wide.

  • ||

    Yes, where have I heard this "for the public good argument before...?

  • sloopyinca||

    NeoNazis and their ilk have a progressive streak a mile wide.

    They share a lot of traits: population control, centralized economy, eugenics, racially motivated laws, regressive taxation, stripping of individual rights for the collective "good", redistributive fiscal policy, etc...

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    I'm not sure why. Given your rationale that economic concerns trump any other public interest, you might want to keep in mind that the Nazis did more for Germany's economy than libertarians have ever done for anyone's. If were gonna vote one of them off the island....

  • sloopyinca||

    OK, now I know you're a troll...or the most ignorant person in the world.

    Care to link some data to support that statement? I'll happily wait because I know you're just not going to find it. Any positive growth of the German economy was based on preparing for war, and that war ultimately destroyed their entire nation. Yeah, they built roads, but those roads didn't last two fucking decades, dumbshit.

  • ||

    FREEDOM trumps any "public interest" which is really just code for someone's agenda. In this case it's a fascist little shit's desire to keep America white.

  • sloopyinca||

    In this case it's a fascist trolling little shit's desire to keep America white fuck up this thread.

    FIFY.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The Nazis did more for Germany's economy than libertarians have ever done for anyone's.

    Libertarians are rabid capitalists, Buddy Ro!

    "Chrysi Avgi" is a fascist publication in Europe, isn't it?

  • ||

    It's the name of the Golden Dawn party.

  • sloopyinca||

    Well, somebody needs to tell Mr Golden Dawn that he doesn't have a fucking clue how businesses operate.

    I'll tell him. Hey Mr Golden Dawn, you don't have a fucking clue how businesses operate. Your foreign policy ideas are based on protectionism, bigotry and insane outdated and disproved theories. You are a caricature of a tired argument and the sooner you suck-start a 12-gauge, the better off society would be.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's really f'd up!

  • Ken Shultz||

    I meant calling himself "Golden Dawn" is really f'd up.

    That's worse than BoneLacko.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It's just Greek Mary.

  • 1stworlder||

    The nazis where socialists like obama. They where for
    Higher taxes, universal health care, gun control(for non party members), and redistribution of wealth along racial lines. Hitler was born in a different nation than he was elected to rule in, sound familiar?

  • ||

    Do I need to remind you that in the 1960's, companies found it to be in their best interest to dispose of industrial waste in public waterways, such that Lake Erie was at one point declared a fire hazard?

    Which has WHAT to do with hiring? Oh wait, it has NOTHING to do with hiring. Unimpeded hiring practices /=/ uncompensated property damage. Nice try in derailing the conversation though.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Well this is our fundamental disagreement then.

    If libertarianism is about anything, it's about people being free to make choices for themselves.

    If companies in the 1960s used to dump industrial waste into a river, that was wrong because they were forcing their own choices on other people who used that river. Those other people were not free to make those choices for themselves.

    If you think when someone hires an immigrant, it somehow takes your freedom of choice away from you, then you need to make your case in those terms to libertarians. Because the idea that you should be free to impose your choices on the rest of us by way of elected politicians represents everything libertarians are basically against.

    People should be free to make their own choices on marijuana.

    People should be free to make their own choices about bailing out Wall Street.

    People should be free to make their own choices about whether to buy health insurance.

    People should be free to make their own choices about whether to hire an immigrant.

    People should generally be free to make their own choices--and the only time that isn't true? Is when your choice infringes on my ability to make my own free choice.

  • ||

    These are things people couldn't afford otherwise--if the labor wasn't so cheap.

    Which brings up the related issue of labor price floors installed by the government which prevent native people who do not want to break the law from competing on a price basis, and which artificially inflate the price of every consumer good in which labor is an input (which is to say, all consumer goods), distorting the price of labor. The imbalance created by the government is a big part of what makes immigrant labor more attractive in the first place. Do away with price floors and any form of welfare benefit for immigrants and you could have open immigration that would be universally advantageous.

  • ||

    (That final sentence, btw, describing with a fair degree of accuracy the way we did immigration in the United States for about 150 years)

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, it worked just fine for a long time.

    Problem was that our government and economy became increasingly socialized.

    The more people are forced to pay for each other, the picky they get about who they're being forced to pay for...

    Me? Finding out that the guy that mugged me was a native born American really doesn't make me feel any better about getting mugged. But a lot of people have come to imagine that they're entitled to all sorts of my money--just because they're American citizens. ...and they don't want any immigrants coming here and taking away from the portion of my assets and income they imagine all lazy ass, native-born Americans are entitled to.

    Yeah, back when we were less socialized, people were a lot more tolerant of immigration.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    China has had a corner on the cheap labor market for something like 5000 years.

    Perhaps you'd like to account for their economy for the other 4980 of them?

    You're just trolling. You can't be that ignorant of Chinese history....can you?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There's bad immigration policies and then there's BAD immigration policies. I mean, lengthy detention followed by deportation is one thing, but sending immigrants to Cleveland, Baltimore and Detroit is something else entirely. That's fucking cruel.

  • ||

    I agree that immigration should be a good thing. I really think we should start with those first two flight attendants.

  • ||

    Yes, I have an immigration plan for them. In my pants.

  • ||

    Sanda Kaufman, a professor of planning, policy and public administration

    Regardless of the quality of her work, it's very disturbing that there is a professorial position based entirely around how to have government control society.

  • ||

    a professorial position based entirely around how to have government control society.

    Don't we just call that "the presidency" now?

  • ||

    Well, he certainly LOVES his "teachable moments", but he probably needs to do more research.

  • Lisa||

    I'd rather import productive educated people than promote amnesty for new welfare recipients and criminals.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Racist.

  • Ken Shultz||

    As far as welfare recipients go, immigrants are only a fraction of the problem. We can clamp down on welfare without bashing immigrants, can't we?

    Hell, if Mexico would trade us three immigrants for every American born government employee we sent there? I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

    Oh, and by the way, studies have shown again and again that newly arrived immigrants--including those from Mexico--actually commit crimes at a lower rate than native born Americans.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/irb/irb_june2010.pdf

    Damn reality! Always gettin' in the way of the narrative.

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    Damn reality! Always gettin' in the way of the narrative.

    Yes, doesn't it?

  • Ken Shultz||

    So, do you have something showing that immigrants are disproportionately "criminals"?

    Or only something questioning whether the criminality of immigrants is entirely clear cut?

  • ||

    Yes, he's got Mein Kampf!

    Seriously, why are you wasting time arguing with a Neo-Nazi?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Incidentally, the Southern Poverty Law Center seems to think the website you linked to belongs to an organization that is everything just short of a hate group:

    "CIS was started in 1985 by a Michigan ophthalmologist named John Tanton — a man known for his racist statements about Latinos, his decades-long flirtation with white nationalists and Holocaust deniers, and his publication of ugly racist materials."

    http://tinyurl.com/3bzajtg

    I'm not saying their statistics are wrong. Statistics are what they are--no matter who cites them. But, generally speaking, before I start dismissing study after study showing that immigrants are MUCH less likely to commit crimes than native born Americans?

    I need something more than a link to a site that the SPLC...um...has a lot to say about.

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    Apparently the SPLC doesn't think much of libertarians, either.

    Congratulations. You've disqualified your own argument.

  • ||

    Libertarians are Neo-Confederates?

    Fuck off you little Nazi shit.

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    Ron Paul is a neo-confederate?

    Fuck off, yourself.

  • ||

    Who the fuck said that?

    God you Neo-Nazis are dumber than I thought.

