New at Reason

David Weigel | September 19, 2006

Brian Doherty reports from the front lines of the immigration battle, where no chicken processing plant is safe from la migra.

Comments

|9.19.06 @ 4:32PM|#

Great story, Brian.

|9.19.06 @ 4:56PM|#

"We can't lose sight of the fact that these people were here illegally," said Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Marc Raimondi...

"We can't lose sight of the fact that these people were here illegally," said Fugitive Slave Enforcement spokesman Marc Raimondi...

"We can't lose sight of the fact that these people were here illegally," said Lunch Counter Enforcement spokesman Marc Raimondi...

"We can't lose sight of the fact that these people were here illegally," said Tiananmen Square Enforcement spokesman Marc Raimondi...

|9.19.06 @ 5:19PM|#

Open borders would be damn sweet. Not like all at once, but it should no lies be like a 30 year goal.

I think the biggest problem with opponents of more expansive immigration is the fallacy that there are a limited number of jobs that immigrants are "taking". It's funny that these people don't notice that the US population increased from like 80 million to 300 million in the last century, yet puzzlingly, there aren't hundreds of millions of unemployed people roaming the streets.

|9.19.06 @ 5:37PM|#

An older friend I knew who was in the training video business did a safety video for a chicken processing plant in rural Virginia. He said that it was one of the most miserable experiences he has ever had on the job.

For some reason they sent him a large container of chicken when he was done. He donated the lot to charity.

That area is filled with underemployed natives. Noone wanted to work there. I fear that these plants may also be in trouble. I like my chicken preprocessed.

|9.19.06 @ 5:43PM|#

And you fellas do what for a living?
while makin the US the only country in the world without some sort of control on immigration seems like a swell idea to the conveniently PC, i will once again reiterate: If the USG, with boundless tax $, underwrites & supplies with arms foul oligarchies, & military satrapies wherein honest people can not feed thier families with thier work, & peasants are driven off the land by floods of heavily subsidized exports (see: ADM, see Subsidies, see Nafta) then this immigration- massive, in the millions- has no more to do with "free markets" than a Soviet 5 year plan.
Refugees are being artificially produced, who then flow into the US, which drives down wages.
Why is the interest of Capital sacred, & the interests of Labor profane? or to put in in correctoid jargon- racist?
Tell you what. You agitate to end all- ALL- military & police & banking support for these "democracies" as much as you tout profiting from human misery, & Ill say you are something more than thugs & opportunists.
until then- you know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

|9.19.06 @ 6:11PM|#

"IF" the US always had open borders, what would be the shape of our country today?

Do open borders have doors that swing both ways?

Do open borders restrict law enforcement (or military or criminals) from all sides from coming and going at will?

I know there are some studies out there that show an economic + but what else is involved besides just economics? One thing is proven in America: an economic + is not a gain for all.

Immigration types say this
.

|9.19.06 @ 6:12PM|#

On a related note, and something I had hoped reason might have covered today, is the fact that "developing economies" have been given a greater role in the creation of International Money Fund policy. Of course, these "developing economies" are four countries which have either been around for a damn long time or are simply corrupt (or both): Mexico, China, Turkey, and South Korea.

If someone can explain to me how this actually helps truly developing nations, I'd be interested.

|9.19.06 @ 6:36PM|#

MUTT,

Again you bring up the fact that government injustices generate economic refugees. And again you imply that the sins of the guilty accrue to the refugees themselves, the very people most punished by the injustices!

The people you want to use the discriminatory hand of immigration law against have done nothing wrong.

Also, unless you can come up with evidence that supports a conspiracy of the capitalist class meant to generate refugee labor, your claims that elephantine governments' trodding on the peoples of the hemisphere produce migration as a collateral consequence are not terribly profound.

|9.19.06 @ 7:01PM|#

Jeez, Mike:
This isnt complicated at all. I do not attribute "sins" to people fleeing oppression.
The sins belong to the oppressors, & those who profit thereby.
Duh.
And I gather "discriminatory immigration law" to you means- any regulation at all? What else am I to make of this?
The "evidence" to support the history of Latin America is.....the history of Latin America!!!!
Theres a conspiracy for ya!
Or are you telling me the US has zero role in the realities of CA ?
really?

|9.19.06 @ 7:04PM|#

Guys: Anyone know where I can get a list of pro-immigration debating points (seriously)? Or maybe we should make one up...

|9.19.06 @ 7:29PM|#

I do not attribute "sins" to people fleeing oppression.

Perhaps not. But you do see fit to attribute punishment to them.

And I gather "discriminatory immigration law" to you means- any regulation at all?

A discriminatory immigration law would be akin to a discriminatory employment or housing law: a law that was based on characteristics outside the individual's control of circumstances, especially when it is not in support of a compelling state interest.

