Reason.com
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
- Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism (5.26)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
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 or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|12.3.04 @ 6:17PM|#
I agree with this article completely. The "immigration problem" and the solution (to actually loosen immigration policy) is also quite similar to what needs to be done in the War on Drugs. Don't keep throwing money using failed procedures at a problem that doesn't want to go away, instead, liberalise the policy so that the actual harmful effects of the "problem" can be identified and handled more readily.
Of course, I'm on a libertarian blog, so I don't think I'm saying anything profound here. :)
|12.3.04 @ 7:48PM|#
This is one of the few areas where Bush has showed himself to be rational as well as (I hate this word, but it fits...) "compassionate".
At the same time, just like Social Security, I wouldn't hold my breath for any major changes
|12.3.04 @ 10:34PM|#
Why not use all of that nuclear waste that nobody wants to make the border into a radioactive hot zone? Those that do cross would be easy to find at night. That solves two problems...(not to mention saving money on night-vision goggles for the border patrol).
Since Republicans want cheap labor for their business supporters, and the Democrats want as many as fraudulent votes as possible, nothing will be done.
|12.3.04 @ 11:23PM|#
At last, some REAL common sense on this issue, as opposed from the nonsense we get from the neocons.
|12.4.04 @ 1:02PM|#
See Mickey Kaus's comment at http://slate.msn.com/id/2110461/
"Hispanic Hype Deflation Week: Anti-amnesty pundits (mainly conservatives who fear Republicans will pander to Latinos) and anti-gloom Democrats have joined forces in a formidable campaign to deflate those startling exit poll numbers--the ones showing Bush winning 44% of the Hispanic vote (up from 35% in 2000). Michelle Malkin and Ruy Teixeira, together again! ... Now the big Mitofsky/Edison NEP exit poll has issued a correction for Texas--Bush didn't get 59% of the Hispanic vote as originally reported. He got 49% percent. Hey, what's 10% among friends? Plus Hispanics were only 20 percent of the Texas electorate, not 23%. ... The Texas revisions by themselves would cut that 44% national figure down. But Teixeira and anti-amnesty writer Steve Sailer (here and here) argue that the NEP's results in other states are also highly suspect. To its credit, the National Council of La Raza seems to agree, arguing that the 44% NEP estimate is "at the extreme end of plausibility." Everyone gives 39% as a better estimate. That's still an improvement over 35%, but not quite the same "sea change"-signifying number. ..."
So Bush did about four percent better among Hispanics this year than in 2000. It's an improvement, but not much more of an improvement than he showed among non-Hispanic whites, and it's not clear immigration reform has anything to do with it.
The Lonewacko Blog|12.4.04 @ 4:43PM|#
If you have the time, I'd very strongly suggest you watch this video. It's 80 Megs, but you can download it first using something like Offline Explorer Pro.
The video features the author of this piece, together with an administration representative discussing Bush's plan.
Of particular note are the statements from the administration rep that Bush's plan:
In other words, they want to invite the world to come to the U.S. to take American jobs. A wet dream for libertarians, a nightmare for everyone else.
On the video, you'll also see Griswold asked whether those "guest" workers will want to vote. He says something similar to: "they'll be too tired working for a few years to think about voting."
At what point in time do other people finally realize that "immigration reformers" just don't seem to get this "American" thing? Or, perhaps their concept of "America" is rooted a couple centuries in the past.
From the article:
Immigration reform is popular with Hispanics
Indeed it is. 47% of Arizona Hispanics voted for Prop. 200. On the other hand, the Open Borders Lobby strongly opposed 200.
Simply throwing more money and manpower at the problem hasn't worked. Since the early 1990s, we've quintupled spending and tripled personnel at the Mexican border. We've built three-tiered walls for 60 miles into the desert. We've imposed sanctions on employers for the first time in U.S. history.
We have? The numbers show that employer sanctions are lower under Bush than even under Clinton. Could those publicly available numbers be lying?
Our existing immigration system is out of step with the realities of American life. Our economy continues to produce opportunities for low-skilled workers in important sectors of our economy such as retail, services, construction, and tourism.
Yes, indeed. Powerful people seem to want to build something akin to manoralism.
Opponents of immigration demand more of the same failed policies: more walls and barbed wire, entire divisions of troops at the border, the massive deportation of undocumented workers at great economic and human cost.
Two - I repeat two - strawmen for the price of one! Someone who wants to restrict legal immigration and/or sharply reduce illegal immigration is not an "opponent of immigration." And, as pointed out by Steven Camarota of CIS at the video referenced above, mass deportations are not necessary: simply follow the existing laws and many illegal immigrants will self-deport and those who intend to come here won't.