  • ||

    Maybe if you fucks stopped masturbating to a picture of Hitler and picked up a book you'd be able to comprehend simple sentences.

  • Smaerd Ni||

    Maybe if Hitler won the war, we'd have a lot more of this

    http://www.smh.com.au/travel/a.....207rt.html

    and a lot less of this

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Vq_e2Z1ug

  • ||

    Nah you'd probably be killed for being retarded.

  • Ken Shultz||

    1) I didn't say those stats were wrong becasue of where they came from. I said I need more than what you linked to before I dismiss the studies I cited.

    2) The study I cited didn't come from the Cato Institute.

    in California, U.S.-born men
    have an institutionalization rate that is 10
    times higher than that of foreign-born
    men (4.2 percent vs. 0.42 percent). And
    when we compare foreign-born men to
    U.S.-born men with similar age and education levels, these difference
    become even greater,” according to research by economists
    Kristin F. Butcher (Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago)
    and Anne Morrison Piehl (Rutgers University and the
    National Bureau of Economic Research).
    "

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/irb/irb_june2010.pdf

    I could be wrong, but I doubt the SLPC lists the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago or Rutgers University's National Bureau of Economic Research as a hate group.

  • ||

    I could be wrong, but I doubt the SLPC lists the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago or Rutgers University's National Bureau of Economic Research as a hate group.

    Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Seriously, you don't want to be bolstering your arguments with cites from the SPLC given their reflexive categorization of any organization even tangentially related to states' rights, individual liberty, 2nd Amendment, militia rights or anti-government as "hate groups". If an SPLC rep interviewed any of us who frequent Reason for half an hour we'd be on their watch list.

  • sloopyinca||

    If an SPLC rep interviewed any of us who frequent Reason for half an hour we'd be on their watch list.

    You mean we're not already?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Maybe they go overboard sometimes.

    Maybe sometimes they're right.

    I wasn't disqualifying the stats because of their source anyway.

    I was just askin' for another--maybe better--source of those stats.

    You'll notice there were none forthcoming.

  • ||

    It's original research, but there's a bibliography. That's where you want to go if you want to criticize the legitimacy of the conclusions.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    As far as welfare recipients go, immigrants are only a fraction of the problem.

    So I take it that you were a big supporter of prop 187.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Just take it that I don't really differentiate between immigrant parasites and native born parasites--and I happen to know that native born parasites are a much bigger problem than immigrants.

    Seriously, there isn't anything about being an American citizen that makes anyone entitled to help themselves to my assets. And I don't care about who robs me--native born Americans or immigrants--so much as I don't get robbed.

    We can slash welfare. We can get rid of Medicaid--and come up with something better. No need to make it about immigrants or native-born. We can just make it about freeloaders and non-freeloaders and actually address the problem without letting the native born, anti-immigrant slackers think that being an American entitles them to anything but the right to vote.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Except that 187 was an attempt to begin rolling back welfare benefits.

    Doing that has to start somewhere and politically it's easiest to do so with illegal immigrants.

    And yet from your response I deduce that you opposed it.

    So is it fair to say that you personally value unrestricted immigration more than rolling back welfare programs?

    Because that's what it looks like to me.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And yes I agree that we should end parasitism but I don't get the point that we have to keep adding more parasites until we end it completely.

  • sloopyinca||

    We need to end parisitism, period. Let's not be bigoted in how we approach it. Cut every single person off at the same time.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'll vote for that.

    When do you think it will be on the ballot?

  • Ken Shultz||

    So is it fair to say that you personally value unrestricted immigration more than rolling back welfare programs?

    Winning on Prop 187 all but destroyed the Republican Party in California. It destroyed Pete Wilson, and it made it so the only Republican who could get in the governor's mansion afterwards was himself an immigrant.

    If there's anything that set reforming welfare programs, etc. further back in California than Prop 187 winning, I don't know what it is.

    We may never get rid of welfare programs, Medicaid, etc., so long as our efforts to do so are perceived as targeting whatever minority. And by starting off reform by targeting a minority population, Prop 187 made it sure that our efforts for reform would never get anywhere. Now it seems like we can't even propose cutting those programs at all without being associated with racism and what they were trying to do with Prop 187.

    Anyway, it's perfectly possible to be both in favor of privatizing schools, for example, and against public schools discriminating against people. And, once again, in case it didn't sink in the first time, it's not like I should have to pay for the children of native born Americans to go to school either.

    There ain't nothin' about being a native born American citizen that entitles you to a free lunch on my dime.

  • 1stworlder||

    You forgot the word african in front of americans. If chicago was removed from the state of IL, the state would have the same murder rate as Finnland.

  • 1stworlder||

    That study would only be true if it had an accurate number for illegal aliens.

  • ||

    article is complete rubbish... yet again conflating illegal and legal immigration...

    e.g.

    "Officials are carrying out policies aimed at attracting foreigners in hopes that their energy and drive will reverse decades of population losses and set the stage for a revival."

    and

    "Such thinking is a breath of fresh air—and the polar opposite—of the restrictionist rage that has led Arizona and other states to adopt draconian tactics to chase away such people"

    what restrictionist rage is aimed to drive FOREIGNERS away,to "chase them away' in arizona and other states?

    none

    the "rage" is to drive away those who entered UNLAWFULLY.

    one can , for example, greater desire increased "foreigners" and immigratio, while also wanting "draconian" enforcement of laws against ILLEGAL immigration

    i personally think ARizona's laws ARE totally ridiculous and fucked up. but that's tangential

    reason completely conflates two completely different things

    1) foreigners
    2) illegal immigrants

    (2) is a subset of (1). i have seen no evidence that arizona is attempting to quell (1), only (2)

    really, this is just craptastic rubbish. it attempts to paint those who are for harsher border enforcement and/or more rigorous enforcement of our laws against entering and staying illegally as the same as those who are or would be against "foreigners" without distinguishing whether those foreigner were those who met the criteria and went through the process for entry

    complete and utter crap

  • ||

    Yeah what about racial profiling and "your papers please" would scare legal immigrants away?

    HERP DERP

  • ||

    non responsiveness noted.

    noted also that foreigners come from all races

    the article commits the common fallacy. it is the EXACT same fallacy the left uses against those of us who are against racial profiling, both on an impact and a process basis.

    if reason can't be honest in terminology vis a vis illegal immigration, i will continue to call them out

    the distinction here is i am 100% AGAINST what arizona is doing. but i will not stoop so low as to mischaracterize it. that's what ideologues do.

  • ||

    You're 100% against what Arizona is doing but Reason is wrong that it would scare away legal immigrants? So why are you against it?

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    I'm 100% in favor of what Arizona is doing, and if it scares away legal immigrants, tough shit. A country exists for the benefit of it's citizens, not aspiring immigrants. If they don't like the laws, they're perfectly welcome to stay home.

  • ||

    Yes, we already know you're a Nazi scumbag. Thank you for the redundant info.

  • ||

    A country exists for the benefit of it's citizens, not aspiring immigrants.

    A country is just a group of people within a certain self-defined geographic area. What you're referring to is a government.

    A government should exist to protect the RIGHTS of the people who live within the country, and not to insulate them from mean ol' competition.

  • sloopyinca||

    Well said.

  • ||

    One of the few things I despise more than progressive fucks (especially ones masquerading as Patriots/libertarians) and anal rapists is fascists. If you're real, fucking drop dead.

  • ||

    What do you have against analrapists?

  • sloopyinca||

    Well, all I have against the Analrapists is that I play them in the Reason H(ampersand)R You Didn't Build That Fantasy Football League this week. And even then I can't hate them because they are my wife's team.