Discriminating against those trying to migrate because they are agents of a foreign power? That's okay. Discriminating against those trying to migrate because they want a job? That's not okay.

Discriminating against people because clumsy governments have destroyed their every opportunity at home? That's downright rude!

Or are you telling me the US has zero role in the realities of CA ? really?

I said nothing of the sort. Are you capable of comprehending the difference between a conspiracy to cause refugee labor to stream across the southern border and an unintended collateral consequence of bad government policies?

Not, of course, that it matters to the refugees...

|9.19.06 @ 7:52PM|#

"I said nothing of the sort. Are you capable of comprehending the difference between a conspiracy to cause refugee labor to stream across the southern border and an unintended collateral consequence of bad government policies?"

And.....we should continue to bankroll bad Government policies.....because......you profit? Or why, exactly?
"Bad Gvt Policies", "unintended consequences"- is that like "collateral damage"? Gvt policies, have been in place in this arena since the attempt to bring Nicaragua into the Union as a slave state in the 1850's.
For a Libertarian, you sure are forgiving of "bad policies".
Myself, Id not chalk them up to an error, but to design.
And that design, after generations, has rendered rich lands so corrupt, so set in stone, the only choice honest people have is to flee. Fine by you. Not by me.
Who is the racists here, Im wonderin.
Ed Abbey said, 30 plus years ago, the thing to do with people fleeing these places("Democracies" all) is meet them at the border. With rifles. GIVE THEM the rifles, a couple hundred rounds, & send them back South.

back when we were butcherin Nicaraguans & Salvadoreans in wholesale lots, I was raising $ & supplies for the Nica military & the FMLN.
What were you doing? Hmmmmm?
Using desperate refugeess for your profit? Bloviating about the senile frontman Reagans love of freedom?
Christ, man. The US has overseen a charnal house, & now snivels at the logical product.
And Im the dupe? Im the one who cant describe the situation? Nah.

|9.19.06 @ 7:55PM|#

Anyone who speeds on the highway is a law breaking criminal. Those bastards, have they no shame? We ought to start operation revoke your license, and give it teeth.

Granted our highways would become even more gridlocked than they are now, but at least there will be law on the highway again, like there was when my granddaddy came here from the old country.

Just because a law is a law doesn't mean that someone who breaks the law is immoral or is otherwise a bad person. I don't see how someone can call themselves a libertarian who believes consenting adults ought to be able to do what they want with each other, and also say that an employer can't hire a willing employee, or claim that such a transaction is somehow wrong.

That said, if there is another mass walkout on Commie Day next year I'm joining the Lou Dobbs brigade and voting to kick the damn commie lovers out.

|9.19.06 @ 8:02PM|#

"We can't lose sight of the fact that these people were here illegally," said Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Marc Raimondi when confronted by the AP reporter over the destruction his organization's efforts brought to Stillmore. But let's lose sight of it, and look at the true fruit of tough immigration law enforcement: plants without workers, children without parents, houses without tenants, stores without customers.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

That one is so good, it's going into my "quotes" file to be faithfully reproduced every time a Reasonista dares to use the words "Voluntary Assumption of Risk" in support of his argument ever, ever again.

You have to give the open-borders crowd points for tenacity - having lost the public policy argument, the constitutional argument, the economic argument and even the "libertarian principals" argument, they're still prepared to backtrack on virtually everything else they claim to stand for in order to promote their pet agenda.

It's entertaining moments like this that keep me participating in an argument that, basically, I don't give a shit about one way or another.

|9.19.06 @ 8:13PM|#

Guys: Anyone know where I can get a list of pro-immigration debating points (seriously)? Or maybe we should make one up...

I'm not exactly in the open borders camp, but here is a sound argument (and much better than anything Reason has come up with) on this topic:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4620

Note that not once in that article does Mr. Binswanger use the terms 'racist', 'racism', or 'brown-skinned' people to make an ad hominem attack on the yet unpersuaded.

|9.19.06 @ 8:15PM|#

MUTT,

For the record, the US should not continue to backroll bad government policies. For the record, I am not forgiving of past or present government policies that steal land, marginalize peasants, shackle labor or do any of the multitude of things that governments do to deny the freedoms of the individual and enrich the pockets of the politically connected.

Now that I have validated your main complaint, can you address why the tempest-tost masses fleeing such abuse should be denied entry into the United States?

|9.19.06 @ 10:42PM|#

"And.....we should continue to bankroll bad Government policies.....because......you profit? Or why, exactly?"

MUTT, these voices you're hearing justifying US government policies in Central America - are they coming from your neighbors? Some co-worker you don't like? Or are they just in your head? Because they certainly aren't here, among the people you're charmingly calling racist, ignorant, and "thugs & opportunists."

Pig Mannix, you think maybe you're being just a bit generous to anti-immigration advocates by saying all those arguments have been lost? The economic argument, in particular - if either side has won that argument, it certainly isn't the one you claim.

|9.19.06 @ 11:34PM|#

Pig Mannix, you think maybe you're being just a bit generous to anti-immigration advocates by saying all those arguments have been lost? The economic argument, in particular - if either side has won that argument, it certainly isn't the one you claim.

Read the article. I only brought it up because Doherty pretty much conceded it. Personally, I wouldn't have conceded it because I think the pro-immigration side has the better of the economic argument.

But let's face it - when somebody who calls himself a libertarian has to defend his position by writing an article that basically says, "Pleeezzze! For the chiiillldrruuuun!", even he has to know his case pretty much sucks.

|9.20.06 @ 12:04AM|#

Why didn't this plant's managers just apply for some H2B visas?

If they are in Georgia and they take a couple of Republican congressmen golfing at Augusta, the next day they'll have enough H2B visas for half the population of Michoacan sitting on their desk.

|9.20.06 @ 12:04AM|#

Pig Mannix,

I did read the article, and I fail to see how Doherty conceded that. The only thing I can figure is that you're talking about his reference to "macroeconomic studies showing alleged overall negative effects on the national economy," but with the word "alleged" in there, that's hardly a concession. His argument seems to be more reasonably summed up by his statement that this crackdown results in "plants without workers, children without parents, houses without tenants, stores without customers."

|9.20.06 @ 12:07AM|#

Why didn't this plant's managers just apply for some H2B visas?

If they are in Georgia and they take a couple of Republican congressmen golfing at Augusta, the next day they'll have enough H2B visas for half the population of Michoacan sitting on their desk.

|9.20.06 @ 1:11AM|#

This argument sounds so similar to the argument here in Thailand over the new visa rules, which are going to make it harder for people to stay and work here in some creative capacities without the official documentation. The side defending the rules have arguments like, "Well, it's the law (so, must be moral right?)," or "People doing the border jumping aren't contributing *meaningfully* to the economy (as if they know better than the traders and consumers themselves what is meaningful)" or "Other countries have stupid rules too so why complain about Thailand." It's beginning to make me think the world is basically composed of two mentalities - the selfish control freaks and the people who just want to be left alone, leaving others alone as well.

fyodor|9.20.06 @ 11:19AM|#

MUTT, there's an old saying you may have heard of that goes like this: two wrongs don't make a right. Of course we don't support US policies that prop up dictatorships abroad! I'm skeptical that any of our policies are as black and white as that, but I'm against our participation in the Columbian civil war, for instance, even though it's far from certain that the rebels are exactly freedom fighters. But I'm against coercive meddling in others' affairs in general.

But even if it's true that all of Latin America's problems are our government's doing, that still wouldn't justify keeping the victims of our meddling out of our country! Au contraire, it would make us all the more responsible for letting them in so those victims would have an alternative to the supposed US-caused horrors of their homelands!

You tip your hand when you imply we support Capital but not Labor. But we're the ones who support the right of a Laborer to choose where he'll work without regard to national origin! Your view that this is somehow a nod to "Capital" without regard to the international Laborer's plight only shows your own blindness toward the plight of laborers who start their journeys from outside US borders. I won't call you racist, but your blindness on this matter seems clear.

fyodor|9.20.06 @ 11:19AM|#

MUTT, there's an old saying you may have heard of that goes like this: two wrongs don't make a right. Of course we don't support US policies that prop up dictatorships abroad! I'm skeptical that any of our policies are as black and white as that, but I'm against our participation in the Columbian civil war, for instance, even though it's far from certain that the rebels are exactly freedom fighters. But I'm against coercive meddling in others' affairs in general.

But even if it's true that all of Latin America's problems are our government's doing, that still wouldn't justify keeping the victims of our meddling out of our country! Au contraire, it would make us all the more responsible for letting them in so those victims would have an alternative to the supposed US-caused horrors of their homelands!

You tip your hand when you imply we support Capital but not Labor. But we're the ones who support the right of a Laborer to choose where he'll work without regard to national origin! Your view that this is somehow a nod to "Capital" without regard to the international Laborer's plight only shows your own blindness toward the plight of laborers who start their journeys from outside US borders. I won't call you racist cause who knows what really motivates you, but your blindness on this matter seems clear.

fyodor|9.20.06 @ 11:38AM|#

It's beginning to make me think the world is basically composed of two mentalities - the selfish control freaks and the people who just want to be left alone, leaving others alone as well.

Well, mongeese, join the club! Many of us here would say that's a very good way to divide up people! I would only differ slightly to give the control freaks the benefit of the doubt to grant that they generally justify their controlling ways, to others especially but even usually to themselves, as well-meaning as opposed to merely selfish. We may never know their inner psychological motivations for sure, but we can say at the least that such well-meaningness is misguided at best and a cynical sham at worst.

|9.20.06 @ 1:49PM|#

I'm not exactly in the open borders camp, but here is a sound argument (and much better than anything Reason has come up with)
That's the easy part.
on this topic: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4620
Quite sentimental (but small-pox victims don't have rights?) and full of plenty false statements; this was probably the silliest:
Nor can a majority dictate to the owners of private property.
Gimme a break...he's never heard of zoning laws?

Guys: Anyone know where I can get a list of pro-immigration debating points (seriously)?
That question seems to tell more than it asks: apparently you're for open(?) immigration, but you don't know why.

The "evidence" to support the history of Latin America is.....the history of Latin America !!!!
Latin Americans built Latin America, and they're solely to blame for it's short-comings. There're reasons why Canada and Australia, for example, aren't supposedly corrupted by the US, just like there're reasons why the border with Canada is not at all like the border with Mexico.

I would only differ slightly to give the control freaks the benefit of the doubt to grant that they generally justify their controlling ways, to others especially but even usually to themselves, as well-meaning as opposed to merely selfish.
Unlike liberal control freaks, this control freak doesn't feel any need at all to pretend to be well-meaning to 'brown people' at the expense of others. I oppose open immigration because I don't want my daughter to involuntarily end up living in a third-world country.

I don't care much at all about the economic issues, which are fairly trivial, and care nothing at all, quite literally, about the supposed rights of immigrants: they can exercise their rights in their own countries ... and if they literally can't, it's their own damned fault (and therefore a good reason NOT to let them into the US). I expect 'brown people' to take care of themselves and their own countries because I don't see them as too inherently inferior to do so, as do liberals.

As I've mentioned before, my two best friends are imports from Mexico...but they're not Mestizos (Surprise! Lots of Mexicans aren't!). One is Jewish and the other Germanic. In Mexico they both lived in walled compounds with hired armed guards. Sweet, huh? It's the U.S. of the open-borders future.

|9.20.06 @ 2:42PM|#

"I oppose open immigration because I don't want my daughter to involuntarily end up living in a third-world country."

So I guess it's a form of tribalism then. It's a lucky thing for you your tribe got in early enough before people like you started sifting through the races, playing God with people's futures. Good luck with that moral evolution thing.

|9.20.06 @ 2:44PM|#

Well, we could dig a one hundred mile wide trench along the border. This would have the added benefit of providing a sea level shipping link from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Of course, we'd have to ED an awful lot of high priced real estate but most of it's just desert scrubland. I'm sure San Diegans wouldn't appreciate it but sacrifices are necessary if we're serious about keeping out the Mexicans.

It would keep them out, wouldn't it? I mean, look how well the Florida Strait keeps out the Cubans.

|9.20.06 @ 6:50PM|#

Now that I have validated your main complaint, can you address why the tempest-tost masses fleeing such abuse should be denied entry into the United States?
They most certainly should be allowed in as refugees fleeing persecution, which is what you are, if a peasant, in such places. Frankly, giving them rifles & pointing them South would fit better with the H&R "bootstrap" meme, & my own beliefs.
And the supporters and profiteers of such persecution, rather than being respectable campaign contributors, should be hauled up for profiting from misery, or aiding and abetting murder. Which is what these folks are fleeing. Been there. Lived with them.
As it stands now, they profit, & claim the high ground on H&R.

|9.21.06 @ 12:07AM|#

You can do two things to help people fleeing a bad regime or socio-political system: allow them into your country or help to overthrow that regime. The first is much easier to do and requires no violence, especially towards those who are innocent who might get caught in the crossfire. The second is much harder, bloody, and lots of innocent people get killed; and since it's supported from the outside it's possible such support will be viewed cynically, weakening the long term possibility the regime will remain stable and/or come under fire from successive waves of counter-insurgency (see Iraq). But the two aren't mutually exclusive either. So, basically MUTT, your argument makes no sense.

A third possibility is offering free trade to that country, along with allowing people in. This could potentially lead to weakening the autocratic control of the leaders, though it takes much more time and is not certain.

|9.21.06 @ 12:45AM|#

"So, basically MUTT, your argument makes no sense."

In addition to the fact that your argument makes no sense, MUTT, you're also a fucking prick, since you keep accusing people here of being racists and supporting these regimes, but you offer no evidence to that end. Why don't you see if you can muster up some basic decency and honesty?