The response then was to dramatically increase temporary worker visas under the Bracero program; the result was an equally dramatic decline in illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration rose during and after the Bracero program. That program created an infrastructure and those who couldn't get into the program came anyway.
Legalization would not equal "amnesty." Under the president's plan, legalized workers would not get automatic citizenship or even permanent residency.
Please. As pointed out in the Big Show on the Border, those "guest" workers will have U.S.-citizen children. They'll be here to stay and eventually they'll have to be given rights. Nanci Pelosi and Teddy Kennedy and other "liberals" will see to that.
They would have to pay a fine for having lived here illegally that would not be chump change for low-skilled workers.
That's a relief. Meanwhile, all those thousands of companies that have made billions employing illegal workers will have gotten off scot-free.
Legalization would also enhance our national security.
"Legalization" would give a foreign government even more power over our immigration system than they have now. That's the opposite of "national security." And, as pointed out in Chapter 3 of the 9/11 Commission Staff Report, at least one WTC 1 terrorist tried to take advantage of an earlier amnesty program.
Also see my comments on this other Reason thread.
There's more on Griswold's plans here and in Dogmatic Libertarians: Over the edge.
|12.4.04 @ 6:37PM|#
"In other words, they want to invite the world to come to the U.S. to take American jobs. A wet dream for libertarians, a nightmare for everyone else."
Why just last night, I was...never mind--that's kind of embarrassing!
"...those "guest" workers will have U.S.-citizen children. They'll be here to stay and eventually they'll have to be given rights. [Blah, Blah, Blah]"
Those pesky rights are always gettin' in your way, aren't they?
""Legalization" would give a foreign government even more power over our immigration system than they have now."
You have a valid argument there with national security; why'd you have to blow with that statement?
Just out of curiosity, do you see anything good, whatsoever, about legal immigration?
"Of course, I'm on a libertarian blog, so I don't think I'm saying anything profound here."
Ha!
|12.5.04 @ 8:58AM|#
Ken,
You said pretty much what I was going to say.
Most notably the comment on the first guy who assumed he would be preaching to the quire because this is a libertarian blog.
I read lowdog's quote, and agreed, and I thought I should stop reading because it would be a chorus on how good imigration is and how worthless it is to try to go to such extremes to stop it.
So I will just say this Lonewacko;
Imigration is good. It is good for companies and generally what is good for companies is good for you. You are a consumer, those companies are generally catering to you.
If a Mexican can do a better job than you for a cheaper price, then he should. If the government helps you keep your job, and prevents the Mexican from doing it, then you should be aware that you are essentially on welfare.
You understand that welfare is a bad thing right? Bad for you as an individual, and bad for the society that you live in.
|12.5.04 @ 12:06PM|#
we've been over this so many times that i guess i'm merely paraphrasing from others, but americans or any human being for that matter doesn't have the right to a job. if an illegal immigrant can do a job cheaper and better, then that's good for you and good for employers. illegal immigrants are a boon to the economy. illegal immigrants aren't stealing american jobs because americans don't want them to begin with. and having illegal immigrants do the low wage jobs means more high wage jobs for americans. this whole nonsense about how they could steal high wage jobs too is just ridiculous. higher wage jobs require education and at least a ruidimentary knowledge of the english language, something that illegal immigrants don't have.
i'm not sure what you want to do about the problem? do you want to increase penalties on corportations just for hiring cheaper labor? when did that become constitutional?
|12.5.04 @ 1:12PM|#
Tim,
Everything you said. And Lonewacko, all that stuff aplies to outsourcing stuff too.
I read that article, and I am glad once again that I voted for Bush. I may be mistaken, but I believe he is a lot more libertarian at heart than he lets on.
Back when Reason was lamenting that Libertarians did not get much of the vote. I did not have time to mention that Arnold and Bush are both a damn sight better than who they were running against. we don't have a constitutional republic yet, but we may be a sco
The Lonewacko Blog|12.5.04 @ 4:35PM|#
Imigration is good
Me think so too. Me think good, good. But, me think problems, problems to. Me think complicated thing. Me go think more.
You understand that welfare is a bad thing right? Bad for you as an individual, and bad for the society that you live in.
So, why do you want to subsidize those companies that employ illegal aliens? If a company pays an illegal alien $5 an hour, and at the same time that illegal alien's children go to public school, and the illegal alien uses the emergency room to get medical care, isn't the company that employs that illegal getting a huge subsidy? Isn't that company ripping the rest of us off?
And, while I realize this might be difficult for some to understand, things don't always boil down to a matter of dollars and cents. History shows us that having millions of citizens of another country in a country is not a wise thing.