    So after this week, I'll be cheering on the analrapists as they try to climb on top of the league, but I'll obviously hope they stay behind me.

    No wait, that doesn't sound quite right.

  • ||

    I think you should name your league Ampersand in honor of our fallen comrade -- the valarous ampersand, whose brutal obliteration shall be long remembered in archives of the Jedi Order.

  • sloopyinca||

    I thought about it, but the whole "You Didn't Build That" meme was a pretty hot commodity when I put the second league together.

    And I have it on good authority that the ampersand will be making a comeback here very soon. I'd hate to date myself by naming our FFL league after something that isn't dead any longer.

    Wait a minute, does that mean the ampersands will be zombie ampersands when they come back from the dead? Or will they be vampire ampersands...sucking the life out of comments?

    By the way, did you all know Dunphy lives the Twilight series of movies and books? He said he's read them all multiple times...ditto watching the movies.

    And that motherfucker is walking the streets with a badge and a gun.

  • ||

    No shit? Because I felt like castrating myself with a katana after about 30 minutes of that shit-awful first movie in order to lessen my agony. May God condemn me to eternal hellfire if I ever take movie recommendations from my friend's sister ever again.

    Seriously, though, the only cop I trust is my IA buddy, and Dunphy would really, really hate to hear what his views on modern policing are.

  • ||

    I like the Twilight books. I haven't seen the movies though. In general, movie adaptations aren't as good as books. The Eragon book? I liked. The movie? Looked so bad from trailers that I never bothered to go to the theater.

  • Barfman||

    *barf*

  • ||

    noted also that foreigners come from all races

    Which immigration-status-checking policies don't have the nuance to address, since the only thing those officers are likely to be judging it on is looks and hispanic accent. That means people with those traits will be targeted regardless of their likelihood to be illegal immigrants. There are tons of people now who were born here that look hispanic AND have hispanic accents.

    the article commits the common fallacy. it is the EXACT same fallacy the left uses against those of us who are against racial profiling, both on an impact and a process basis.

    if reason can't be honest in terminology vis a vis illegal immigration, i will continue to call them out

    Except Reason has never said that everyone who's against illegal immigration is against immigration period. Please define "restrictionist" for me. Because to me, it certainly DOES define a group of people who
    1) dislike any immigration that isn't "approved" by our government (which is the only real distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigration), and
    2) are against or ignore the idea of reforming the immigration system. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't hear these people say they want immigration reform so foreigners can more easily come here legally. I would certainly call that "restrictionist".

  • ||

    Which immigration-status-checking policies don't have the nuance to address, since the only thing those officers are likely to be judging it on is looks and hispanic accent.

    Sounds super scary. Fortunately enough, the law doesn't empower police officers to do anything of the kind. It only gives cops the authority to check immigration status in the course of an unrelated stop for some other violation. The "papers please" argument always was, and still remains, utter and complete bullshit. Whether or not you agree with the Arizona law, Dunphy is right in that you shouldn't willfully misconstrue it to fit your agenda.

    Except Reason has never said that everyone who's against illegal immigration is against immigration period.

    It's a pretty solid inference given the fact that no differentiation is ever made between the two. And then when you poke into the comment section and you have folks like heller scream "NAZI! FASCIST! RACIST!" at anyone whose immigration stance doesn't consist of installing a red carpet at the Rio Grande, the point certainly comes across.

  • ||

    any immigration that isn't "approved" by our government (which is the only real distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigration)

    Call me crazy, but one of the few things I'd actually kind of like to have the government doing is "approving" who comes into the country. Just on the off chance that anybody with anything less than 100% pure intentions ever thought about making a visit. Maybe with some drug resistant tuberculosis, or maybe with some 12 year old girls in their trunk, or maybe with a few barrels of ammonium nitrate. That's the real, practical difference between legal and illegal immigration.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That was Cavanaugh's point way back when.

    Let people across legally--check that they don't have any communicable diseases and they aren't terrorists or convicted criminals--and then why the hell not let them across legally?

    We'd get rid of all sorts of gang/smuggling activity if we got all those illegal immigrants out of the desert. They'd use the border crossings if we weren't busy arresting people 'cause they were looking for a job.

  • ||

    I agree. Most of the immigration related problems in this country stem from government policies, and not just immigration policies. We base immigration policy, quotas, restrictions, etc on the premise of several other failed government policies, most especially as it regards labor and price floors.

  • ||

    Call me crazy, but one of the few things I'd actually kind of like to have the government doing is "approving" who comes into the country.

    If this was done the way Ken mentions, or something similar, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But that's a far cry from where we are right now.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Fortunately enough, the law doesn't empower police officers to do anything of the kind. It only gives cops the authority to check immigration status in the course of an unrelated stop for some other violation.

    So why not have an IRS audit when a cop pulls you over for a "broken taillight"?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Thanx for demonstrating PM's point.

  • ||

    So why not have an IRS audit when a cop pulls you over for a "broken taillight"?

    I'm not sure how practical that would be.

    In all seriousness though, how is that any different from checking your car insurance and arrest record and running your plates and vehicle registration when you get pulled for a "broken taillight"? As an immigrant, you already have to provide those documents to law enforcement when asked. All the law does is extend that authority to state cops in addition to the federal ones you're already subject to.

  • db||

    When I get pulled over for a "broken taillight", I always ask how the investigation into the burglary of my home is going? Any leads, Officer? So far, it's been fun (twice).

  • ||

    Fortunately enough, the law doesn't empower police officers to do anything of the kind.

    Except their unilateral power to check the status of anyone they stop. There are any number of ways to screw with people that way. Have an ID? Claim it looks fake. Have a drug dog sniff around their car. Search the car. Make the guy wait a while while you do this.

    All this shit can and does happen already. These laws just give officers ANOTHER pretext to harass law-abiding citizens.

    It's a pretty solid inference given the fact that no differentiation is ever made between the two.

    Maybe that's because to people who want LESS restrictive policies, not MORE restrictive ones, the differences between these people are matters of degree rather than kind? I don't like positions to the effect that everyone "illegal" should be kicked out much more than I like the position that we should have immigration "quotas". They're all just ways of restricting people's ability to migrate if they wish.

  • ||

    what restrictionist rage is aimed to drive FOREIGNERS away,to "chase them away' in arizona and other states?

    You mean like the policies that incentive harassing people who look hispanic? Because that's what they are. When you tell officers to check the immigration status, what's the criteria for who to check? The only thing taken into account will be their looks, which means hispanics in general will be harassed over their status, regardless of the ACTUAL status.

    article is complete rubbish

    Dude, your complaint ISN'T EVEN ABOUT THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE. You're complaining about exactly one sentence - ONE SENTENCE at the beginning of the article, a sentence that's TANGENTIAL to the actual point of the article, as the basis of concluding it's "complete and utter crap". Whether or not anti-illegal immigration supporters just dislike illegal immigrants, or ALL immigrants, is certainly a question she takes a position on, but just because she (and I) disagree with you doesn't make the entire article "crap".

  • sloopyinca||

    My guess is this comment will get you on the troll-o-meter.

    hth

  • ||

    There needs to be a #restricionistrage hashtag for Twitter, if there isn't one already.

  • ||

    You mean like the policies that incentive harassing people who look hispanic? Because that's what they are.

