Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Forget About Immigration Reform Any Time Soon
The Wash Times has polled the Senate about the immigration reform bill crafted last week. As it gets debated in the upper chambers, the numbers aren't looking good:
Senators will be asked to make their first vote on the measure today, on whether to begin debating the bill. It will require 60 votes to pass, and leaders of both parties are urging their members to vote for it, so the debate can at least begin....
The Times survey found 17 senators supporting the current bill and another two who lean toward supporting it; 17 who oppose it; 22 who have concerns; and 32 senators who are still reviewing it. Nine senators' positions couldn't be determined, and Sen. Tim Johnson, South Dakota Democrat, has been absent all year because of a medical situation.
Given the many stupid and unworkable provisions in the bill (such as the "touchback" provisions and increased fines on employers), its failure is not necessarily a bad thing. Though it's likely that any defeat of a "comprehensive" bill (comprehensive being the keyword for any legislation that doesn't seek to immediately deport 12 million illegals currently in the country), will be interpreted as a win for immigration isolationists. But before the Duncan Hunters and Tom Tancredos of the world get worked up on that score, they ought to remember the '06 midterms, in which immigration foes tumbled readily.
Reason's guide to reality-based immigration policy is online here.
Guy Montag|5.21.07 @ 9:20AM|#
So, back to pressing for that international highway bill with no
checkpoints.
Perhaps the new congress can make some headway with the Canada to
Iowa shuttle service.
|5.21.07 @ 9:32AM|#
Let's hope this bill does not pass. I, for one, like living in the United States and not Mexico. I'm no fan of Spanish culture and hence Hispanic culture (Spain and Portugal being two of the more backwards nations in Europe, Spain was one of Max Weber's examples of how some cultures retard capitalism and it was a fascist dictatorship a generation ago). It's a real big mess. What makes it worse is that we will most certainly get the worst of Hispanic/Spanish culture. The ambitious, talented and well off (and yes often just lucky) Mexicans, of whom there are more than a few, can live an excellent life in Mexico. It's the peasants we will get, less than high school education and more prone to pathologies both cultural and biological (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol11no05/04-1107.htm). No thanks!
shecky|5.21.07 @ 9:46AM|#
All proposals so far seem flawed from the very basis: that government knows best and thus should control the labor market. Once you buy into that idea, any wacky, completely unworkable, unrealistic immigration law becomes justifiable.
shecky|5.21.07 @ 9:48AM|#
It's the peasants we will get, less than high school
education and more prone to pathologies both cultural and
biological (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol11no05/04-1107.htm).
No thanks!
You forgot leprosy. LEPROSY!!!
|5.21.07 @ 10:24AM|#
What is the "touchback" provision?
The immigrants get to start at their own 20 yard line after we've
kicked the ball through their end zone.
|5.21.07 @ 10:29AM|#
If everyone with any brains or ambition moves to the US, who's
going to be left in Mexico to Ceaucescu Up their ruling
class?
I would be in favor of open borders with Mexico as long as Mexicans
could legally import guns so they could shoot the crooks that are
bleeding their country dry.
Rhywun|5.21.07 @ 10:32AM|#
I'm no fan of Spanish culture and hence Hispanic
culture
I know. I hate those people forcing their culture on me.
|5.21.07 @ 11:06AM|#
I'm no fan of Spanish culture...
¿Is Spain a fan of Spanish culture? They seem to have no
problems with immigration
themselves:
Over the past decade, the traditionally homogeneous country has become a sort of open-door laboratory on immigration. Spain has absorbed more than 3 million foreigners from places as diverse as Romania, Morocco, and South America. More than 11% of the country's 44 million residents are now foreign-born, one of the highest proportions in Europe. With hundreds of thousands more arriving each year, Spain could soon reach the U.S. rate of 12.9%.
And it doesn't seem to have hurt much. Spain is Europe's best-performing major economy, with growth averaging 3.1% over the past five years. Since 2002, the country has created half the new jobs in the euro zone. Unemployment has plummeted from more than 20% in the 1990s to 8.6%, within shooting distance of the 7.2% euro zone average. The government attributes more than half this stellar performance to immigration.
As Will Wilkenson
notes...
Apparently all those immigrants haven't "taken all the jobs." Ask your favorite Lou Dobbs-loving friend to explain to you how this is possible.
grylliade|5.21.07 @ 11:23AM|#
Let's hope this bill does not pass. I, for one, like living in the United States and not Mexico. I'm no fan of Spanish culture and hence Hispanic culture
I know! I mean, we already live in
Germany/Ireland/Italy/China/Poland/Scandinavia! God, those
immigrants always impose their culture on us! When will
American culture finally have the weapons to fight back? Poor,
defenseless American culture!
(Spain and Portugal being two of the more backwards nations in Europe, Spain was one of Max Weber's examples of how some cultures retard capitalism and it was a fascist dictatorship a generation ago).
Which might be a relevant point if any of these immigrants were
coming from Spain or Portugal. Mexican culture has some
slight differences from Spanish culture.
It's a real big mess. What makes it worse is that we will most certainly get the worst of Hispanic/Spanish culture. The ambitious, talented and well off (and yes often just lucky) Mexicans, of whom there are more than a few, can live an excellent life in Mexico. It's the peasants we will get, less than high school education and more prone to pathologies both cultural and biological (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol11no05/04-1107.htm). No thanks!
Unfortunately for your theory, we've always gotten the
"worst" of whatever the bogeyman-of-the-moment country is.
Successful Irish didn't come to America in large numbers; neither
did successful Germans, successful Italians . . . you see the
point. Hell, mostly the immigrants to the original American
colonies weren't the successful. Georgia started as a penal colony
(as did Australia). The strength of British North American colonies
was that immigration wasn't limited to the cream of the crop. We
take the poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free and make
Americans out of them (with all the good and bad that
entails).
It's amazing that two centuries later nativists still trot out the
same tired, lame, disproven theories. Can't you guys come up with
anything new? You've got two (plus) centuries of American
immigration to draw on; can't you come up with new reasons why
immigrants are bad?
Single Lunatic|5.21.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Not to mention that Mexicans smell bad. Have you ever had
Mexican food? I haven't, since it's against my patriotism, but I
knew somebody who ate a bean burrito once, and boy you didn't want
to be in the same room with him after that one.