You go think more.
|12.5.04 @ 5:31PM|#
There is a simple way to solve the Mexican illegal immigration problem.
Bring in 100 million Chinese that will work for $.50 an hour then you want see any Mohados from Mexico anymore.
It will cost very little and save a bundle on our domestic labor force.
It sure would piss-off Presidente Fox.
You could also fire about 7000 border patrol agents.
|12.5.04 @ 5:41PM|#
Lonewacko,
The (wet`s) that come through my ranch in SW Texas go to Fort Worth and work for railroad subcontractors and make $22~25 an hour.
They work all over the country.
|12.5.04 @ 8:20PM|#
Lonewacko,
12/4 4:43 PM was the most cogent I've seen of your anti-immigration postings. I'm glad they've become a lot more developed over time. The one facet I'd like to discuss is your apparent fear regarding the children of immigrants becoming citizens. I read the "Big Show on the Border" link. So... what policy do you propose to replace the United States' long standing, inclusionary, assimilatory policy of jus soli?
I agree that social services incentives and provision are an issue. But the solution should be in social services policy - articulating the externalities that a minimum-wage employer enjoys from it's community, for instance. I highly agree with calling out where Wal Mart and IBP screw the common good for their own profit. Also, I highly disagree with bilingual education; if there is public education, it should be assimilationist. There are many policies with respect to Mexican immigrants which are not as assimilationist as they could be, and I suspect we would agree on many of them. I've seen your other posts expressing fear that Mexican immigrants may attempt a seccession/annexation of the southwest. I do want to ask you, do you believe a "theroretically perfect" policy of assimilation could possibly apply, or not at all?
What do you mean by understanding "this 'American' thing"? My father's family emigrated from the Netherlands in 1954; at that time, it was still a devastated economy rebuilding from WWII. He later nationalized (and in any event my mom's from California) but nevertheless I have a personal interest in the question. I believe my uncle remains a permanent resident alien, and my aunt happens to be from Taiwan. Tell me this: Would you strip my cousins of US citizenship? Or (if I mention my one cousin is enrolled at the US Naval Academy aspiring to be a pilot and eventually, captain of an aircraft carrier) would you rather get in a tizzy about sino-nederland subversion of the US military or the fact that my cousin is receiving a 'free' education from US taxpayers?
My short view: my grandparents (with their Dutch children) were able to enter the United States via a legal process for economic reasons and have successfully assimilated into American culture. I value this as an American ideal, and support policies that enable economic migration and assimilation.
The Lonewacko Blog|12.5.04 @ 10:57PM|#
12/4 4:43 PM was the most cogent I've seen of your anti-immigration postings. I'm glad they've become a lot more developed over time.
Why, thank you.
The one facet I'd like to discuss is your apparent fear regarding the children of immigrants becoming citizens.
In the context of "The Big Show on the Border," it's not a matter of "fear." It's a matter of pointing out that "there's nothing as permanent as a 'guest' worker." In other words, anyone who tells you our "guest" workers will go home is either lying or just can't figure things out too good.
What do you mean by understanding "this 'American' thing"
What I mean is so-called "immigration reformers" seem to have a different mindset than most other Americans. For instance, if there had been TV during the 1800's they would have appeared on all the shows repeating over and over, "But, the South's economy will collapse!" Many of these "immigration reformers" appear to have stepped into our time from either the American 1800's or some other previous century.
|12.6.04 @ 2:31AM|#
Out of curiosity, Wacko, do you feel the same way about people who immigrate from Samoa and Puerto Rico as you do about Mexican immigrants and immigrants from other countries?
|12.6.04 @ 10:26AM|#
"History shows us that having millions of citizens of another country in a country is not a wise thing."
Yes, exactly, it a dangerous thing to have a class of structurally unassimilated, non-citizens in your country. It screws up the economy, it screws up social relations, it encourages crime, and it creates a lucrative market in bypassing security programs needed to keep the dangerous minority out...bad bad bad.
So we either need to keep all of these people out, or incorporate them as fully-vested members of the body politic. The first choice, however you feel about it, is not within the realm of the possible. Huge numbers of Central Americans have always come nor the Rio Grande, huge numbers continue to come north, and huge numbers will always come north.
Prohibitionist policies don't prevent this migration, or even reduce it. They just increase the harm associated with it, and the problem is big enough that making people who oppose immigration feel good about "doing something" is a luxury we cannot afford. Because of immigration prohibition, there exists a subculture of black market people-smugglers, who have the skills and infrastructe necessary to help potential terrorists evade our security system. We can't have that.
Does it bother you to hear people speaking Spanish? Boo fuckity hoo. Start liking it.