    The law actually specifically prohibits "race, color, or national origin" from being considered. And doesn't allow police to ask about immigration status unless they have already made an otherwise lawful stop for some other violation. Disagree with the principle of the law all you want, but fuck your racial grievance mongering. That's the kind of shit the parrots at Democratic Underground regurgitate - I'd like to think the Reason commentariat is better than that.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But PM, asking for something like a drivers license during a traffic stop is inherently racist.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But PM, asking for something like a drivers license during a traffic stop is inherently racist.

  • ||

    The law actually specifically prohibits "race, color, or national origin" from being considered. And doesn't allow police to ask about immigration status unless they have already made an otherwise lawful stop for some other violation.

    And how is that enforced? Anyone that frequents Reason has seen dozens of stories where people are stopped without good reasons. What makes you think police won't make up reasons for this too?

    but fuck your racial grievance mongering.

    Fuck you. Don't tell me it's "racial grievance mongering" when it's very possible for a cop to make up reasons for pulling over a guy, when their only real reason for doing so is because he "looks illegal". Mentioning skin color in my argument doesn't make about race, jackass.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Yes; yes; no; yes if I've been drinking.

  • db||

    l-r or r-l?

  • Alien Invader||

    Such thinking is a breath of fresh air...

    Oh yeah. We're so fucking way better off, especially when it's bus loads of Mexicans who end up voting Democrat, and producing an additional bus load (each) of whining brats that also vote Democrat.

    Just think, we couldn't possibly have gotten Obama into the White House if we didn't have these bus loads of Mexicans running around the US. And of course Mexicans that shouldn't be able to vote, have never ever been (illegally) gamed into the system by Democrats.

    But hey man those Mexicans sure do work for cheap, and that makes up for it. Why, they work so cheap it'll be easy to pay for ObamaCare. No problems, nosiree.

    You just keep the bus loads rolling.

    [psst: whatever else you do, don't tell anyone that shit loads of immigrants are a really big problem when you've got a really big welfare state going]

    [psst: don't tell one, but there's no way in hell we're getting rid of this welfare state before the US has collapsed economically - doan you werry about it, just keep them bus loads coming]

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I see someone's angry that his wife left him for some "Latin Spice".

  • ||

    Julio the Muscular Gardener. He looks so damn hot when he's all sweaty and in the Sunlight.

    Oh, Julio! *Pre-orgasmic tremor*

    /Wife

  • Calidissident||

    If only they voted Republican. Then we could have a permanent Republican majority. And history tells us that when Republicans are in power, they are champions of freedom on every issue./sarc

  • ||

    Woops, looks like someone didn't think about whether their conservative talking point translated well to libertarians.

  • ||

    Oh yeah. We're so fucking way better off, especially when it's bus loads of Mexicans who end up voting Democrat, and producing an additional bus load (each) of whining brats that also vote Democrat.

    Hmm, I wonder why they don't vote Republican, when all the Republicans seem to.... OH WAIT. When you whine that they vote Democrat, when the Democrats are the only ones friendly to them, you just look like a fool.

  • ||

    That's a problem called democracy. There are plenty of progressive shitstain Americans, without the pinko Latinos, who'll vote progressives into office anyway.

    But constitutional republics are for neo-Confederates. DEE-MAW-KRUH-SEE FUK YEA!

  • ||

    The next time someone calls us neo-Confederates, we should tell them that we DO support the ideals behind the Articles of Confederation.

  • sloopyinca||

    If we had gone by the Articles of Confederation, North America would probably be a hodgepodge of 30 countries with a mutual defense pact.

    Actually, strike that: All of the Americas would be a part of that confederation and there would probably be about 100 states sharing a mutual defense shield and not much of anything else.

  • ||

    That's partially why I said "ideals". The Articles were hardly, well, IDEAL in implementation. I think the U.S. Constitution fixed some things, but also created it's own bunch of problems.

  • ||

    People frequently underestimate the Articles, just as they do the Constitution. Documents with such dedication to liberty would never pass any committee or legislature today -- anywhere.

  • ||

    Don't be ridiculous. If you said "Articles of Confederation", they'd stare stupidly at you, and then ask whether it's a KKK newsletter.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Damn your quick fingers!

  • ||

    That's what she said.

  • General Butt Naked||

    That'd be a great plan if your average American knew what the fuck the Articles of Confederation were.

    They'd probably figure it was a bunch of racist newspaper editorials written by Jefferson Davis in slave's blood.

  • db||

    I don't know what you are talking about. The Jeffersons was a great show!

    /Average American

  • ||

    Don't be ridiculous. If you said "Articles of Confederation", they'd stare stupidly at you, and then ask whether it's a KKK newsletter.


    That'd be a great plan if your average American knew what the fuck the Articles of Confederation were.

    They'd probably figure it was a bunch of racist newspaper editorials written by Jefferson Davis in slave's blood.

    True. Sooo, next topic: education reform!

  • General Butt Naked||

    True. Sooo, next topic: education reform!

    THROW MONEY AT IT UNTIL IT DIES!

  • ||

    Education reform? Huh? I guess you and your Klan posse now plan on terrorizing poor blacks openly, what with your rabid hatred of public schools and your opposition to true enlightenment under the guidance of Emperor Hussein I's magnanimous disciples.

    HEIL IMPERATOR.

  • ||

    When you whine that they vote Democrat, when the Democrats are the only ones friendly to them, you just look like a fool.

    So handing out benefits to favored groups is all hunky dory as long as they're pandering to immigrants instead of, say, Wall Street bankers or middle class couples with mortgages? Again, fuck you and your race mongering.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    No PM you just don't understand.

    They vote socialist because the socialists will let all of their unrelated countrymen immigrate at will.

    And nothing says respect for individual liberty like block voting for socialist based on racial and national solidarity.

  • ||

    It doesn't matter to me how they vote. If the immigrant vote was a lock for Gary Johnson I'd still disagree with the premise that it's legitimate for the government to be "friendly" to a class of people by promising them benefits. That's the kind of shit libertarians (rightly) rage about when it's done with different classes of people, say, the elderly.

  • ||

    So handing out benefits to favored groups is all hunky dory

    Reforming the immigration system is "handing out benefits"? You've either completely misunderstood my criticism, or you're comparing immigration reform to social programs. Either way you're wrong.

  • sloopyinca||

    This moron doesn't understand basic supply and demand when he asks "how many of "X" immigrant workers do we need? Industries that may need 100 engineers will grow when they get that 100 and will usually require more due to that growth. Hard quotas of immigrants in particular fields is not only immoral, but it's inefficient because our government is not able to react to the needs of the marketplace quickly enough to have a positive impact on it. Legislation and regulation is too slowly imposed and poorly enforced for a system like that to work.

    -or-

    Trolls gonna troll, and you guys are getting trolled.

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    Excuse me, but if a business can't predict how many employees it's going to be hiring, THEN HOW THE FUCK DO THEY PLAN THIER BUDGETS?

    Maybe you should have channelled all that time you spent learning to parrot economic platitudes you don't even understand into studying finance. You might have gotten a clue as to how a business actually operates.

  • ||

    There's no way on God's green Earth this guy's real, unless he's a lobotomized primate, because this shit's retarded beyond belief.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think "Chrysi Avgi" is a fascist publication in Europe.

  • ||

  • Ken Shultz||

    The communists and fasicsts are both central planners. One's trying to centrally plan an economy where the other is trying to centrally plan a culture.

    Immigration is just one of the areas where trying to centrally plan a culture intersects an economic issue.

    They can't even imagine that we don't want to centrally plan anything. They can't even imagine how that would work.

  • ||

    Yeah. Same hellish shit, different label. The only good commie/fascist is a dead commie/fascist.