One other thing: they are stealing our water. I thought
Libertarians were against theft? Plus they are contributing C02 to
the atmosphere (so if you environmentalists were consistent with
your beliefs, you'd be against immigration).
|5.21.07 @ 11:35AM|#
grylliade,
That or the last hundred years of immigrants are responsible for
our increasingly centralized and authoritarian government. I doubt
it, myself, but I suppose that's possible. Certainly, most of the
Cuban expats who I know have a bit of an authoritarian streak,
whether they're politically left or right. Does that kind of
attitude corrupt the American system? Maybe. But keeping everybody
out isn't the answer, either, even if that's true.
Cesar|5.21.07 @ 12:15PM|#
Ken-
Did you know that when Ireland, Norway, Sweden, and Italy sent
immigrants to the United States that they were extremely poor,
backward countries? Probably much poorer than Mexico today, there
were actual wide-spread famines in Ireland and Scandinavia in the
19th century, I haven't heard of any in Mexico recently.
Also, they didn't send their 'best and brightest' here, they sent
their poor landless peasants.
How we\'re going to fight this|5.21.07 @ 12:43PM|#
It's pretty obvious that past immigrants have assimilated, but
anyone who lives in SoCal knows that the same is not true of the
current wave. And, they don't have to assimilate due to having so
many people from one country or at least region. Even the LAT has
noted Spanish-speaking *Koreans* who don't speak English because
they don't have to.
And, of course, Gillespie is wrong about the causes of those R
losses. In fact, in the case of RandyGraf, the GOP handed the win
to the D because of corruption.
I'm slightly leaning towards this bill not passing, and I'm sorry
that Reason will miss out on the fine, libertarian-friendly
features of "reform":
- a National IDCard; even if it's just for foreigners at the start,
it will eventually be for everyone
- massive subsidies for cheap labor employers
- even more PoliticalPower inside the U.S. for the
MexicanGovernment
- importing massive numbers of people from countries with
absolutely no libertarian tradition of any kind
- a potential cost of $2.5 trillion
(RobertRector)
There are many other pro-libertarian features, but that should be
enough for now.
|5.21.07 @ 12:46PM|#
"Which might be a relevant point if any of these immigrants were
coming from Spain or Portugal. Mexican culture has some slight
differences from Spanish culture."
I agree, it is much, much worse.
"I know! I mean, we already live in
Germany/Ireland/Italy/China/Poland/Scandinavia! God, those
immigrants always impose their culture on us! When will American
culture finally have the weapons to fight back? Poor, defenseless
American culture!"
Maybe not defenseless, but fragile. Maybe you've read there was a
very strong push to assimilate during those earlier waves coupled
with breaks in liberalizing immigration (in fact it was downright
nasty at times). Also, other than China, which had a downright
negligble influence to this day, all those other nations were part
of Europe, a culture I simply prefer to that of South America
(before you hyperventilate, yes, Spain is part of Europe, one of
the worst parts IMO when considering cultural and political
influence and contributions, but South America had small
contributions before becoming Hispanic, and that wasn't much of a
boost itself).
Culture can actually be forced on folks, in many ways. Ask the
Mexicans who lived in Texas back when it was theirs, for example.
It can also happen because companies tend to go for broad markets,
so they will 'Hispanicize' their movies, tv shows, products, etc.,
in the hopes of reaching these blocs. Since the number of movie
studios, tv networks, etc. are not numberless, there may simply be
no 'non-Hispanicized' products in some areas after a while.
Please note what I am saying here. I don't like Mexican or Spanish
culture, politics, philosophy, etc. Double for peasant
Mexican/Spanish culture etc.. I'm simply not impressed by it. I'm
sure many Mexicans and Spaniards are not impressed by it as well
(just as many Americans think our culture is boring and passe). I'm
also not saying my preferences reflect some cosmic judgment;
American or European culture is no cosmic sense "better" than
Mexican or Spanish culture. I just really like the former and am
not impressed by, in fact bored to tears by, the latter. Don't I
have a right to preserve and protect what I like? Libertarians used
to talk a lot about how, while discrimination is a bad thing,
freedom of association is a higher thing (Epstein wrote a book
about this). If private clubs should be able to exclude some people
(maybe just for size reasons) and private neighborhoods can freely
enter into contractual covenants to maintain the size or
'character' of their neighborhoods, why cant this happen on a
national level?
|5.21.07 @ 1:06PM|#
"It's pretty obvious that past immigrants have assimilated, but
anyone who lives in SoCal knows that the same is not true of the
current wave."
This is the crux of the biscuit, methinks. I find it weird and
unsettling to be surrounded by large groups of non-tourists on a
beach speaking a foreign language. Or going into a shop in the US
and having the cashier expect me to address her in a language other
than English. Or to search for radio stations and find that half of
them are in Spanish (and playing either godawful Spanish-language
pop or folk music). Yes, I'm one of those despicable nativists,
except that I'm not. I speak Spanish and I love Mexican food and
think that Mexican women are pretty damn hot, but I think there are
far too many Mexicans coming in far too fast and not assimilating
sufficiently, and instead obliging Americans to adjust to the new
bilingual, bi-cultural landscape.
VM|5.21.07 @ 1:07PM|#
ProGLib - social leprosy doesn't count.
And the correspondence course, "how to be an internet charmer" is
starting to pay off.
|5.21.07 @ 1:22PM|#
"It's pretty obvious that past immigrants have assimilated, but
anyone who lives in SoCal knows that the same is not true of the
current wave. And, they don't have to assimilate due to having so
many people from one country or at least region."
In the first half of the 20th century, there were no less than
three Finnish-language newspapers in Fitchburg, Massachusetts alone
- and that's in a city whose population never reached even 60,000
people, of which the Finns were always a small minority.
This was no anomaly - there were Yiddish, Polish, French, Chinese,
and German-speaking immigrant communities all over the US.
Isolated linguistic and cultural islands like these are much less
common today, not more common. You know why you have to put up with
delivery guys who no speaka so good English? Because they're out
there, in mainstream society, dealing with native-born Americans
throughout their working lives, and much of their personal lives,
too. That wasn't the case 100 years ago, when there were much
greater opportunities to live and work entirely within an ethnic
community, and there was no real mass culture to compete with the
localized cultures in these enclaves.
|5.21.07 @ 1:28PM|#
Don't I have a right to preserve and protect what I
like?
I find it weird and unsettling to be surrounded by large groups
of non-tourists on a beach speaking a foreign language.
Hmmm... Emotional appeals...
I am hurt when I read about people dying during the desert crossing
that is their best hope for a better life.
I find it weird when I hear of the parents torn from their homes
and families and sent back to their country of birth.