  • sloopyinca||

    If you hire 100 people and expect your business orders to grow 25%, what do you do when your orders grow by 30% because your cost structure is lowered due to efficiency? Do you tell those new customers to go fuck themselves or do you hire more people to account for the new business? And if you need or want to hire immigrants for that work, what then?

    Holy Jesus, this is like the most basic business management in the world. How do you not get it?

  • ||

    Seriously, there's more to Episiarch's Sockpuppet Troll Infiltration Theory than I thought. Nobody is this fucking stupid. Nobody.

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    I don't "get it" because as a professional engineer who's been working for major corporations for neigh unto 30 years, I know damn well that nobody, but *nobody* just decides to hire 100 engineers, and throws an add in the paper the next day.

    First, if you're hiring in excess of your budgeted allotment, you're going to have develop a justification for doing so in order to get funding.

    Next, you don't grab anyone off the street that claims to be an engineer, there's an extensive interviewing and vetting process.

    Third, an engineer ain't an assembly line worker, even if the body is available to you the next day (which it won't be), you're going to have to allow anything from several weeks to several months for the engineer to come up to speed for the particular project to which he's assigned. In fact, due to that consideration, throwing additional bodies at a project may even *impede* your ability to complete it.

    In other words, hiring and onboarding engineers is a time consuming process. Given that, in the event that the workload suddenly increases unexpectedly, the usual management M.O. is to bite the bullet and simply to request funding for additional engineers in the *next* budget. Further, even if they decide to hire an immigrant, they're going to have to go through an additionally time consuming H1-B process to get him into the country.

    The short story is, if you're talking about engineers, the scenario you describe just doesn't happen.

  • sloopyinca||

    The short story is, if you're talking about engineers, the scenario you describe just doesn't happen.

    Funny, but my buddy that developed the IOS operating system for GE Drive Systems for the cranes in Singapore harbor would probably disagree with you.

    But you keep trolling on, shithead. Because your way is the only way the world works, right? Go suck a dog's dick you Nazi sympathizing piece of shit.

  • General Butt Naked||

    He's probably a CAD peon or some shit, and thinks he's an expert on all things engineering.

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    I'll bet he would agree with me, especially where developing something as complex as on OS is concerned.

    You're telling me there's no time required to familiarize yourself with the OS design? No need to acquaint yourself with the existing code base? You just walk in and start coding? That no time is absorbed by current team members bringing the new hire up to speed?

    Sorry pal, but you quite clearly have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, because when you have a budget of 100 people to do 700 cranes, you have to stay with that budget when the port decides to install 200 more because the project is coming in 25% under budget and two years ahead of schedule.

    But you know everything about staffing requirements and staffing vs budgetary concerns because you're an engineer. Yeah, right.

    I'll look at it from a less technical perspective and one I'm intimately familiar with:

    If I have a budget of $2.5M to complete a construction project and I have allocated $1M in payroll, $1M in equipment (because that's what the marketplace says it's worth) and $.5M in fuel/maintenance/etc, what do I do when I manage to purchase my equipment for $.6M because the market is depressed?

    I'll tell you what I'm gonna do: I'm gonna buy up another $200k in gear and staff it with operators because I can then come in ahead of schedule and under budget and get paid a huge bonus...because I hired more people.

    You're really a fucking idiot. Do you know that? I auction equipment and deal with people doing this every day. From Skanska to Kiewit to Rio Tinto to Schlumberger, I help them budget their fleet needs which has a direct impact on their staffing capacity. When you have my experience in equipment/manpower matrices like I do, you can open your pie hole to me. Until then, shut the fuck up and learn something.

  • Chrysi Avgi||

    Actually, you sound like one of those idiot managers who has a project that's six weeks late, so he doubles his staff, and then he's surprised that it's now 12 weeks late. Why is it now 12 weeks late? Because he didn't account for: 1. It will take the new hires several weeks to become productive. 2. The staff currently working on the project had to drop what they were doing to train the new staff, stopping any meaningful work on the project for several weeks. 3. Not all of the tasks required can be easily divided into smaller components which can be worked by more than one person, making the additional bodies of negligible value.

    I bet you're one of those guys that thinks that 9 women can produce a baby in 1 month!

    Something tells me that when those big bonuses materialize, more is owed to luck than skill.

  • sloopyinca||

    Reading comprehension fail? I said I had a project I was planning for. And do you not think there are skilled equipment operators out there that are not working right now? Hell, I could find 10 guys with a collective 100 years of experience operating 657 scrapers in 10 minutes. Same goes for D10's or 777's if it's a mining job. I doubt you could find a guy that could wire a light switch...even if you looked in a mirror for an hour.

    Tell you what, chump: you list your credentials on here and how your brand of national socialism has helped you climb to the top. I'd be interested in hearing who you've helped become a success doing things your way. I'm sure their balance sheets are as solid as the ones I've listed.*

    *Actually, I'd be shocked if you've ever heard of the companies I've listed, so I'll give you a while to do some research so you can google the names of engineering firms that are larger than Skanska or Kiewit. Good luck with that, dipshit.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I think this dude has some specific job and worked for a couple big companies coding in a cubicle and has deemed himself king 'o the engineers. He don't know shit, man.

    Hell, he probably works as a chicken fucker at KFC, or something.

    Why waste your time?

    And even I know who those companies are and I'm just some know-nothing dipshit.

  • sloopyinca||

    You're right, of course. And I don't work for those companies but they all come to me for asset acquisition and disposal, so I work closely with them when they are planning jobs. And their manpower is somewhat predicated on what their physical assets cost. Sure they budget, but when their equipment costs go over or under budget dramatically, they adjust their manpower accordingly.

    That said, I don't know why I react to strongly to the trolls on here. I really need to learn a little self-discipline and when to just walk away.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That said, I don't know why I react to strongly to the trolls on here. I really need to learn a little self-discipline and when to just walk away.

    I know, man, it's like a Muslim and a Mohammed cartoon...you just can't help yourself.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    How the fuck did this turn from an immigration discussion to a Dilbert strip?

  • General Butt Naked||

    I bet this golden shower dude doesn't even know the proper procedure for formatting a TPS report cover sheet!

    Asshole!

  • Barfman||

    About those TPS Reports...

  • Ken Shultz||

    One frame at a time.

  • General Butt Naked||

    The girlfriend works for a huge aerospace concern, as an engineer, and that is exactly how she got hired. As in, with about 30, or more, others. And though they're not trollin' Mumbai for these kind of jobs many of the people in the industry came over here for college and stayed. So they are technically immigrants.

  • ||

    Excuse me, but if a business can't predict how many employees it's going to be hiring, THEN HOW THE FUCK DO THEY PLAN THIER BUDGETS?

    Except you used the labor as an excuse for government immigration policies. If businesses can decide hiring matters for themselves (and they can), why does our government need to regulate immigration for them?

    If there are more openings for certain positions here than we have qualified people for, immigrants for those professions won't come here. If we DON'T have the people for them, foreigners will have an incentive to come here. It works the other way around, too. People born here will get jobs in foreign nations, if the opportunities and other perks are better there.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So Sloopy,

    Why is CA's economy in the toilet?

    We've been the epicenter of immigration for a couple of generations now. Why aren't we reaping all of the benefits by now? Why do the socialists have a lock on the government, when such a large percentage of the population is only one-two generations away from their heroic immigrant entrepreneur ancestors?

  • sloopyinca||

    Well, for starters, the public employee pension systems have nearly bankrupted the state. Second, expansive government growth and corruption in those agencies has tended to have a negative effect as well. Lastly, an ever-growing welfare system (and yes, a good portion of that is going to illegal immigrants) that proposes to take care of people cradle-to-grave has also cost a lot more than the tax increases have brought in.

    Add in a slew of public works projects that are money pits and the most restrictive business climate in the nation and you haven't exactly got a recipe for success.

    And those immigrants, some illegal and some legal, are keeping food on your table at a reasonable price because if that work was done completely above board, you'd be paying $2 for a fucking Roma tomato, $4 for a head of iceberg lettuce and $6/lb for grapes.

    Blaming immigration for California's problems is like blaming the Titanic on the guys feeding the furnaces.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You didn't address the point that the children and grandchildren of illegal immigrants reflexively vote for CA's socialist government.

    And you also don't address how more illegal immigrants are going to improve the current situation.

  • sloopyinca||

    I focused on your first question. As to the second one, we are reaping the benefits of all that immigrant labor. From silicon valley to the central valley, there are a lot of immigrants that are productive members of society. If there are a lot of them there that are net drains as well, I'd blame that on the welfare systems...and those systems give a shitload of freebies away to citizens as well as those immigrants.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You'r conflating legal and illegal immigrants.

    I specifically said how more illegal immigrants are going to improve our economic situation. Especially in the face of very high unemployment for unskilled workers.

    And you didn't address at all the fact that the children and grandchildren of illegal immigrants are huge supporters of the socialism that is killing CA.

  • sloopyinca||

    I specifically said how more illegal immigrants are going to improve our economic situation. Especially in the face of very high unemployment for unskilled workers.

    I answered your initial question, which didn't differentiate illegal or legal immigrants. Either way, I believe I addressed the contribution to the economic situation, especially as it related to the planting and harvesting of food from the central valley. Those poor citizens are free to go out there and work as well...if they're willing, and I listed reasons why they aren't.

    And you didn't address at all the fact that the children and grandchildren of illegal immigrants are huge supporters of the socialism that is killing CA.

    First off, those "children and grandchildren of illegals" are overwhelmingly American citizens, so refer to them as that. Second, I did address why they are supporters of the socialists. They vote for them for the same reason other welfare parasites do: because they get free shit.

    Cut off the head of the welfare beast and you kill it for illegal immigrants, legal immigrants and citizens that collect it. Do that and I almost guarantee you the % of illegals here will remain almost the same.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Cut off the head of the welfare beast and you kill it for illegal immigrants, legal immigrants and citizens that collect it. Do that and I almost guarantee you the % of illegals here will remain almost the same.

    And how exactly do you propose doing that when the parasites have reached a critical mass and increase yearly, including via the consequences of illegal immigration?

  • sloopyinca||

    I don't have an answer to that. Unfortunately, I think California will have to fail so miserably the state leaders are all carted off to federal prison for corruption and mismanagement and the are taken into administration by the feds during a libertarian administration.

  • ||

    Why do you think that illegal immigration is the cause of it all? Illegal immigrants come here to find work. And if the issue is that we're making it hard to find work, doesn't that mean more Democratic voters is the fault of our immigration system? Which Democratic voters (supposedly) want to reform? And considering all the underground economic activity we're hearing about in California, why WOULD underground labor have a hard time finding jobs?

  • Calidissident||

    Texas and California have very similar demographic makeups. Almost the exact same number of Hispanics and whites (percentage wise), while Cali has more Asians and Texas more blacks. So quit blaming the minorities for everything. And the Republicans haven't exactly earned trust on limiting government

  • sloopyinca||

    To your third question: they vote for them because they want to get the free shit. And as far as why do the socialists have a lock on the government, that's easy: if you can get 51% of the people to vote for free shit being given to them, you'll gradually win control. And once you have control, all you have to do is give a little more free shit (say to 2/3 of the people) and you'll get a stranglehold on the government. Once you have that, gerrymander the districts so you're pretty well locked in to controlling the legislature and the opposition can't even filibuster your bullshit.

    And that'll all come to a screeching halt soon enough, barring a bailout from the federal government. CA cities are dropping like flies and when their neighbors see them coming out on the other side of BK protection better off and without crippling legacy costs, you'll see a popular uprising to stop stealing from us and our children to pay union pensions. If that happens, the giveaways and welfare systems will be next.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Dream on.

    Detroit has been a dystopia for generations and the elected government keeps getting worse.

    Not that I don't want to believe that CA voters will come to their senses. It's just that there's no evidence, anywhere, to think that is anything other than wishful thinking.

  • sloopyinca||

    Not that I don't want to believe that CA voters will come to their senses. It's just that there's no evidence, anywhere, to think that is anything other than wishful thinking.

    That's why people in municipalities that are starting to fail are looking at Stockton, San Bernardino County and Mammoth Lakes as a blueprint for solvency. If that's not some good evidence, I don't know what is.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Orange County went bankrupt about 20 years ago, remember? That didn't substantively change the long term growth of government or the structure of the welfare system.

    So sure, a lot of cities and some counties will go through bankruptcy and reduce some pension (and screw private debt holders too) and in a few years they'll go right back to the same destructive policies that got them in trouble in the first place.

    And that doesn't even begin to address the anti business regulatory environment.

  • sloopyinca||

    I didn't know that about OC. Either way, we're to the point people are going to say no because you're almost to the point where they can't rob enough from the producers (and borrow enough) to pay the parasites. Once we pass that point, it will have to be dealt with. Unfortunately, we haven't reached that point yet.

    And that doesn't even begin to address the anti business regulatory environment.

    Do you want to address that point? Have you got all night, because that has a much greater effect on California's economy than does illegal immigration. Just ask any farmer that can't get water, and construction company that had to sell his fleet and replace it at 4x the cost due to CARB compliance, ditto the truckers and longshoremen in Long Beach or Oakland as well as the guys in the oil patch.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Do you want to address that point? Have you got all night, because that has a much greater effect on California's economy than does illegal immigration.

    I absolutely agree. If we had the kind of economic growth that CA had from 1850-1989 immigration wouldn't be an issue at all.

    Regulations killing business and economic growth should be a never ending story in the media, but instead it's completely ignored.

    I know people that have had their businesses ruined by obscure changes in permissable VOC levels in solvents by the AQMD.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And those immigrants, some illegal and some legal, are keeping food on your table at a reasonable price because if that work was done completely above board, you'd be paying $2 for a fucking Roma tomato, $4 for a head of iceberg lettuce and $6/lb for grapes.

    Maybe, maybe not considering that the central valley has a 15-20% U3 unemployment rate.

  • sloopyinca||

    he central valley has always ad a high U3 rate and always will. If the unemployed citizens wanted to work to pick fruit, they easily could and displace the illegals that are here doing it. Problem is: they don't want to do the fucking work because it's easier to collect a check every week or month from the state.

    The welfare system fucks up the central valley. Illegal immigration doesn't, IMO.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The welfare system is a draw for illegal immigration, as is the regulatory system.

    Both artificially remove people from the labor force, leaving a void filled by illegal immigration. The problem is that those immigrants only temporarily fill that void and eventually they and certainly their citizen children slide out of the labor force for the same reason that the native population originally did.

    Long term illegal immigration compounds the welfare problem.

    And that's not even taking into account the people that come here specifically to get on welfare from day one. Which does happen in SoCal (probably not so much in the Central Valley because the people so inclined have no reason to go there in the first place).

  • sloopyinca||

    Both artificially remove people from the labor force, leaving a void filled by illegal immigration. The problem is that those immigrants only temporarily fill that void and eventually they and certainly their citizen children slide out of the labor force for the same reason that the native population originally did.