When I think of the tens of millions of potential immigrants and
the tens of millions of Americans whose lives will improve as a
direct result of their immigrating and the hundreds of millions
more Americans whose lives will improve as an indirect result, I
feel unsettled.
Don't I have a right to live in a nation that values individual
freedom?
grylliade|5.21.07 @ 1:40PM|#
It's pretty obvious that past immigrants have assimilated, but anyone who lives in SoCal knows that the same is not true of the current wave.
Again, can't you guys find new arguments? You said the same thing
about every. Immigration. Wave. "This time it's different! Those
Germans and Scandinavians aren't English! Those Irish are Catholic!
Those Italians are from Southern Europe! Those Poles are from
Eastern Europe! They'll never assimilate, in spite of all evidence,
because it's just different this time!"
even more PoliticalPower inside the U.S. for the MexicanGovernment
The Pope is sending Irish Catholics here so he can take over the US
- I mean, the MexicanGovernment is sending IllegalImmigrants here
so it can take over the US!!! ZOMG!!!
importing massive numbers of people from countries with absolutely no libertarian tradition of any kind
This is different from previous waves how? The only ones I can
think of that had any real libertarian tradition were the Germans
and Scandinavians, yet somehow we've remained freer than Europe,
with all its myriad restrictions on immigration.
Maybe not defenseless, but fragile. Maybe you've read there was a very strong push to assimilate during those earlier waves coupled with breaks in liberalizing immigration (in fact it was downright nasty at times).
As I've said before on other threads, I don't see how you can
consider American culture - a culture so strong that people all
over the world feel its pull strongly - is "fragile." People who
live under the rule of the ayatollahs in Iran want to imitate
American culture; why would Mexican immigrants be able to resist
the pull?
before you hyperventilate
Why would I do that?
It can also happen because companies tend to go for broad markets, so they will 'Hispanicize' their movies, tv shows, products, etc., in the hopes of reaching these blocs. Since the number of movie studios, tv networks, etc. are not numberless, there may simply be no 'non-Hispanicized' products in some areas after a while.
The number of movie studios, TV networks, etc., is not numberless,
you're right. But it's also nowhere near saturated, given the new
technologies that are proliferating. Culture is becoming less and
less monolithic, and more and more oriented towards niches; but in
this case the trend will reverse itself and only Hispanic
entertainment will be available in some places? I see no reason to
think that's the case.
I'm also not saying my preferences reflect some cosmic judgment; American or European culture is no cosmic sense "better" than Mexican or Spanish culture.
Which is odd; because I'd say that American culture is,
overall, objectively better than general European, Mexican, or
Spanish culture. Not in every way, but taken as a whole.
Which is, I guess, part of why I'm not so worried about
assimilation. I think, on the whole, American culture is so
attractive that people want to assimilate. Part of that
assimilation will entail making American culture more like Mexican
culture; personally, I think that the good contributions will
outweigh the bad, though both will certainly happen. But mostly,
Mexican immigrants will become more like Americans, and we'll have
a culture that's the richer for it.
If private clubs should be able to exclude some people (maybe just for size reasons) and private neighborhoods can freely enter into contractual covenants to maintain the size or 'character' of their neighborhoods, why cant this happen on a national level?
Of course it can. Any nation is free to enact whatever
immigration laws it deems good. All we're arguing is that the
chosen immigration laws are generally bad. If private
clubs want to keep me out, no problem; their loss. Same goes for
private neighborhoods. And the same goes for nations. If the US
wants to restrict immigration from Mexico, it has every right to do
so. We'll just be poorer, culturally and materially, than we would
be with more open immigration.
Cesar|5.21.07 @ 1:46PM|#
The arguments never change, do they? Check out some of these
gems of xenophobia from the 19th Century, they sum up a lot of
Chris "LoneWacko" Kelly's arguments.
"The Usual Irish Way of Doing Things"
http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu/imageapp.php?Major=IM&Minor=F&SlideNum=16.00
"The Threat of Foreign Religions"
http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu/imageapp.php?Major=IM&Minor=F&SlideNum=46.00
and, of course, European Nations using immigration for
"PoliticalInfluence" in the USA
http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu/imageapp.php?Major=IM&Minor=F&SlideNum=3.00
Guy Montag|5.21.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Look on the bright side, open border types. This clears the way
for big government drinking water fountain projects five miles deep
along the southern border. Not to mention shuttle service along the
massive inbound highway system to be built.
On the northern border look for hot chocolate and 'caribou' stands
manned by the Parks Service.
Of course, all of this can be paid for by "offsets" and re-training
of all of those pesky ICE agents transformed into border
greeters.
Cesar|5.21.07 @ 2:02PM|#
"Or to search for radio stations and find that half of them are
in Spanish (and playing either godawful Spanish-language pop or
folk music)."
Yeah, cause our 'culturally American' music like Brittney Spears,
Justin Timberlake, 50 cent, and Nickelback is just *so* culturally
superior!
|5.21.07 @ 2:04PM|#
What makes it worse is that we will most certainly get the
worst of Hispanic/Spanish culture. The ambitious, talented and well
off (and yes often just lucky) Mexicans, of whom there are more
than a few, can live an excellent life in Mexico. It's the peasants
we will get
Ken, I think you've got it exactly backwards. What we get mostly
are the ambitious, hardworking Mexicans who are willing to go to
great risk just to find gainful employment. What Mexico keeps are
the indolent, useless aristocrats who've ensured for generations
that Mexico remains a desperate shithole. The best argument I've
read in favor of limiting immigration is the "pressure cooker
theory"--that all of those ambitious people might finally force the
powers that be in Mexico to change. Not likely, though.
|5.21.07 @ 2:16PM|#
Indeed. One would think that those who prosper and therefore
stay in an autocratic society are those who are able to climb the
autocratic power structures -- i.e., those who are adept at
prospering off the work of others while manipulating the tools of
favoritism, politics, and force.
Actually, those who stay in Mexico have the makings of good
Congressmen. But they probably don't want to tolerate the 15 or 20
years it would take to become eligible for the more lucrative
American political market.
grylliade|5.21.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Yeah, cause our 'culturally American' music like Brittney Spears, Justin Timberlake, 50 cent, and Nickelback is just *so* culturally superior!
Hey now, Nickelback is Canadian! Don't foist that shit off on us.
Just because their lead singer is trying to look as much like Jesus
as possible . . .
Cesar|5.21.07 @ 2:41PM|#
"Hey now, Nickelback is Canadian! Don't foist that shit off on
us. Just because their lead singer is trying to look as much like
Jesus as possible . . ."
My mistake, just replace "Nickelback" with "Linkin Park" or any
other mediocre American band.
Anyway, the fact that Linkin Park is from Canada is the best
argument I've ever heard for sealing the *other* border.
|5.21.07 @ 3:10PM|#
"The arguments never change, do they?"
Well, they weren't all wrong back then, were they? I mean, yes,
nativist appeals were often infused with ugly racism and
xenophobia, just as pro-immigration appeals have always been fused
with goofy romanticizing (those huddled masses, yearning to be
free!). But some of the concerns back then were that a wave of
illiterate folks with weird beliefs were going to swamp local
governments, bring social and biological pathogens, and strain the
nation overall. And they kind of did. For every Albert Einstein we
got a Lucky Luciano, for every libertarian thinker we got a
socialist bomb thrower or mafioso. We got plenty of hard working
people who turned out to contribute much, and lots of folks who
brought disease, juvenile delinquency, organized crime, political
corruption, etc. as well. Our cities were corrput cesspools
(literally and morally/culturally) that took decades to fix (and in
some cases never did). Now we face a similar problem and our cities
hardest hit are facing similar issues. By the way, Pointing to the
past and how great it turned out does not support open borders
types, because we never had that. We had periods of liberalized
immigration (rarely planned) and then folks wised up periodically
and put wise limits on immigration and pushed hard for
assimilation. That's what my side wants, more of the same that made
this country great.
|5.21.07 @ 3:17PM|#
We had periods of liberalized immigration (rarely planned)
and then folks wised up periodically and put wise limits on
immigration and pushed hard for assimilation.
This is the second time you have made this claim. Do you have any
examples, besides Chinese and Japanese exclusion, prior to 1924?
Because if your argument relies on periods of liberal and illiberal
immigration only since 1924, you don't have much of an
argument.
|5.21.07 @ 3:20PM|#
Ken,
For every native-born Einstein, we got a native-born Luciano,
too.
You know what creates Lucky Lucianos? Prohibitionist laws that
create lucrative black markets.
How many coyotes have our laws created?
grylliade|5.21.07 @ 4:16PM|#
just as pro-immigration appeals have always been fused with goofy romanticizing (those huddled masses, yearning to be free!)
To some of us, they're not goofy. They're a real expression of
ideals that never work out as well as we wish they would, but still
are better than the alternatives. It's not fucking romanticism.
It's an expression of what makes the United States better than
everyone else in the world: our willingness to take that wretched
refuse and forge what is, for all its faults, the best, most free
society that has ever existed on this planet. "The stone that the
builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone."
But some of the concerns back then were that a wave of illiterate folks with weird beliefs were going to swamp local governments, bring social and biological pathogens, and strain the nation overall. And they kind of did.
Strain the nation, yes. But that was never the argument. The
argument was that they would break the nation, that
something that was essentially American would be lost. And that
wasn't true, and never will be. Those successive waves of
immigration have been less like the original US population than the
one before, and every time we've been able to absorb the shock.
We've learned how to live with each other, despite our differences.
There's nothing that makes this time any different than any time
before it.
For every Albert Einstein we got a Lucky Luciano, for every libertarian thinker we got a socialist bomb thrower or mafioso.
You're wrong there. For ever Albert Einstein, we got ten Lucky
Lucianos. For every libertarian thinker, we got ten socialist bomb
throwers or mafiosos. Yet in the end, it didn't matter. American
society changed, but it didn't wither away and become a carbon copy
of Europe.
We got plenty of hard working people who turned out to contribute much, and lots of folks who brought disease, juvenile delinquency, organized crime, political corruption, etc. as well. Our cities were corrput [sic] cesspools (literally and morally/culturally) that took decades to fix (and in some cases never did).
How is this any different from European cities? They didn't face
the immigrant onslaught that we did, yet European cities were every
bit as bad as American cities. That wasn't because of immigration;
that was because it was the first time in history that cities had
grown that large and that widespread, with that many people having
that many children who survived. It was a consequence of the
technology of the times, one which third world cities are facing
now, a century later. Our cultural institutions were adapted for a
largely agrarian society with low rates of children surviving to
adulthood; it took them some time to adapt, which caused social
unrest. That's the cause of problems in nineteenth-century
cities, not immigration.
By the way, Pointing to the past and how great it turned out does not support open borders types, because we never had that.
Not many are doing that. All we're doing is pointing out that the
arguments used are, in many cases, exactly the same arguments used
against immigration since before the American Revolution. All
that's changed is the details. The arguments were wrong then, and
they're wrong now. The only relevant difference I have
seen between modern immigration and immigration a century ago is
that most of it is coming from a bordering nation; otherwise, the
arguments are all exactly the same.
A similar situation pertains with drug propaganda. A century ago,
cigarettes would make you lazy and dumb; now it's marijuana. In the
30s, marijuana would make "negroes" high on it nigh-impervious to
bullets, and give them superhuman strength; now it's PCP. When you
see the same arguments made again and again, but with a different
focus, it makes you think that the problem isn't with the
"problem," but with those making the argument. When you see the
same arguments made for the Germans, Scandinavians, Irish,
Italians, Poles, and Mexicans, it makes you wonder whether the
arguments were ever true; if they can be made with equal
sincerity about every group, despite the obvious differences, and
with equal lack of consequences afterwards, it makes you
wonder.
TLB|5.21.07 @ 4:25PM|#
joe: we aren't talking about "islands". I see plenty of signs in
languages other than Spanish and English, but no other groups
besides Mexicans has such a critical mass.
And, of course, just because something worked out before doesn't
mean it will work out again if the underlying circumstances
change.
I outline some of those differences here.
|5.21.07 @ 6:54PM|#
"Those successive waves of immigration have been less like the
original US population than the one before, and every time we've
been able to absorb the shock. "
Well, we cut off the spigot and gave them quite the assimilation
treatment periodically too. That's what the anti-immigration side
is asking for.
"Yet in the end, it didn't matter. American society changed, but it
didn't wither away and become a carbon copy of Europe."
It actually changed a great deal. Progressives came to power in
large part to wrestle with the enormous social probems of the day,
many which were (correctly in many instances) linked to the
immigration of the day. There was a very limited government,
especially at the federal level, before the Progressives were
called in to deal with the mess that immigration was linked to.
What makes you think that we won't get even greater governmental
responses to deal with millions of illiterates with no health care
(or prosepects) who also seem to have higher levels of disease (not
to mention the overcrowding related issues).
|5.21.07 @ 7:01PM|#
There was a very limited government, especially at the
federal level, before the Progressives were called in to deal with
the mess that immigration was linked to.
This one just may be my favorite argument...
"Immigrants, we don't hate you. We hate what we become because of
you."
Cesar|5.21.07 @ 7:03PM|#
Ken-
The two largest expansions of the federal government in history
happened in the 1930s (New Deal) and the 1960s (Great
Society).
Both happened when the strict quotas placed on immigration in 1924
were still in effect.
|5.21.07 @ 7:24PM|#
Cesar, you aren't giving Ken enough credit. During the period of
open immigration, the Progressive Era did indeed mark the greatest
expansion of government power.
We all remember how fear of the unending flow of immigrants induced
the regulation of the railroads, and antitrust law, and direct
election of senators, and the Federal Reserve, and income tax,
and... and... and...
Oh yeah, the FDA. Couldn't have the Pure Food and Drug Act without
immigration pressures! Who else would have received such
sympathetic treatment in The Jungle but the hated
immigrants anyway?
grylliade|5.21.07 @ 8:00PM|#
Alright, Lonewacko, I see you squeezed out nine reasons why
immigration today is different. I wanted relevant ones, though, not
just some random facts.
1. Many of our current illegal aliens are from a neighboring country, meaning they don't have to make a clean break, they can go back and forth. There are families with members on both sides of the border.
In the present context, this is meaningless. It's difficult enough
to get across the border that people most of the time won't go back
for idle visits. Given a more open border, the level of border
crossings would rise. This I see as a good thing all in all, since
I see no reason why people shouldn't be able to go back
and visit their families. I guess I'm soft-hearted that way,
thinking that immigrants are people too, and shouldn't
have to never see their families again.
2. Related to that, past immigrants came here on ships; current immigrants can walk over.
And? You have to actually make a point.
3. Italy, Poland, Germany, and Ireland never held territory in the U.S. On the other hand, the Southwest U.S. briefly was Mexican territory.
More than briefly. It was only "briefly" Mexican territory because
Mexico had only existed as a separate entity for a brief time
before we conquered it. It had been part of Spanish America for a
loooooong time before that. Your attempt to make it seem like
Mexico had a weak claim is pretty sad.
And, in a poll conducted in Mexico, 58% said that the U.S. Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.
Again, and? Mexican immigrants don't come to the U.S. to make it
more like Mexico. They come here to get away from Mexico. That also
ignores the fact that there are a lot of other people living in the
Southwest U.S. who just might object if Mexico tried to take it
over.
4. There wasn't a far-left, Gramscian "multiculturalism" movement a century ago. The related issue of political correctness makes it difficult for some to, for instance, use the correct names for things ("illegal aliens") rather than euphemisms ("undocumented workers").
Sorry, you used some words there incorrectly. It's
"PoliticalCorrectness" and "IllegalAliensBoogahBoogahBoogah."
The PC movement has pretty much shot its wad. The multiculturalism
is found much more among the left in America than the
IllegalAliensBoogahBoogahBoogah themselves. In actual, real,
day-to-day interactions, these things don't count for a tinker's
damn.
5. There were ethnic newspapers, but nothing like today's ethnic media.
I think joe has addressed this above. You're right; there wasn't
anything like today's ethnic media. There wasn't Irish Radio or
Italian Television back in the day. There are more ethnic media
today because there are more media today. I'm guessing the
proportion is similar, though it'd be difficult to prove without a
lot of time and money.
6. Immigrants who came through Ellis Island were checked for disease and suitability. And, they were pre-screened by the cruiseship companies, who were charged if someone was rejected. Nowadays, anyone can overstay their visa or just walk across.
Isn't this an argument for increased legal immigration
(which is, after all, what the pro- side is arguing for)? If you
want to ensure that everyone crossing the border is healthy,
increase the quotas and let them through legally!
7. There's been a rapid increase in dual citizenship, leading to U.S. citizens with divided loyalties. 14% of U.S. citizens are eligible to be dual citizens, and Mexico encourages dual citizenship as a way of obtaining political power inside the U.S.
Again, "RapidIncrease," "DualCitizenship," "DividedLoyalties," and
"MexicoWantsToReconquerTheSouthwesternUSZOMG". Try to get it
right.
So, 14 % of U.S. citizens are "eligible to be dual citizens." What
proportion of those are eligible to be dual citizens with
Mexico? What proportion actually are dual citizens?
Is this an actual issue, or one that might come up if we enter a
spacetime warp to your home dimension and
MexicoTriesToReconquerTheSouthwestUSZOMGTheSkyIsFalling?
7. The welfare state hardly existed a century ago.
Yes, and Mexicans don't come here to get on welfare. That's a tired
old horse whose corpse is hardly recognizable from all the
beating.
8. Obvious to anyone who's been to, say, Dallas or Los Angeles, there were many fewer people here a century ago than there are now.
No shit?!? You mean, there are more people here than there were a
century ago?!? You're shitting me!
The relevant statistic is the proportion of foreign born in the
U.S. As far as I can tell, this hit a low of about 5 % in 1970. It
was about 12 % to 14 % between 1880 and 1930. At present it's about
11 %. The fact that, numerically, there are more foreign born
Americans than ever is irrelevant. There are also more
Americans than ever.
So there you go. Nine reasons why modern immigration is different
from previous immigration. Not a single relevant reason.
Are you going to start making arguments, or are you just going to
engage in conspiracy theories about the Mexican government?
grylliade|5.21.07 @ 8:09PM|#
Progressives came to power in large part to wrestle with the enormous social probems of the day, many which were (correctly in many instances) linked to the immigration of the day.
Nope. Linked to technological change, and the concomitant social
change. See above.
What makes you think that we won't get even greater governmental responses to deal with millions of illiterates with no health care (or prosepects)
They could probably get health care if they could, y'know, be
legally employed. I'm just sayin'.
who also seem to have higher levels of disease (not to mention the overcrowding related issues).
Much better to leave them back in their native countries where
they'll die of their diseases than bring them here, where they
could buy health insurance and get treatment for it. And what
overcrowding related issues? Do you mean "too many Mexicans in an
apartment" or "too many Mexicans in a city"? Because the first is
taken care of by greater wealth, and the second isn't an issue in
the U.S. Cites take up a very, very small amount of room in the
U.S. There's plenty of room to expand.
|5.21.07 @ 8:47PM|#
One of the main thing the early Progressive movement promised was to clean up the cities and their problems. They promised to combat sanitation and other public health issues (linked to the overcrowded tenements and ethnic villages), crime and juvenile delinquency (the Progressives vastly reformed police [which were created in the US largely in response to the pressures of immigration in cities], created juvenile courts and juvenile law, etc. in large part to deal with immigrant problems [in fact this is where much of the paternalism inherent in them came]), Prohibition (seen as an immigrant thing) and 'good government' (which nearly always meant cleaning up ethnic machines). Way before TR dealt with trusts he battled ethnic problems in NY as police commissioner.
|5.21.07 @ 9:05PM|#
"They could probably get health care if they could, y'know, be
legally employed. I'm just sayin'."
Cause Lord knows farm and day labor jobs usually have generous
benefits packages!
"And what overcrowding related issues?"
Demographers agree that nearly all population growth in the US in
the past few decades can be attributed to immigration and their
higher birth rates. So to the extent too many people in the nation,
your local city, or the apartment near you causes problems there's
your culprit.
"Yes, and Mexicans don't come here to get on welfare." Let's see
some numbers brother. Many governors, mayors, officials, etc., have
spoken about quite a bit of dole money going to recent
immigrants.
"If you want to ensure that everyone crossing the border is
healthy, increase the quotas and let them through legally!" Or
alternatively keep everyone out (wouldnt that actually do better
than your plan on this point? In yours some sick will still come
over, in mine none do).
"The multiculturalism is found much more among the left in America
than the IllegalAliensBoogahBoogahBoogah themselves." And peasants
don't ever line up behind native demogagues who promise them
goodies? Yeah right.
But let me give it too you a lil' plainer:
1. Americans decided a few decades ago to not grow numerically (an
uncoerced thing that just happened). Immigrants are and will
continue to wreck this, and any overpopulation problems
(environmental, health, or just comfort) are the results.
2. Immigrants today are disporportionately poor, unskilled and
uneducated. Do we need more of that in our society? Do good things
usually come of more of that?
3. Immigrants today do not have to develop hardy rugged
individualism with such a welfare state around.
4. There is not only less pressure to assimilate, there is
institutional encouragement not to.
But more importantly let me challenge you. The success story of the
US is NOT one of immigration, but actually one of constant
restrictions on immigration, pressures to assimilate, and periodic
tightening of such restrictions. Your idea has NEVER been tried. By
any nation that I can think of. So why should we think it would in
any way 'work', that there will be less costs and more benefits
than we currently have and will not have unexpected consequences,
such as erode our political/cultural institutions or create a much
more massive government structure to deal with immigration related
issues...The burden is not on us, but on open border types like
yourself.
|5.21.07 @ 9:11PM|#
The success story of the US is NOT one of immigration, but
actually one of constant restrictions on immigration, pressures to
assimilate, and periodic tightening of such
restrictions.
Okay, this is now the third time you have said this.
Name the restrictions before 1924 please.
grylliade|5.21.07 @ 11:36PM|#
Cause Lord knows farm and day labor jobs usually have generous benefits packages!
They might be able buy it themselves, or at least have some minimal
benefits.
Demographers agree that nearly all population growth in the US in the past few decades can be attributed to immigration and their higher birth rates. So to the extent too many people in the nation, your local city, or the apartment near you causes problems there's your culprit.
Well, there aren't too many people in the nation. Some cities have
too many; others don't. And how many people live in another
person's apartment is none of my goddamn business. If it actually
causes problems for me, there are laws under which I can do
something about it. Overcrowding is not a problem in the
U.S.
Let's see some numbers brother. Many governors, mayors, officials, etc., have spoken about quite a bit of dole money going to recent immigrants.
Well, duh. Firstly, of course they're talking about dole
money going to immigrants; it's a cheap, easy way to get people
worked up about immigration. The question is whether immigrants are
using welfare at higher rates than natives in the same
socioeconomic status. And the answer is that they're not. They're
paying taxes, and they're working; they're not coming here and
laying around sucking up welfare. What would be the point? You
don't come to America, risking all the shit that they risk to do
so, to make jackshit money on welfare. Immigrants work
hard, and mostly pay taxes. The bogeyman lazy Mexican who
comes across, gets sick, and sucks up tens of thousands of dollars
in health care doesn't exist.
Or alternatively keep everyone out (wouldnt that actually do better than your plan on this point? In yours some sick will still come over, in mine none do).
Yep. We're going to eliminate illegal immigration. There's a market
for cheap labor in the U.S.; there are people willing to work for
cheap wages in Mexico. Good luck with stopping people from taking
advantage of that.
1. Americans decided a few decades ago to not grow numerically (an uncoerced thing that just happened). Immigrants are and will continue to wreck this, and any overpopulation problems (environmental, health, or just comfort) are the results.
We didn't decide not to grow. It just happened. We didn't get
together and vote on whether to grow or not. And as I've noted
before, there's not an overpopulation problem in the
U.S..
2. Immigrants today are disporportionately poor, unskilled and uneducated. Do we need more of that in our society? Do good things usually come of more of that?
Yes. Poor, unskilled, uneducated people are what cheap labor is.
What else are they supposed to do? Work in the vibrant Mexican
economy? We get cheap labor; they get a chance for a better life
for themselves, and (even more) for their children. What's wrong
with this scenario again?
3. Immigrants today do not have to develop hardy rugged individualism with such a welfare state around.
Oh, c'mon. First you argue that those eeeeeeeevil immigrants caused
progressivism to develop, because of their fecundity and their
diseases and their non-American ways; now they developed rugged
individualism, unlike today's immigrants. Mostly, immigrants come
to America because they're (as much as that term applies) rugged
individualists who want to make more money than they could
before.
4. There is not only less pressure to assimilate, there is institutional encouragement not to.
It's not pressure to assimilate. It's not pushing people to
assimilate. We don't need to push people to do so; they
want to do so. Somehow, when people come to the U.S.,
American culture becomes far less attractive to them,
apparently.
Your idea has NEVER been tried. By any nation that I can think of.
Good thing we didn't try that crazy "government of the people, for
the people, by the people" thing back in the day. It had
never been tried before.
So why should we think it would in any way 'work', that there will be less costs and more benefits than we currently have and will not have unexpected consequences, such as erode our political/cultural institutions or create a much more massive government structure to deal with immigration related issues...The burden is not on us, but on open border types like yourself.
"We've been wrong every other time we cried wolf about immigration,
but this time we're really FOR SURE right! Just prove that we're
wrong!"
I've given tons of reasons why your silly arguments don't apply. Go
back and read the thread if you want to see why open immigration is
not the disaster you're trying to paint it to be.
TLB|5.21.07 @ 11:58PM|#
grylliade: you're certainly a fast typist, but your fisks above are a bit on the childlike side. For instance, the idea that PC is dead is ludicrous beyond belief, seeing as how PC has DonImus' blood dripping down its chin and has its sights set on even bigger fry. PC also infests college campuses both in general and in EthnicStudies and similar.
|5.22.07 @ 12:30AM|#
This bill is a massive dose of corporate welfare dressed up as
immigartion reform.
U.S.immigration
policy should encourage high-skill immigration and strictly limit
low-skill immigration. In general, government policy
should limit immigration to those who will be net fiscal
contributors, avoiding those who will increase poverty and impose
new costs on overburdened U.S. taxpayers.
Recent proposed legislation in the Senate will do exactly the
opposite.[2] By granting amnesty to illegal immigrants (who are
overwhelmingly low skilled) and creating massive new "guest worker"
programs that would bring millions of additional low-skill families
into the nation, such legislation, if enacted, would impose massive
costs on the U.S. taxpayer.
|5.22.07 @ 12:34AM|#
As noted,
in 2004, there were 4.5 million low-skill immigrant households.
With an average net fiscal deficit of $19,588 per household, the
total annual fiscal deficit for all of these households together
equaled $89.1 billion (the deficit of $19,588 per household times
4.54 million low-skill immigrant households). Over the
next ten years, the net cost (benefits minus taxes) to the taxpayer
of low-skill immigrant households will approach $1
trillion.
In other words companies get a cheap work force. And the taxpayers,
we get to pay for that cheap workforce.
grylliade|5.22.07 @ 2:25AM|#
your fisks above are a bit on the childlike side.
Just trying to argue on your level.
|5.22.07 @ 4:34AM|#
TJIT,
There is something to that analysis, but it is a rather preordained
result, isn't it.
After all, the whole point of most government spending is
redirection of money from haves to have nots. For example, the
bottom 50% of all taxpayers pay only 3.3% of the federal income
tax. Virtually all of them, plus a healthy portion of the top 50%,
would have a "net fiscal deficit" using this technique.
Also, it was interesting to note in following the references back
that the average household whose head has no high school diploma
has a lower tax bill and higher benefit outlay than the immigrant
with that education. Presumably this can be accounted for by the
fact that illegal immigrants receive no direct welfare.
Left unaccounted for in this sadly simplistic benefit minus tax
metric is the producer surplus gained during the $29,000 income of
the low-skilled immigrant household. Also this doesn't count the
higher productivity, income, and taxes of the
higher skilled person who does not need to do the
job the low-skilled immigrant is doing.
It is that comparative advantage where most of economic gain of
immigration resides. It is entirely uncounted in this analysis.
|5.22.07 @ 4:43AM|#
It is also worth noting that, under open immigration, the skills
distribution of immigrants would be much less weighted toward the
low skilled. The current bias toward low skills is entirely an
artifact of immigration restrictions, and it is sadly codified in
the Senate immigration proposal.
Only employers in transient sorts of jobs that allow for low skills
will take the risk of hiring illegals. If all immigration were
legal, then the allowed demand for greater skills would draw higher
skilled immigrants to the US.
And we would all be better off.
|5.22.07 @ 10:08AM|#
Mike P you said
It is also worth noting that, under open immigration, the skills distribution of immigrants would be much less weighted toward the low skilled.
This bill does not give us open immigration, it gives us highly
restricted immigration weighted to lower skilled workers. Highly
skilled workers have to have a sponsor and work only for that
sponsor.
A quote from Mark Steyn emphasizes this point
Larry makes a good point about high-skilled workers being tied to individual employers. As I understand this new bill, a low-skilled illegal immigrant will have more employment mobility than a high-skilled legal immigrant - and his Z-1 visa will last a year longer the E2 Investor visa for foreigners who come here, start a US business and employ American citizens.
Hmm.
I know highly educated professionals who have been trying for years to legally get through the immigration process. This bill slaps them in the face and tells them to pack sand.
|5.22.07 @ 11:10AM|#
From the Wall Street Journal this morning
Employers like farmers, restaurateurs and construction contractors who rely heavily on unskilled labor generally support the [immigration] deal,
but high-tech industries that need skilled workers complain that it doesn't give them the flexibility to recruit workers with the specific mix of skills they need.
This bill does not do what those who support it thinks it does.
|5.22.07 @ 11:40AM|#
but high-tech industries that need skilled workers complain that it doesn't give them the flexibility to recruit workers with the specific mix of skills they need.
Right. They are concerned because the bill is moving away from
employer sponsorship in favor of the points system. One reason
might be the loss of their indentured employees. But the stated
reason is more likely: They fear that philosophy majors will soak
up the available quota.
I know highly educated professionals who have been trying for
years to legally get through the immigration process. This bill
slaps them in the face and tells them to pack sand.
Open immigration would fix that problem.
|5.22.07 @ 11:50AM|#
This bill does not do what those who support it thinks it
does.
By the way, from what I've heard, I don't support this bill.
Too many restrictions. Insane 2+1+2+1+2 year temp visas. Way too
many enforcement provisions and too many burdens on
employers.
And, as you note, it doesn't raise highly skilled immigration
amounts nearly enough.
TLB|5.22.07 @ 2:24PM|#
More libertarianism spotted!
From
this:
"If passed, this bill will make taxpayers pay the legal bills
for illegal aliens seeking amnesty. Tucked away on page 317 is a
provision that would allow lawyers in the federally-funded legal
services program to represent illegal aliens, which they are
presently barred from doing."
|5.22.07 @ 4:08PM|#
Sigh.
Yes, Lonewacko. Libertarians love to force Peter to pay Pablo's
legal bills. How did you ever find out...
|5.22.07 @ 5:29PM|#
Grylliade
Let's take this reeeal slow so you'll get most of it this time.
Several times in your last post you drew the opposite conclusion
from what I plainly stated from some of my points, so read
carefully and take your time here. Let's take the oppositions to
immigration I plainly stated and then deal with how well your
reponses counter them, OK?
1. Population growth. You state that overpopulation is not a
problem in the US, and you put it in bold, which must be your
evidence (you really, really mean it!). But overpopulation in
certain areas is a real problem. My step-daughter's middle school
has to put kids in trailers through much of the day because the
school age population keeps growing much faster than the locality
can build infrastructure. Think of LA's traffic jams or smog, etc.
Many places have problems with population, and many of them have
that problem in large part due to immigration. Remember, American
citizens, through their own preferences, have created zero
population growth. This has been washed out by immigration (which
by their own preferences the US populace doesn't support either).
(http://www.cap-s.org/main.html)
2. Negative consequences associated with an influx of third world
peasants.
I'm not sure what to make of your 'arguments' against this
one...You ask who loses out in this scenario, since these peasants
provide the cheap labor. Well, the people who get sick from teh
diseases they bring lose out. The taxpayers who have to pay for
increased health care for these diseased folks, for the jails to
house the criminal ones (http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05646r.html) and
the citizens who are the victims of their crimes, for the citizens
who have to live next to apratments with four families in them, for
the citizens who have to put up with the additional environmental
problems associated with more people (more trash, more emissions,
etc.) for the government services and yes, dole, that some of them
get (you argue they do not get any MORE dole than citizens, but
even if their rates are the same they add to the overall dole,
right?)
(http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersf134)
Jesus, I could go on and on.
3. Look, mass immigration back in the day lead to problems both
real and percieved that brought on the Progressive movement. Modern
police, juvenile courts, municipal reform, professionalization of
occupations like doctors/lawyers, these were all Progressive
Movement attempts to deal with immigrant related problems. I've
tried to focus simply on my field of experience, criminal justice
(I teach, not a cop). You could start with Friedmans Law in America
& Popular Justice:A History of American Criminal Justice to
explore this if you want. But the point is that dumping millions of
peasants in our nation is going to create/exacerbate more social
problems, which will of course lead to more government as a
solution. Thus do modern day libertarians help dig their own graves
(never a practical lot to begin with, but this is ridiculous)
4.Lack of pressure to assimilate. Is there not less pressure now
than before? Major ethnic lobbies back in the day stressed that
they were about assimilation, hardly the case now. This could lead
to cultural fracture.
"Name the restrictions before 1924 please."
MikeP, I'm going to first give you a chance to let your common
sense figure this out without naming the many restrictions that
existed prior to 1924. You won't need any special training or
knowledge in ths subject, just common knowledge and common sense.
Certainly you have in your head those images of the huddled masses
at Ellis Island. They're in lines, right? And there are these guys
in uniforms checking them out, right? You see where this is going I
hope...Oh, to heck with it, if you must do it the hard way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_federal_immigration_and_nationality_legislation
Do some reading, have some fun!
|5.22.07 @ 5:39PM|#
Ken,
Giving me a link to a bunch of articles doesn't cut it at
all.
From the link you provided, the only one I could find that I have
not already mentioned is a 1921 prologue to the 1924 quota.
Either give some examples of significant immigration restriction
before 1924 or remove the "In the beginning was the Immigration
Restriction and the Immigration Restriction was with God and the
Immigration Restriction was God" plank from your argument.
|5.22.07 @ 5:46PM|#
And by the way, I know about Ellis Island. I also know that everyone arguing the open immigration side wants checks made at the gateways just as they were made the last time the borders were open.
|5.22.07 @ 9:14PM|#
MikeP-you should have tried the reading (or just the thought
experiment), it broadens the mind.
Now drop your drawers for your spanking:
How about the 1882 Immigration Act which used a tax to limit
immigration and barred anyone "likely to become public
charges?"
Or the various Chinese Exclusion Acts of 1882, 1892 and 1902?
Or maybe the grandaddy of them all, the 1790 Naturalization Act
which limited citizenship to "free whites" or "good moral
character."
Yeah, no history of restrictions there.
Now, that hurt me more than it did you. Naw, just kidding, I
enjoyed it! Come back fo more any ol' time.
|5.22.07 @ 10:14PM|#
Ken,
Naturalization is not immigration. A tax is not a quota, and it was
a nominal fee to cover the immediate costs: 50¢ does not a limit
make. And I already mentioned the Chinese exclusion act the second
time I challenged your comment.
And considering the great lengths it took to become a "public
charge" in 1882, I doubt that anyone who manages to make it across
the border today in order to work would be prohibited by the
standard of that day.
The short answer is that, save for the laws against Asian
immigrants, there were no laws prior to the 1920s that limited
general immigration. Certainly no one was turned away because there
were too many immigrants here already. There had to be cause, not
quota.
You said...
By the way, Pointing to the past and how great it turned out
does not support open borders types, because we never had that. We
had periods of liberalized immigration (rarely planned) and then
folks wised up periodically and put wise limits on immigration and
pushed hard for assimilation.
This is simply wrong.
|5.23.07 @ 9:09AM|#
MikeP
You're correct to say that "naturalization isn't immigration" but
the two are pretty closely intertwined, and legal changes in one
dramatically effect the other. This is recognized by the name
"Immigration and Naturalization Services" INS. Until someone is
naturalized they have all the rights and priviliges as a tourist
and can be deported pretty quick (in fact we relied on this with
the Alien Acts of the Adams and Wilson administrations).
The 50 cents tax, like the poll taxes that existed about the same
time in reference to voting, would have had a strong disinhibiting
effect on immigration. Not many poor huddled masses could have
fronted that for each family member. You're right it's not a quota,
but I never said we have always relied on quotas to limit
immigration, just that we usually did (with, as I said, periods of
liberalization). The "likely to be a public charge" was one of
those broad, vague standards that could have been used (and was) to
disqualify many folks (as was the political subversive or good
moral character language in other acts). It certainly was not
limited to the physcially infirm. They didn't have public interest
law firms back then to make sure the charges were reasonable! It
was the equivalent of "I don't like your looks, back you go."
The short answer is you're right and wrong, short of the Asian
Exclusion Acts (which effected thousands by the way) and the tough
Naturalization Requirements coupled with loose deportation laws
there were no quota laws prior to the 1920's, just refusal of
admittance "for cause." You're wrong though when you state that
these broad "for cause" standards did not limit immigration.
|5.23.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Ken,
50¢ in the 1880s is $20 or $30 today, half a day's wage, and not a
burden except for having the cash on hand. The fee rose to $8
later, something more of a burden, but interestingly not applied at
the Mexican border because of the need for migrant labor
there.
Yes, the potentially arbitrary nature of rejection at the gateways
was unfortunate, but only 2% of those arriving were sent
back. That is hardly exclusion, either in attitude or
practice.
Speaking as one who supports open immigration, I would call all
those pre-World War I provisions open immigration. Certainly it's a
straw man to claim that the US never had the open immigration that
open immigration proponents argue for.
Site 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