    I agree that the welfare system is, but the regulatory system certainly isn't. If anything, it creates barriers to entry in every non-Agriculture industry in the state.

    As far as the welfare system being a draw for illegals, the same can be said of other welfare parasites. Like I said before: cut off the head of the welfare beast and your parasites all leave, whether they're here legally or not.

    I get your point. I just disagree with it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    but the regulatory system certainly isn't. If anything, it creates barriers to entry in every non-Agriculture industry in the state.

    My background is in manufacturing in SoCal and for a long time a major advantage to hiring illegals over natives is the perceived freedom to ignore workplace regulations without fear of being ratted out by the employees.

  • sloopyinca||

    Well, I'm not too familiar with manufacturing down there, as my areas of expertise tend to deal with construction, Ag, Mining and oilfield exploration companies and their fleets. My dealings with manufacturers would predominantly deal with how regulations have effected their fleets of trucks IRT CARB regulations. I always assumed it would be tough to hire illegals, but again I deal with fleet managers and those guys aren't going to hire an illegal to go OTR and risk losing their inventory and rolling stock over an immigration violation.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Most of the ones that I've seen have passable enough documentation(SS #s and Drivers Licenses) to get onto payrolls. Though they probably wouldn't hold up if a cop or court was checking them out.

    The thing that i was talking about is that with them you don't have to worry about complaints about overtime pay, break times, safety violations or random legal actions like sexual harassment or discrimination or illegal termination.

    All of that combined with the perception that they will work hard and keep their mouths shut and if they don't you can easily get rid of them makes them preferable over native employees in a lot of situations. It's not even about money.

    Which actually sucks for the native workers that are 'discriminated' against. The thing is that it's driven by fucked up regulations, asshole lawyers and public schools that instill a sense of entitlement.

    Like you said, the immigrants kids are citizens and from my experience they're no different from other citizens of similar demographic groups. Which is to say that the superior work ethic is (mostly) not transferred to their children that are born here.

  • sloopyinca||

    And that's not even taking into account the people that come here specifically to get on welfare from day one. Which does happen in SoCal (probably not so much in the Central Valley because the people so inclined have no reason to go there in the first place).

    [citation required]

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's a taboo subject so you probably aren't going to find many stories in the press or from other 'reputable' sources but it definitely happens.

  • sloopyinca||

    Not even the OCR? They beat the conservative drum.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'm mostly talking about my personal experience with employees and their friends and relatives that followed.

    I don't troll around anti-immigrant web sites cause those people are fucking nuts.

  • sloopyinca||

    Fair enough. I'll take it as informed anecdotal evidence.

    Still, you have to see it from where I'm living (where there are a lot of illegals that are net gains to the local economy). The illegals here would leave and move elsewhere in the state if they weren't making a living working. They don't because they are willing to do the work for an agreed-to wage the local citizenry won't work for. I blame the welfare system for a lot of things, and I think it's hastening the demise of California. But I truly believe it would be doing so if there wasn't a single illegal immigrant in the entire state because welfare parasites are welfare parasites regardless of their nationality or immigration status.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I've supervised, managed and directly employed hundreds of illegals over the last three decades. And for the most part they are all hard working, honest people that only wanted to improve their life by honest exchange. And I honestly believe that if I had been born into their circumstances I would have illegally immigrated here too.

    The problem is that our political economy and society is so corrosive that their children, and increasingly immigrants themselves, become part of the permanent underclass. And then vote for it's perpetuation out of self interest and tribal loyalty.

    And yeah, the problems started with the welfare and regulatory state, it wasn't an issue even in the 80s to me. But we are where we're at.

  • Barfman||

    None of which is a valid reason to restrict immigration. So this whole argument is pointless.

  • Generic Stranger||

    We definitely need to import some more Mexican journalists. Apparently they're the only ones with enough spine to actually ask the President tough questions. Yet another job Americans aren't willing to do...

  • sloopyinca||

    What's an even better game is "Smear the queer." At one time it was a playground game that might get you in trouble with a teacher because you got dirty. Now it's a fucking hate crime.

  • sloopyinca||

    Whoops! Thread fail.

  • ||

    It's a game that applies to Mr. Golden Dawn. I think fate pointed that out by ensuring you'd post that comment here.

    THERE IS A GOD.

  • sloopyinca||

    Fair enough. We'll go with it.

    So question for the commentariat: when you were a kid and you played "smear the queer" or whatever, did you ever thing there was a gay-bashing connotation to the phrase?

    Also, do a google search for "smear the queer" and scroll down to the related searches for a laugh. Two of them are pretty funny.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So question for the commentariat: when you were a kid and you played "smear the queer" or whatever, did you ever thing there was a gay-bashing connotation to the phrase?

    Umm...yeah. But the entire life of a boy 6-18 is one giant gay-bashing session.

  • sloopyinca||

    You played smear the queer when you were 18? That's not gay bashing. That's just plain gay.

  • ||

    I was far too busy being enthralled by how awesome it felt to squeeze a babe's boobs when I was a teenager to bash queers.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You never were a camp counselor?

  • sloopyinca||

    You never were a camp counselor?

    Like he said...squeezing boobs.

  • ||

    One time, at Band Camp...

  • ||

    Nah. Games of that sort were just black humor-esque fun. If a given target got genuinely upset about it, we'd stop.

    But that's here. If you've ever seen Russian kids play the same game, you'll know there's a great deal more blood and grieving parents involved.

  • sloopyinca||

    My brother ended up with a broken thumb and a dozen stitches on his forehead on separate occasions, but that's because he liked the violence. I always got away because I was faster than everybody else my age, although I did get bitten in the arm once to the point of bleeding...and I got a few black eyes from people sucker punching me in the pile. I'm pretty sure they were done on purpose because, as hard as this is to believe, I was a bit of a smart-ass in school.

  • ||

    I was an accommodating pushover for a very long time -- until I realized I was big and punched the fucker (a bully named Russel) in the face. And there wasn't shit he or his posse could do about it. And those were the genuinely racist, homophobic dipshits. You know, the ones who grow up to be big-city Democrats.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Russel? Are you sure it wasn't Rahm?

  • ||

    I'm sure the scrawny jizzstain sucking his dick with affirmatory grunts and sneers at every point in every conversation was Rahm -- maybe the one we all know and love.

  • sloopyinca||

    I got into a fist fight in the locker room after track practice when I was in 7th grade with the biggest kid on the team whose dad was also the football coach. He got the better of me, but I held my own well enough that I never got fucked with again until I was out of school (except for the odd fight in basketball practice or a brawl we got into at the end of a game in my senior year).

    If there's one thing i taught my 12 year old son, it's that if he's thought of as a pussy and he fights back, it doesn't matter if he wins or loses, he will get respect as long as he doesn't cry or run away. Of course, kids are more afraid of school admins and resource officers than they are of bullies their own age nowadays.

  • ||

    That's what worked for me -- sort of. Once I got sick of their shit and responded with force, my size took care of the rest.

  • sloopyinca||

    I was 5'0" and weighted 100 lbs when I entered high school. I didn't have that luxury.

  • ||

    Yeah, but my intimidation factor was based on a false assumption -- that I was too big to handle. Yes, I was tall and wide-shouldered, but I was a skinny motherfucker. It took lots of shit from lots of assholes to get me to take up serious exercise, and I'm proud to say it worked out for me. Dipshits of all sorts tend to mess with you considerably less when you're not only 20 percent taller than them, but weigh about 80 percent more.

  • ||

    And you know what? That's another point: the adversity many of us face makes us stronger. Insulating kids from reality's challenges is mind-bogglingly retarded. I sure as shit don't want some safety protocol padding my future kids is rubber and telling them it ain't safe to run in the playground.

  • Ken Shultz||

    When you were a kid and you played "smear the queer" or whatever, did you ever thing there was a gay-bashing connotation to the phrase?

    My answer is yes and no.

    When I was a little kid, and we were playing smear the queer, I knew it was a bash on gay people--but then I never thought I'd actually meet a gay person. I thought they were about as common as conjoined twins. I thought it was basically like calling someone a werewolf.

    When I got to Jr. High, there was this friend of mine, who was obviously a lesbian looking back. And I knew that's what she was, I guess. I knew she didn't give a damn about guys, but at the same time? I still kinda thought that gay people didn't really exist.

    That what you said couldn't possibly offend them--because the odds of there being an actual gay person around was about a million to one.

    When gay people started coming out of the closet and showing up in pop culture, that's pretty much when everything changed.

  • sloopyinca||

    Is that the same time you stopped calling people cunts as well?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I was never actually into that.

    But I'm not proud of everything I used to say.

  • sloopyinca||

    I hoped you would have laughed at that. Not sure if you did or not.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    With our crew it was smear the queer in grade school/ middle school. It wadn't meant to pick on a particular gay, and like Ken, I thought gays just happened in movies, and New York. By high school though, we were sensitive to some (gay) friends in the crew and it became "kill the guy with the ball".

  • sloopyinca||

    Does anybody know if Wareagle is at this game? Auburn is playing well. I sure hope they beat LSU.

  • ||

    My pal's brother's at LSU, so his grandmother dressed up like a cheerleader and is making enormous amounts of inappropriate noise. I hope LSU loses hard so that the old lady's sorority girl aspirations crash and burn and leave us all in peace.

  • sloopyinca||

    Wait, his grandmother is dressed up as a cheerleader? Does she have Alzheimers, because if so that would be awesome. If not, it's merely pathetic.

  • ||

    Yeah, almost like a cheerleader, and she's very senile. No Alzheimer's, as far as I know, however.

    She's a domineering asshole, but I cut her plenty of slack, since she's old enough to have seen the last Homo habilis drop dead.

  • sloopyinca||

    Dude, there's nothing better than a really old drunk person that's hardcore into college football. They're the best drunks at tailgates or in the stadium on game day because no cop is gonna say shit to them or throw them out. Oh, and they also never get searched so they're the most likely to have a fifth of bourbon with them.

    If I ever go into a game and see a pair of octogenarians beside me with face paint on, I know I'm gonna have a good time.

  • ||

    My better half hates it when they get in our faces with their enthusiasm and spend half the game yelling HOW AWESOME THIS MOTHERFUCKING SHIT IS IN THIS MOTHERFUCKING STADIUM WHOOHOO FUCK YEAH *Hip displacement*.

    It happens most often with the sort of people you described and also with soccer mom-types who just discovered the wonder of football and decided to try it out. I find it all hilariously amusing and awesome.

  • SIV||

    youtube is failing me in my search for a clip the octogenarian in a red blazer barking on national TV at the 1981 Sugar Bowl.

  • sloopyinca||

    Game Of Thrones marathon starts on HBO in 5 minutes. I finally got cable and will be able to watch the seconds season (on DVR)!!!!!!

  • ||

    It's good. You'll like it. They make really good use of the budget.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    Chrysi Avgi"

    Every time someone writes "Golden Dawn" my brain reads "Golden Shower".

    Which seems appropriate for this authoritarian fuckstick. Enjoy your boyfriend's piss, Chrysi Avgi!

  • Ted S.||

    Cassiteroi Avgi. :-)

  • sloopyinca||

    Enjoy your boyfriend's piss, Chrysi Avgi!

    That's damn close to Piss Christ, Almanian. And after the threads from last week, I'm not sure if I can take another Piss Christ thread.

  • sloopyinca||

    I don't know what's worse: Obama ads that are full of lies and distortions or Applebee's ads with Chris Berman bellowing about 2 for $20.

    I wish life had a TiVo.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I wish life had a TiVo.

    It does, it's called xanax.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Whoever played the role of Golden Dawn tonight, bravo.
    You win a cookie.

  • ||

    Leave it to the government. "Hmmmm, cities with lots of immigrants tend to be large and prosperous. If we want to be large and prosperous, we had better provide special incentives for immigrants!" Like Navin R Johnson fleeing from the oil cans, it never occurred to them that the maybe the reason they can't attract immigrants - or natives, for that matter - is because their cities are misgoverned pieces of shit, and handing out tokens to different ethnic communities to try to tempt them to their town might not necessarily fix the issues that underlie their stagnation.

    "Stay away from the cans! He hates these cans!"

  • NotSure||

    It is not a secret that Detroit is a shithole, even to people living outside of America. The only people who might be conned to immigrate to Detroit are poor rural people with poor access to media, should they be fooled into moving there, they would see soon enough how much worse that city is compared to others in the country. The only realistic way to ever improve Detroit would be something like that evil corporation in Robocop.

  • jason||

    The main idea behind it was that immigrants are cheap labors that are why it’s a beneficial source.

  • nike001||

    If you can not sell, you will have fewer sales and limited growth. "Selling is our http://www.cheapfootballcleatstrade.org/ number one job ever. Escape from selling a lot of merchandise in person. More you sell, the more you learn." - James Cash Penny3.

  • nike001||

    energy to sustain by themselves in type for example they need to.That is why they may possibly be looking at physique shapers. Monster beats kopfh rer is http://www.drdrebeatsbydreaustralia.org/ altering as well as enhancing to satisfy the particular developing demand.Body shapers will be also recognised as Beats merely by dreand slimming bodysuits..

  • ET_N||

    Problem here is government make it harder and harder for productive immigrant to get some kind of VISA or Permanent resident. Many companies today try to hire those productive immigrants to help improve their products or services but because the policy, it's hard for them to do that. People might argue that they should hire US citizen first and comes up with the theory that they want to pay for the cheaper labor. That's dead wrong these companies pay the same salary as the US citizen and actually pay more for the VISA/Greencard sponsor and in fact they hire US citizen first BUT the problem is there aren't enough productive american workers out there.

    Speaking of salary every productive immigrant pay tax, Social Security and Medicare which the last two more than half of them never even has a chance to use. I know a lot of immigrant who's pay 28% of their income tax and SS plus medicare in the end they don't have a choice but just go back to their country because the process of getting this kind of green card is painful. So those SS and Medicare is practically free money for the government.

    I'm speaking from the immigrant perspective and US should encourage people to go to college by reduce the ridiculous student fees first to start with.

  • XM||

    Most typical low wage immigrants are paid cash under the table, meaning they'll contribute little to SS and medicare. If you're not washing dishes for big chain fast food joints that can't resort to that kind of tactics, you're probably functioning like a independent contractor compensated with cash.

    I live and breath among immigrants, legal and illegal. The romance about them is off base most of the time. They surely work hard, but many can't speak English and depend on jobs in their ethnic zones where most of the clients speak their language.

    If you a million people who settled into your city, legally or not, they'll contribute to the economy by the virtue of their size. They'll buy food, clothing, all the trendy products no really needs. They'll use credit cards, borrow money, and take in much more than just "welfare". have to work somewhere to EXIST. That doesn't mean an additional 20 million people from Mexico coming to LA tomorrow will resurrect LA's economy.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement