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
Bob Novak Calls Out Republicans on Immigration
Robert Novak went down to Georgia* and South Carolina and watched Republican activists shout down their pro-immigration senators. His take on the kerfuffles is well-sourced and, towards the end, pretty personal.
Many Republicans reach for an anti-immigration lifeline because of the party's plight. Burdened with an unpopular president and an unpopular war, the GOP cannot claim to be the party of limited government and controlled spending. But immigrant-bashing divides rather than unites Republicans. In a recent closed-door meeting of the House's conservative Republican Study Committee, Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina raised the danger of resembling South Africa's National Party advocating apartheid.
Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, while probing for the compromise's weak spots in Senate debate Tuesday, warned of "cultural" change resulting from a flood of low-income immigrants. That recalls the 1911 report of the U.S. Immigration Commission asserting that the "proportion of the more serious crimes of homicide, blackmail and robbery . . . is greater among the foreign born," who also refuse to learn the English language.
In reading part of that report into the Senate record, Graham declared that these immigrants who were "ruining America" fathered the "greatest generation." That immigrant wave included my grandfather, a Russian Imperial army veteran working on the John Deere tractor assembly line in Moline, Ill., as an unskilled, undocumented alien who could not speak English. He was an American patriot proud of a son who fought with the U.S. infantry through Africa and Italy in World War II.
*obvious joke continued here
Reason's classic 2006 immigration issue available here
|5.24.07 @ 1:54PM|#
One thing I've noticed with most big government Republicans, is that they can't seem to tell the difference between legal and illegal immigration. IListening to a white cracker politician bitching about immigration is pure hypocrisy. Illegal immigration is a problem, but legal immigration is one of our nation's core traditions.
|5.24.07 @ 1:58PM|#
Maybe if we focused on illegal imigrants only and stopped acting
like we want to be isolationists again, people wouldn't be so
devided.
And maybe if Mexico cleaned up it's act a little...
|5.24.07 @ 2:07PM|#
It's a bit gamey to say that you favor legal immigration when you know that the path to legal immigration is insufficient to meet the needs on both sides of the border.
|5.24.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Umm... You "illegal immigration is different from legal
immigration" types fail to realize that the immigration debate is
hot right now precisely because Congress is trying to figure out
which immigrants will be legal and which will be illegal in the
future.
The present conversation is about all immigrants and
potential immigrants and about putting them in buckets with names
such as "Z" and "Y" and "illegal". It is hard to hide your
protectionist or nativist biases when you are trying to make that
last bucket as big as you can.
Cesar|5.24.07 @ 2:13PM|#
MikeP-
Try asking those who favor *legal* immigration why we don't just
increase the number of visas for low-skilled workers to meet market
demand, and the response you usually reveals how they really feel
about legal immigrants. Its usually something along the lives of,
ButTheMexicanGovernmentWillControlUs.
|5.24.07 @ 2:17PM|#
The only people that should be excluded from immigration are
those with criminal records in their native countries.
The US desperately needs all the uneducated, non-English-speaking,
rabble that it can get it's hands on.
-- carrick -- fourth generation descendant of those sub-human,
catholic, irish emigres that risked their lives in the coffin ships
in the mid 1800's.
|5.24.07 @ 2:18PM|#
Cesar, I like to say something like this:
"When I support something, I try to expand it, or remove barriers
to it. What exactly do you think we should to expand legal
immigration, and remove barriers to it."
Admittedly, it doesn't get the same viscertal kick I get from
asking people who want to make English the official language, "What
is this, France?" but it's fun to watch ThemSquirm.
|5.24.07 @ 2:18PM|#
The underlying falacy of Novak's rant is that just becuase was good in the past that it is bound to be good in the future. Maybe maybe not. But the fact that the people who objected to immigration in 1911 were wrong then doesn't say anything about whether the objections to immigration are valid today. That is just sophistry on Novak's part.
|5.24.07 @ 2:19PM|#
"The only people that should be excluded from immigration are
those with criminal records in their native countries."
Since we have absolutely no control over who comes over our Sothern
border, how exactly do you plan to exclude those with criminal
records? The honor system?
|5.24.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Since we have absolutely no control over who comes over our
Sothern border, how exactly do you plan to exclude those with
criminal records? The honor system?
No. Background checks. Duh.
|5.24.07 @ 2:25PM|#
God is it fantastic to watch the Republican party implode over
this issue.
When half the party wants to exploit poor people and the other half
wants to discriminate against them, eventually something had to
give.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of guys.
|5.24.07 @ 2:27PM|#
Although I would add to the border crossing exclusion list foreign armies, insurgents, and agents, terrorists, and carriers of highly communicable disease.
thoreau|5.24.07 @ 2:29PM|#
I no longer see any need to participate in immigration threads,
as MikeP consistently kicks so much ass that he needs no
backup.
As always, good show, sir!
|5.24.07 @ 2:31PM|#
But the fact that the people who objected to immigration in
1911 were wrong then doesn't say anything about whether the
objections to immigration are valid today.
The arguments then and now are remarkably similar. The burden of
proof is on you to explain what make now different than then.
Since we have absolutely no control over who comes over our
Sothern border, how exactly do you plan to exclude those with
criminal records?
Gee wiz. If there actually was a process in place to allow anyone
to apply for an immigration slot, then there would be a process to
check backgrounds.
If the restrictions on immigration were so minimal as to make the
burden on "good" people easily acceptable, then only "bad" people
would try to bypass the system.
Then an undocumented alien would be a high probability of someone
that should actually be deported. The system could then expend its
limited resources on identifying and deporting bad people.
This government run system will, of course, work no better than any
other government run program, but it would clearly be an
improvement in my opinion.
grylliade|5.24.07 @ 2:32PM|#
ButTheMexicanGovernmentWillControlUs
You forgot the "BoogahBoogahBoogah." That's key. It really wakes
people up to the danger that IllegalAliens represent.
But the fact that the people who objected to immigration in 1911 were wrong then doesn't say anything about whether the objections to immigration are valid today.
When they use the same arguments, just changing the name of the
group du jour, it's pretty indicative that the arguments
are bad. Try these:
"If we allow [Irish | Mexicans] into this nation, the [Pope |
MexicanGovernment] will control us!"
"[Irish | Italians | Poles | Mexicans] carry disease!"
"[Irish | Italians | Poles | Mexicans] will take jobs away from
hard working [Americans | Irish | Italians | Poles]!"
"The [Irish | Italians | Poles | Mexicans] will irrevocably change
our culture for the worse!"
"There are already too many [Irish | Italians | Poles | Mexicans]
here!"
If all you've done is change the name of the despised group, and
the argument was invalid before, there's only a slim chance that
things have changed sufficiently to render the argument valid.
Every reason given that Mexican immigration is somehow different
from previous immigration is either wrong or irrelevant, so why
should we give any weight to the arguments?
|5.24.07 @ 2:35PM|#
"God is it fantastic to watch the Republican party implode over
this issue.
When half the party wants to exploit poor people and the other half
wants to discriminate against them, eventually something had to
give."
Yeah. And the party elites can't even deploy the usual trick of
shouting "9/11!" because that just makes the rank-and-file more
anti-immigrant.
|5.24.07 @ 2:36PM|#
"But the fact that the people who objected to immigration in
1911 were wrong then doesn't say anything about whether the
objections to immigration are valid today."
I'd say it's a rebuttable presumption.
|5.24.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Right. The State Department can have Sudan fax over a well-done
background check on the immigrants they found in the shipping
container at the Port of Houston. What a brilliant solution.
America has an over-abundance of water, petroleum, and schools. We
need more warm bodies here. American highways and emergency rooms
are woefully vacant and underutilized. We need millions more people
here to fill them.
What a beautiful day it will be when Dallas and Boston look just
like Calcutta. The thriving beehive of bicycles, street meat, child
prostitutes, and ghetto strongmen will be a multicultural
paradise.
Hurry up!
|5.24.07 @ 2:37PM|#
Thanks, thoreau. I pick my topics sparingly, and immigration is
on the top of the list.
But backup is always good!
Cesar|5.24.07 @ 2:39PM|#
"What a beautiful day it will be when Dallas and Boston look
just like Calcutta. The thriving beehive of bicycles, street meat,
child prostitutes, and ghetto strongmen will be a multicultural
paradise."
Wow, sounds like you have lived in south Richmond, too.
|5.24.07 @ 2:40PM|#
"No. Background checks. Duh."
Mike are trying to be funny or are you really that stupid. Wait
don't answer that. You can't have background checks unless you
control the border. You can't control the border unless you are
willing to enforce the laws, something that immigration proponents
are compltely unwilling to do. Even if the U.S. agreed to adopt the
entire population of Latin America, which is what a system like
carrick is advocating would do, it would be virtually impossible to
run background checks and issue visas to that many people. To give
you an example, the immmigration service was still sending letters
to Mahummad Atta after 9-11 granting him his visa. There is no way
the government could ever process and conduct background checks on
the number of immigrants who would want to come here if the U.S.
really had open borders. Couldn't happen. What do you think there
is some data base in the sky you can just run a search on? Do you
think the members of the Mexican mafia all have mafia ID cards or
tails that you can check for?
If you want open borders, fine. But don't insult people's
intelligence by pretending that having open borders can somehow be
tempered by background checks and the like.
|5.24.07 @ 2:41PM|#
Yeah, man, can you imagine what Boston would be like if there
were immigrants all over the place?
Uhhhhhhhh.........
|5.24.07 @ 2:43PM|#
I love it. Libertarians never saw a government program that wasn't incompetant, unless it is the immigration service running background checks on immigratns. Then it is all days of wine and roses. The government will be here conducting background checks to ensure that no undesirables get into the country. Yeah, that will work. You people kill me.
|5.24.07 @ 2:44PM|#
Right. The State Department can have Sudan fax over a
well-done background check on the immigrants they found in the
shipping container at the Port of Houston. What a brilliant
solution.
That one was just too easy. An undocumented alien in a shipping
container goes home.
America has an over-abundance of water, petroleum, and schools.
We need more warm bodies here. American highways and emergency
rooms are woefully vacant and underutilized. We need millions more
people here to fill them.
There is a standard libertarian answer to that one. It has been
repeated ad nauseum on this site. If you're a new-comer here, then
read the archives. Otherwise, shove it.
What a beautiful day it will be when Dallas and Boston look
just like Calcutta. The thriving beehive of bicycles, street meat,
child prostitutes, and ghetto strongmen will be a multicultural
paradise.
Just like the Italian ghettos in NY, or the Irish ghettos in NY, or
the "take your pick" ghettos in NY that sprouted up and then grew
into something else.
|5.24.07 @ 2:44PM|#
Well, what do you know? Bob Novak actually gets it right. The Republicans can't win public support on the War On Iraq and have lost all credibility on limited government, so they reach for illegal immigration as their hot button issue, only to have it turn around and bite them. Classic.
|5.24.07 @ 2:45PM|#
Just who do you think is trying to tunnel their way out of Boston, poor, naïve joe?
|5.24.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Tell me Carrick. How does the government bureaucracy run your system? The immigration service can't handle the number of applicants it gets now. What do you do, let everyone in pending the background check? In which case, why have a service at all? Keep them out until the checks are done? That won't work becuase the backlog would be so long peope would just say screw it and sneak in like they do now. How is this going to work?
|5.24.07 @ 2:47PM|#
"What a beautiful day it will be when Dallas and Boston look
just like Calcutta. The thriving beehive of bicycles, street meat,
child prostitutes, and ghetto strongmen will be a multicultural
paradise."
Or a libertarian paradise, what with legalized child hookers and no
pesky FDA to keep food safe. If anybody has a problem, forget the
police, hire your own ghetto strongman.
|5.24.07 @ 2:48PM|#
So John, when did you ancestors climb on a boot and come over
here? What makes them special?
And as I said earlier, the burden is on you to explain why a
massive influx of uneducated, unskilled labor will destroy the
economy and the culture of the US.
|5.24.07 @ 2:48PM|#
"You can't control the border unless you are willing to enforce
the laws,"
Willing and able to enforce the laws, more like.
And we will never be willing or able to enforce the laws as long as
they run contrary to the natural, unavoidable process of migration
between Mexico and the United States.
Any more than we were never going to be willing, or able, to
enforce the laws prohibiting the importation of liquor in the
20s.
Anyone trying to come up with a solution to the problems we're
facing has to get serious, and recognize that lots of people are
going to immigrate to the United States. They always have, they
always will, and our society and economy have, over the centuries,
grown up around these patterns of activity.
Pretending there aren't going to be lots of immigrants in our
country is like pretending there aren't going to be any guns. Even
if you convince yourself it would be a good thing, you're living in
fantasyland.
|5.24.07 @ 2:50PM|#
Way to no answer the quesiton Carrick. You throw out the "anyone without a criminal record should be able to come here." Fine, tell me how we do that? Like I said above, you want open borders then at least be honest about the consiquences of having them and stop pretending that you can magically keep those with crinimal records out.
SugarFree|5.24.07 @ 2:50PM|#
I don't care about legal or illegal, immigration from Hispanic
countries poses one clear danger in my mind that no one wants to
deal with: an increased fan base for soccer.*
If they really want to come here, then let 'em sign an anti-soccer
oath. Search them for balls and nets and shin guards at the border.
Monitor their sporting event attendance and television habits for a
reasonable time (say, ten years.) If they stay clean of the hideous
scourge of soccerism, then they can become citizens.
*If they want to call it "football" then they can stay home. We
already have "football," thank you very much.
|5.24.07 @ 2:50PM|#
If you want open borders, fine. But don't insult people's
intelligence by pretending that having open borders can somehow be
tempered by background checks and the like.
I don't follow your argument. If the only things you
needed to check was a person's health, whether they were on a
terrorist watch list, and whether they had a felony record in their
home country, this would be pretty damn easy. It would take a day
or two for countries with which we had a data exchange
relationship. In other cases it might take a week or two, in which
case the recommendation would be to get your entry visa at a local
consulate before coming to the border.
No I have no idea why ICE has such a backlog on visas for, e.g.,
spouses. I would argue that only proves that they are spending
their time checking something besides criminal history.
|5.24.07 @ 2:51PM|#
John,
undesireables will come in and they will be dealt with. Ever hear
of the mafia? Sometimes you have to take the bitter with the sweet.
I'm the descendant of Irish immigrants. Is everyone in my family
tree perfectly respectable and law-abiding? Nope. Am I still glad
my ancestors were allowed in? Hell yes! On balance I think America
did ok with my family. I don't see any reason to believe we can't
work with these new immigrants too. Unless its the fact that I hate
spics. Usually I don't feel comfortable advancing that kind of
reasoning in a public forum.
|5.24.07 @ 2:51PM|#
"And we will never be willing or able to enforce the laws as
long as they run contrary to the natural, unavoidable process of
migration between Mexico and the United States."
Why just Mexico? What is so special about Mexicans? A lot of people
from other parts of the world want to come here to, yet don't get
to. That doesn't strike me as fair. I like our chances of enforcing
the immigration laws a lot better than our chances of running
background checks on anyone and everyone who wants to immigrate
here.
How we\'re going to block it|5.24.07 @ 2:51PM|#
This is so sad.
First, they aren't "pro-immigration senators" (Weigel). They're
CorruptPoliticians who support IllegalActivity.
Turning to Novak:
Opposing IllegalImmigration is neither "anti-immigration" nor
"immigrant-bashing".
As for "apartheid", that's a laugh. That's similar to the current
situation and the "GuestWorker" program that the Sens support. And,
back in 2003 a RazaRadical used the same word to refer
to the current situation.
If you want a more in-depth comment on what Novak actually has to
say, please don't include so many obvious false and misleading
statements so close to the top of the post.
|5.24.07 @ 2:52PM|#
How does the government bureaucracy run your
system?
The federal government expends trillions of dollars on tasks that
would be better left up to the free market (according to us crazy
libertarians anyway).
These expenditures drain resources (both money and people) away
from the legitimate functions of the federal government (like
controlling the borders).
With the execption of the Mexican border, it is very hard for an
undocumented alien to enter the country. So the problem of
controlling the border should be manageable.
Getting back to the question you keep ignoring. What are the
consequence of a massive influx of uneducated, unskilled labor that
you so clearly worry about.
|5.24.07 @ 2:53PM|#
John,
Any system is going to be imperfect. I daresay that the experience
of West Berlin demonstrates that the walls-and-guards strategy will
have its own flaws and failures.
You're proposing an even bigger-government program than MikeP, so
no, you don't get to count the imperfection of government programs
as point for your side.
Cesar|5.24.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Lone Wacko?
WhyDo YouContinue ToType LikeThis?
CouldYou PleaseFor TheLove OfGod ExplainThis?
|5.24.07 @ 2:55PM|#
John: "The underlying falacy of Novak's rant is that just
becuase was good in the past that it is bound to be good in the
future."
One underlying fallacy is that the quote(s) from 1911 (actually
1910) are out of context:
http://lhs.loswego.k12.or.us/z-foxc/US%20Hist%20Lessons/Quater%20Two/Immigration%20Progressive%20Era/The%20Immigration%20Commission%20Report.htm
Immigration and Crime
"It is impossible from existing data to determine whether the
immigrant population in this country is relatively more or less
criminal than the native-born population. Statistics show that the
proportion of convictions of crimes according to the population is
greater among the foreign-born than among native-born. It must be
remembered, however, that the proportion of persons of what may be
termed the criminal age is greater among the foreign-born than
among natives, and when due allowance is made for this fact it
appears that criminality, judged by convictions, is about equally
prevalent in each class.
...
In large cities a part of the apparent criminality of the
foreign-born consists merely of violations of ordinances, which are
offenses only because the persons who commit them are not
naturalized. Prominent in this class of offenses is street peddling
without a license in cities where such licenses are granted only to
citizens.
The proportion of the more serious crimes of homicide, blackmail
and robbery, as well as the least serious offenses, is greater
among the foreign-born. The disproportion in this regard is due
principally to the prevalence of homicides and other crimes of
personal violence among Italians and the violation of city
ordinances previously mentioned…"
It's not much of a "they were delusional, therefore so are you"
soundbite when it's in context.
|5.24.07 @ 2:55PM|#
There's a difference between legal and illegal immigration
that's remarkable similar to the difference between legal and
illegal drugs: one causes crime the other doesn't. When you break
the law to engage in an otherwise peaceful activity, you become a
scofflaw, and that breeds crime.
Let's make legal immigration easier! It's actually easier, cheaper
and less risky to cross the border illegally than to do it right
way. That needs to change.
Fluffy|5.24.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Although libertarians may be unrealistic about the risks and
costs of an "open door" policy on immigration, I think immigration
opponents are equally unrealistic about the risks and costs of
attempting to deport 15 million illegal immigrants.
Do you know what it would cost to hold that many people in
detention and process their cases judicially? And that's after you
spend the money to catch them.
XaabaZu|5.24.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Perhaps the borders can be managed by a private company. Just
sayin...
Perhaps Blackwater will need work after the Iraq thing is over
with. :D
|5.24.07 @ 2:57PM|#
"Why just Mexico? What is so special about Mexicans?"
Because Mexico, at this time, produces (or at least conveys) the
lion's share of immigrants to the US, and because the lion's share
of immigration comes across our southern border.
"A lot of people from other parts of the world want to come here
to, yet don't get to. That doesn't strike me as fair." Yes, me too.
We should scrap the unfair national quotas.
|5.24.07 @ 2:57PM|#
John, it sounds to me like you're just as worried about legal
immigrants as you are about illegal immigrants, which would at
least make you honest.
Most of the people I talk about say their only problem is with
people breaking the law to get there. Obvious solution: if you
increase legal immigration to the point that people feel they have
a reasonable shot at getting in, they're not going to risk their
lives traversing the border. Problem solved.
|5.24.07 @ 2:58PM|#
"I don't follow your argument. If the only things you needed to
check was a person's health, whether they were on a terrorist watch
list, and whether they had a felony record in their home country,
this would be pretty damn easy. It would take a day or two for
countries with which we had a data exchange relationship."
It is not that easy. Not every country keeps good records. Further,
some of those countries might I don't know want the terrorists to
get in the country. It is a monunmental job. If the government
could accomplish doing background checks on literally 10s and
probably 100s of millions of immigrants, it would be the greatest
bureaucratic feat in world history.
"undesireables will come in and they will be dealt with. Ever hear
of the mafia?"
If you had truly open borders, the number of immigrants would be
unimaginable. Much larger than anything we have experienced in the
past. The population would go up by a third or more in just a few
years, without the western frontier to absorb them. The example of
the mafia doesn't work. Furhter, the only thing that would stop the
flow would be wages and living standards in host countries rising
to U.S. levels or wages and living standards in the U.S. falling to
their level. The latter is much more likly. Yes, the lives of the
immigrants would improve, but that would be at the exepense of the
quality of life for millions of Americans already here. I don't
know why you hate Americans so much. That kind of bigotry is
ussually not tolerated in a public forum.
Pleus\'s Grandpop|5.24.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Back in 33 we came over on a boat. Was hard times back then. But
I got meself a hum dinger job as a taint-lice remover.
Worked my way up the ladder. After three years, they gave me some
tweezers to work with.
After five years, they told me that I was actually part of a grand
military experiment. I got mated with a Lone Wolf. Since they were
going to raise the whelp catholic, I could not rightly object. But
the Lone Whelp had this problem, see. He had fused pinkies. And
remained a Solitary, Off-kilter type.
Now, since I'm created in the lord's image and them other folks
from... places where they don't talk English... well, they came
from the trees. And they smell like it.
So... where was I?
DAMMIT, KIDS! GET OFF MY LAWN!!! IT'S MY SOCCER BALL NOW.
Vamoose.
Oh yes English first.
Harry|5.24.07 @ 3:01PM|#
"No. Background checks. Duh."
You actually think the Mexican government----the most corrupt one
in the Americas----would actually cooperaste in an honest manner
with background checks? Illegal immigration is Mexico's safety
valve; it drains away people who might otherwise aggitate for
internal reforms within Mexico.
Do most liberatarians take a stupid pill every morning??
|5.24.07 @ 3:03PM|#
Deporting 15 million people would be the largest forced
migration in the history of the Western Hemisphere. And we're not
even talking about some population that lives in a specified
georgraphic area, or that can otherwise be easily identified and
rounded up. We're talking about going into communities, using
law-enforcement tactics to identify "illegals," and then going into
their homes and taking them away. Sometimes, mistakes will be
made.
Even if you postulate that America would be better if there were no
illegal immigrants, and even if you think that simply legalizing
the undocumented already here is a bad idea, the practical aspect
of deporting the illegal immigrants that are already here would
require not just a big bureacracy, but a police state.
|5.24.07 @ 3:04PM|#
"Most of the people I talk about say their only problem is with
people breaking the law to get there. Obvious solution: if you
increase legal immigration to the point that people feel they have
a reasonable shot at getting in, they're not going to risk their
lives traversing the border. Problem solved."
There is nothing wrong with increasing legal immigration. Further,
we ought to be letting in more people from different parts of the
world so that we dont' have one dominant immigrant culture. But
legal immigration only has meaning if you do something to stop
illegal immigration. My objection is to the polyannish view that
having totally open borders would be positive for the country. It
wouldnt' be. It would be a disaster. Just because you don't want
completely open borders and just because you think that perhaps
people should come here legally and that other people besides
Mexicans should have a chance to come here, doesn't mean you are a
nativist.
|5.24.07 @ 3:05PM|#
"What was Milton Freedman's position?"
That open borders are great, as long as you don't have a welfare
state. Since our welfare state isn't going anywhere anytime soon,
Friedman would not support open borders.
|5.24.07 @ 3:05PM|#
There are three major groups of complaints against wide open
immigration of uneducated, unskilled people into the US. In no
particular order they are:
1) They will change the nature of the culture of the US. Note that
this charge has been leveled against every "undesirable" immigrant
since the beginning of the country.
2) They will pull the rug out from underneath skilled labor and
will destroy the economy. This compliant is closely tied to, but
not exclusive to, union labor. This carries some truth to it. But
in a free market, competition within the labor pool is good for
society as a whole even if some members find themselves
out-competed.
3) They will overwhelm the welfare system. Again, the carries some
truth to it. But the libertarian answer is to ramp down the welfare
system not to block immigration.
So John, which of these groups do you fall into?
|5.24.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Joe,
You wouldn't have to deport 15 million people. Just clamp down on
the people who hire them and the jobs would dry up and the people
would go home themselves. You don't have to round them up. No jobs,
no public assistance no illegal immigrants. You wouldnn't end it
but you would stop the growth and lower the number. Combine that
with a real loosening of the legal immigration process and you
could solve the problem and still keep control of the border.
|5.24.07 @ 3:08PM|#
Yes, the lives of the immigrants would improve, but that
would be at the exepense of the quality of life for millions of
Americans already here. I don't know why you hate Americans so
much. That kind of bigotry is ussually not tolerated in a public
forum.
Anything you say from this point forward is of no value what so
ever.
|5.24.07 @ 3:10PM|#
Carrick. Two and three are undenably true. The welfare system is going nowhere. You might as well tell me that the tooth fairy is coming to make it all better as tell me that the welfare system is going to end. As far as two goes, look at the plight of high school drop outs and compare it to the rise of illegal immigration. Greater supply causes lower wages. Basically we are screwing our own poor so that rich people can get their lawns mowed cheaply. It sucks.
|5.24.07 @ 3:12PM|#
"What are the consequence of a massive influx of uneducated,
unskilled labor that you so clearly worry about."
Apparently there is no downside. I've asked repeatedly: under what
conditions would unrestrained immigration be a negative? Never
heard an answer.
I've also never heard even a ballpark estimate of how many people
we can absorb over time. Well I guess I've heard "the market will
regulate the flow back and forth"- and my response is- how quickly
can it react? What are the costs if it reacts very slowly?
|5.24.07 @ 3:12PM|#
John,
Well, now you're talking. Of course, the increase in legal
immigration would have to be greatest for Mexicans, since they have
the lowest barrier to entry (being next door and all). And to
really accomplish the goal of creating a society where the vast
majority are legal, we should create a reasonable path to
citizenship for those who are already here (reasonable = not having
to return to one's own country and reapply, or paying an exorbitant
fine).
|5.24.07 @ 3:12PM|#
"Anything you say from this point forward is of no value what so
ever."
"That is pig Latin for "I don't have an answer to what you are
saying so I will just dismiss you and feign superiority."
Fluffy|5.24.07 @ 3:13PM|#
Carrick -
I think there is a #4 - people who would support mass immigration
if the population of the country was 100 million, but who don't
support it at 300 million.
One of the good things about capitalism is that increasing wealth
for some reason tends to lower the birth rate, so you don't end up
with Malthusian outcomes, or even just the unpleasantness of a
place that is too damn full even if it's well-fed. That doesn't
work, however, if you have a continual source of new population
from outside the system.
I'm not old enough to know personally, but all the photographic
evidence I've seen leads me to believe that the country looks
pretty shitty compared to the way it did when the population was
150 million. Certainly southern California and the north coast of
Hawaii have been ruined beyond what can be repaired in our
lifetimes. Adding another 100 million immigrants on top would not,
I think, have a salutary effect. I've been told this makes me a
misanthrope, and I guess maybe it does.
|5.24.07 @ 3:14PM|#
I agree with you Brian. Guest worker programs are a terrible idea. The last thing we need is group of unassimilated people who have no hope of being citizens. That is what guest slave I mean worker programs would create. There is no question that this country can and should take significant numbers of legal immigrants. I am just saying a totally open border is really bad idea.
|5.24.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Opposing Illegal Immigration is neither "anti-immigration"
nor "immigrant-bashing".
It is if you don't work out a reasonable criterion for what
constitues "legal" vs. "illegal." I swear, some of you guys sound
like Michael Constantine's character in My Big Fat Greek
Wedding:
"I want to come into your country."
"Only if you ask permission."
"Can I come into your country?"
"No."
Cesar|5.24.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Why do so many people think of Latin America as some kind of demographic time bomb? The fertility rates of Latin American countries have been falling since the 1960s and are now only slightly higher than those in the United States.
highnumber|5.24.07 @ 3:18PM|#
How about, from now on in immigration threads, all the regulars
just check in like this:
highnumber | Month XX, 2007, X:XX xm | #
Still in favor of open borders.
or "Still against..." No more comment than that.
MikeP will be exempt. He can take on the renegades and non-regular
commenters.
This system will save all much time and aggravation.
(Sorry, MikeP, but you have been nominated by no less than
thoreau.)
|5.24.07 @ 3:20PM|#
Fluffy--
It does.
Photographic evidence? You don't get out much?
Well, I live in NYC, and I happen to think it's beautiful. I'd say
the same for Southern California and Hawaii. Why do you hate human
habitation so much?
For the record, forested land has been increasing in the United
States for some time, as our population has become more
concentrated in urban areas
(http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/32179/en/). There is plenty of
room in the US for more people, particularly relative to many other
countries.
|5.24.07 @ 3:22PM|#
"That is pig Latin for "I don't have an answer to what you
are saying so I will just dismiss you and feign
superiority."
You said that proponent of open immigration hate Americans and are
bigots.
I repeatedly asked you to answer questions to engage in a rational
discussion on immigration. You just devolved into name
calling.
So yes, I am going to dismiss you.
|5.24.07 @ 3:27PM|#
With the exception of the Irish, who almost never went home to
Ireland, many emigres go someplace, work for a while, save their
money, then go home. It's not a majority that returns home, but is
a large percentage.
Before the US tightened the border, many Mexican men came the US,
saved some money, then went home. They frequently repeated this
process.
After the crackdown, mexican men brought their families with them
to avoid having to cross the border repeatedly.
If you really want to clean up Mexico, then you need to bring large
numbers of ambitious young men here, let then make and save money,
then return home to become affluent members of Mexican society that
expect the civil order of the US economy.
|5.24.07 @ 3:27PM|#
What was Milton Freedman's position?
His opinion doesn't count because he was a racist.
Do most liberatarians take a stupid pill every
morning??
Most don't need to do so.
If you want open borders, fine. But don't insult people's
intelligence by pretending that having open borders can somehow be
tempered by background checks and the like.
Background checks = not open borders.
If you had truly open borders, the number of immigrants would
be unimaginable. Much larger than anything we have experienced in
the past. The population would go up by a third or more in just a
few years, without the western frontier to absorb them.
Quite true, but think along the lines of 50 or 100 or 200 years.
Travel is a lot easier now than at any time in the past, and will
probably just get easier and cheaper in the future, so how about a
few million, say 100 million at least, supporters of Sharia law?
Why not? They have the oil money to buy one-way plane tickets, and
they'd get rid of that pesky ole Constitution and it's horrible 'n'
barbaric restraints on immigration, resulting in a multiculty
love-fest for all.
I don't know why you hate Americans so much. That kind of
bigotry is ussually not tolerated in a public forum.
It's all the rage among the kids.
highnumber|5.24.07 @ 3:32PM|#
By the way, Fluffy, I think you dismissed Malthus and warned of
Malthusian outcomes at the same time.
Look out for a break in the space-time continuum in your immediate
vicinity.
|5.24.07 @ 3:32PM|#
John--
Totally with you on guest workers. The last thing we need is an
explicit, legally-sanctioned underclass with no hope of
citizenship.
With the exception of the Irish, who almost never went home to
Ireland
If you're talking about the Irish of the late 19th/early 20th
century, or during the Depression, that's also true of every other
immigrant group of the time. It was prohibitively expensive to
travel across the ocean at the time; many spent everything they had
just to get here.
My own grandparents came over in the '20s and '30s, along with many
of their siblings. Most never returned to Ireland until at least
the '70s, when the cost of travel came down.
Cesar|5.24.07 @ 3:34PM|#
Mr. F. Le Mur-
Explain to me why an oil billionaire who is a Islamic
fundamentalist would move to the United States?
And we don't "Bring" anybody here, so that should extinguish the
old strawman of "why don't we bring (x outrageous number) of (y
group) here?
|5.24.07 @ 3:35PM|#
highnumber, it may just be semantics, but I don't think "open"
immigration equates to "open" borders.
Today, there is no legal process for an unskilled worker to
immigrate to the US. But there is definitely a market demand for
their services. Therefore, black market in unskilled, immigrant
labor.
I suggest that this should be changed to allow pretty much anyone
with the resources to get the US to have a chance to come to the
US. That does not mean that I want to see millions of people
walking across the southwest desert.
|5.24.07 @ 3:39PM|#
If you're talking about the Irish of the late 19th/early
20th century, or during the Depression, that's also true of every
other immigrant group of the time. It was prohibitively expensive
to travel across the ocean at the time; many spent everything they
had just to get here.
Sorry I have been mixing time frames. In the late 1800's to early
1900's, perhaps 1/4th to 1/3rd of the immigrants to the US returned
home at some point. For the Irish at that time, it was almost
none.
In today's economy, the Irish are well known for going anywhere at
the drop of a hat to find work.
|5.24.07 @ 3:39PM|#
Background checks = not open borders.
This is a strawman. Everyone I know who argues for open borders
believes that people can be excluded for cause. Even an anarchist
would say that, if you have a government anyway, one of its
legitimate functions is controlling the border against entry of
persons or material that is actually dangerous to the public.
A terrorist is dangerous to the public. A gardener is not.
|5.24.07 @ 3:39PM|#
"If you really want to clean up Mexico, then you need to bring
large numbers of ambitious young men here, let then make and save
money, then return home to become affluent members of Mexican
society that expect the civil order of the US economy."
Wow, An original thought! Bravo, carrick. Good point.
As opposed to the racist lemur's theory that immigrants remain
culturally untouched by the society they enter. If only the
grandchildren of people who came here from Iran in 1995 weren't
going to be passionately committed to instituting sharia law!
highnumber|5.24.07 @ 3:42PM|#
carrick,
I have not heard anyone talk about "open immigration." I'm not
quite sure where you're going with that.
|5.24.07 @ 3:43PM|#
Explain to me why an oil billionaire who is a Islamic
fundamentalist would move to the United States?
Who, besides you, said anything about billionares? Why did 10-20
million Sharia law supporters (all billionaires!) move to Europe in
the past 30 or so years?
Cesar|5.24.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Mr. F. Le Mur-
Well, you said they would have the "oil money" to pay for plane
tickets. So, I figured you meant people from Gulf States, who are
usually very wealthy.
"Who, besides you, said anything about billionares? Why did 10-20
million Sharia law supporters (all billionaires!) move to Europe in
the past 30 or so years?"
Yes LeMur. Every single Arab, Turkish, Persian, and Kurd in Europe
believes 100% in Shariah law. It will be TEH EURABIA!
Fuck off.
|5.24.07 @ 3:47PM|#
Background checks = not open borders.
This is a strawman.
Not at all. Many people equate "open borders" with the borders
between the various US states: no background checks, no searches,
no paperwork, etc.: IOW, actual open borders.
As opposed to the racist lemur's theory that immigrants remain
culturally untouched by the society they enter.
Joe, you're a liar, and a crummy one at that.
|5.24.07 @ 3:48PM|#
Many people equate "open borders" with the borders between
the various US states: no background checks, no searches, no
paperwork, etc.: IOW, actual open borders.
Name one.
How we\'re going to block it|5.24.07 @ 3:48PM|#
Fluffy says: I think immigration opponents are equally
unrealistic about the risks and costs of attempting to deport 15
million illegal immigrants.
I'm surprised that people are still willing to offer this talking
point. Yet, even today, you have MichaelChertoff offering the same
old FalseChoice between MassiveAmnesty and MassDeportations,
together with smear sites like ThinkProgress claiming that someone
supports MassDeportations right after quoting her as supporting
AttritionOverTime.
Harry says: Do most liberatarians take a stupid pill every
morning??
I'm tempted to say yes, but some libertarian ideas aren't that bad.
It's just that - like pacifists and similar - they're completely
unable to adjust to the reality that the rest of us share. I think
their pill is more of the alternate universe variety.
BTW, JohnDerbyshire eviscerates RobertNovak's column
here.
|5.24.07 @ 3:49PM|#
A terrorist is dangerous to the public. A gardener is
not.
Not true. A gardener crossed my border with his friend and
destroyed some very valuable property of mine! Some jewelry, to be
specific.
|5.24.07 @ 3:49PM|#
Yes LeMur. Every single Arab, Turkish, Persian, and Kurd in
Europe believes 100% in Shariah law.
Another rather silly liar. Phase of the moon pulling you guys out
of your burrows today...?
|5.24.07 @ 3:51PM|#
I have not heard anyone talk about "open immigration." I'm
not quite sure where you're going with that.
I started out by saying anyone without a criminal record should be
allowed to come here. MikeP then followed up with the "complete
list" of those that should be excluded.
I went on to say that the US needs to establish an infrastructure
to verify that undesirables can't enter the US implying the need to
"control the border". John then poo-pooed the whole idea as being
unworkable.
I believe that the US will benefit in both the near term and the
long term from an influx of people that want to make better lives
for themselves by coming to the US. That does not mean that would
should just abandon all the checkpoints at points of entry into the
US.
|5.24.07 @ 3:53PM|#
"how about a few million, say 100 million at least, supporters
of Sharia law? Why not? They have the oil money to buy one-way
plane tickets, and they'd get rid of that pesky ole Constitution
and it's horrible 'n' barbaric restraints on immigration, resulting
in a multiculty love-fest for all."
No, lemur, calling you on your description of Muslim immigrants as
"supporters of sharia law," who will lobby to get rid of the
Constitution, is not a lie. You asserted that these immigrants are
"supporters of sharia law" and will remain so long enough to undo
our political order, rather than acclimiate themselves to it.
|5.24.07 @ 3:59PM|#
It is surprising this needs clarification, but maybe opponents
of greater immigration really don't know...
Those who want open borders, open immigration, liberalized
immigration -- whatever you want to call it -- simply want to
remove all immigration restrictions based on worries about jobs,
population, culture, language, etc.
People should be restricted from crossing the border only if they
pose an actual risk to the people of the country. Merely being one
of several million other immigrants does not a risk make.
|5.24.07 @ 4:07PM|#
"People should be restricted from crossing the border only if
they pose an actual risk to the people of the country"
So you support a wall on our border with Mexico?
|5.24.07 @ 4:08PM|#
No, lemur, calling you on your description of Muslim
immigrants as "supporters of sharia law," who will lobby to get rid
of the Constitution, is not a lie.
Yes, it is a lie, joe; either that and/or you're just too damned
stupid to see that I didn't use the word "Muslim" anywhere in the
post.
Besides:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml
"Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into
parts of the country, a survey reveals today."
I already feel a bit guilty about wasting this much time on idiots
who can't read and understand simple statements (ESL, maybe?) -
'ta!
|5.24.07 @ 4:13PM|#
So you support a wall on our border with Mexico?
No, I don't. It is expensive, manpower intensive, and sends an
awful message of militarization on what is an entirely peaceful
border.
But if it was the political price for liberalized immigration, I
would probably find the compromise worth it.
|5.24.07 @ 4:14PM|#
Once you say we will let in anyone except ______ (fill in the
blank - criminals, the diseased, whatever), you are well on your
way to recreating the current system, because you will need some
method to separate those who are allowed in from those who aren't,
and some way to keep out those who aren't allowed in.
In other words, you will need to be able to identify and validate
immigrants and control the borders. Since we can't do either now, I
think its a valid question how those who think we should have open
borders except plan to enforce the except.
Fluffy|5.24.07 @ 4:20PM|#
Oh, right. "Attrition over time". Otherwise known as "Do
nothing, but pretend we're doing something."
Hey, I'm OK with "do nothing". I'm not the one bitching about the
present situation.
But if your brilliant plan to make all the illegal immigrants walk
home on their own is "get rid of the shadow market for labor" I
have to reply: BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
|5.24.07 @ 4:21PM|#
Once you say we will let in anyone except ______ (fill in
the blank - criminals, the diseased, whatever), you are well on
your way to recreating the current system
Not really. Today, an engineer from India can come and work in the
US with some possibility of getting a green card and a possible
road to citizenship. A gardener from Mexico can't.
Some will argue that we need the engineer but not the gardener. The
market argues that we need both.
|5.24.07 @ 4:28PM|#
f"Yes, it is a lie, joe; either that and/or you're just too
damned stupid to see that I didn't use the word "Muslim" anywhere
in the post."
LOL! You refered to them as "supporters of sharia law," and now
you're pretending you weren't talking about Muslims? You reference
"oil money," and you're pretending you aren't talking about people
from the Middle East?
Nice quote about British MUSLIMS being supporters of sharia
law.
What are you, kidding? Who do you think is going to be fooled by
that?
|5.24.07 @ 4:30PM|#
I've been commenting on this subject for a while and it seems that those who are for open immigration on this board are now advocating(willing to compromise) policies that got me and others categorized as bigots and racists for merely suggesting before.
|5.24.07 @ 4:30PM|#
Since we can't do either now, I think its a valid question
how those who think we should have open borders except plan to
enforce the except.
The difference between controlling a border that has allowed in 12
million people to date and half a million more each year, and
controlling a border through which 98% of those could pass freely
while the balance, if intercepted, are prima facie troublemakers,
is enormous.
The background checks aren't going to be perfect. The border
outside the legal gateways won't be perfect. But any solution
proposed by those wanting greater restriction on immigration won't
be perfect either. And the illegal immigrant problem is so, so much
smaller in the former case than the latter.
The difficulty of enforcement is not an argument against open
borders: It's an argument against closed borders.
TLB|5.24.07 @ 4:31PM|#
Fluffy: it would work, and small instances show it would work.
The problem is PoliticalCorruption prevents it from being tried on
a national scale.
MikeP says: People should be restricted from crossing the
border only if they pose an actual risk to the people of the
country.
If 30 million more Mexicans come here, and that gives the
MexicanGovernment even more PoliticalPower inside the U.S. - so
much power that they have effective co-dominion over parts of our
territory - isn't that a "risk"? I'm $ure that'$ a ri$k $ome are
willing to take, but they don't have the country's best interests
at heart.
Note: unlike Weigel, MikeP, and the rest, I actually follow this
issue quite closely and I'm quite familiar with all the ways that
the MexicanGovernment has PoliticalPower inside the U.S., via
MexicanPartisans such as FabianNunez, maintaining constant contact
with those behind the SenateAmnesty (Mexico said that a few days
ago), having links to FarLeft organizations, having links to those
who helped organize the IllegalImmigrationMarches,
and on and on.
If you don't consider that a "risk" or you consider it a risk worth
taking, please go to Somalia and enjoy the libertarian paradise
there.
|5.24.07 @ 4:33PM|#
RC Dean,
"Once you say we will let in anyone except ______ (fill in the
blank - criminals, the diseased, whatever), you are well on your
way to recreating the current system, because you will need some
method to separate those who are allowed in from those who aren't,
and some way to keep out those who aren't allowed in."
I'll point out that the prohibition on absinthe managed to hold up
a lot better than the prohibition on all alcoholic beverages.
Just reducing the scope of law enforcement's duties would go a long
way towards solving the enforcement/black market problem.
"Criminals and terrorists" is a much smaller category then
"everyone who couldn't get legal documents."
Estimates are upwards of a million immigrants per annum. How many
of those are felons or terrorists? 100? 1000?
Rhywun|5.24.07 @ 4:52PM|#
Primus?! I must be out of touch. Those turds couldn't scrape the
tobacco juice off Charlie Daniels' boots.
OK, back to the post. What's it about? Ah, immigration. (rolls up
sleeves, kicks back)
|5.24.07 @ 5:17PM|#
"Some will argue that we need the engineer but not the gardener.
The market argues that we need both."
If we needed both than wages would be swiftly rising for unskilled
labor even with the illegal immigration. The collapse of these
wages (construction alone is a damning example) shows these
immigrants are not needed, they are just being used to lower wages
for the working class. Black Americans are acutely aware of this
and are largely anti-illegal immigration. White affluent people
don't feel threatened and they want to save a few bucks on a hotel
room so they support mass immigration, whether it be legal or
not.
Cesar|5.24.07 @ 5:36PM|#
"TLB, I beg you, please tell us why YouType LikeThis.
PrettyPleases?"
Obsessed, ISecond ThatMotion.
highnumber|5.24.07 @ 5:52PM|#
He's been asked about TheFunnyWayHeCombinesWords before and never answered. Someone suggested that he does it to make it easier to search for his own comments. That sounds plausible to me. I could also believe that he does it because he thinks it gives his comments some pop. Whenever I try it, people act like I'm nuts. Hmmm...
Single Issue Voter|5.24.07 @ 6:01PM|#
So if you are an Indian engineer or computer scientist who has overstayed your visa here in the USA will these new z-visas allow you to fully enter the American labor market, bypassing the H1b, or will one be limited to framing, painting,chicken gutting,drywall hanging agriculture and other "menial" jobs?
MORE AMERICAN THAN JOE OR LEMU|5.24.07 @ 7:08PM|#
YALL ARE ALL JUST MASS-DEBATING
IF YOU ARENT AMERICAN THAN YOU DONT NEED TO BE HERE THERE ARE
SIMPLE TESTS FOR AMERICANISM THEY ARE IF YOU FIGHT WAR HATE TAXES
AND GOT HERE AND HELPED KILL INDIANS SO THAT THE PLACE WOULD BE
SAFE FOR AMERICANS WHY DONT ALL YOU PROIMMIGRANTS JUST TELL THE
TRUTH AND SAY YOU WANT TO GIVE THE COUNTRY BACK TO THE INDIANS WE
SPENT SO MUCH TIME GETTING INTO THEIR CASINOS AND LEARNING TO MIX
DRINKS PROPERLY DOESNT ANYONE KNOW WHAT ILLEGAL MEANS? ITS LIKE
LEGAL BUT SICK AND WRONG SO WHEN THEY ARE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS THEY
HAVE TO BE SENT BACK SOMEWHERE ELSE WE DONT NEED THEIR JOBS BECAUSE
MANY AMERICANS WOULD RATHER MOW LAWNS AND WASH DISHES AND HAMMER
NAILS AND IF THAT MEANS A HOUSE COSTS 50% MORE THEN AMERICANS HAVE
TO LEARN TO SUCK IT UP AND PAY FOR A MORE AMERICAN AMERICA
GILMORE|5.24.07 @ 7:31PM|#
highnumber =
RealTruth is a brand, and MexicanPower is a force of nature, just
as Capitalising suggeststs that your Ideas arent just, ideas and
shit, but rather Brandable & Unique Commodities that are
Monolithic and Simplified into SimpleTruth where nothing is
complicated by by nuance or any hint of complicating fact.
I think maybe the guy reads a lot of bullshit Self Empowerment
books that use this kind of
rhetorical/grammatical/GermanicLinguistic word-mashing to elevate
simple language into some kind of SuperCredibility via
Branding
I have had to slap down many people in the business world who throw
this shit around and remind them that only 1 in 10 dont immediately
think they are idiots - they sort of convince themselves that most
people dont really read any better than they do, and that Ad-Agency
language actually plays in real discourse
it doesnt always end well. The retort is that having a degree in
english, or having internalized Elements of Style (8th grade)
guidelines, or referring to the bedford handbook to correct them,
is some form of cultural snobbery which is pedantic and not really
part of 'real life'. In 'real life', according to them, people are
allowed to develop their own rhetorical code language for ideas
that they can't actually discuss in any real detail. Branding your
point gives the impression more is beneath the surface, when in
fact, thats usually the extent of their understanding of the
matter.
Steve Sailer is harder to argue with on this stuff. He's smart. And
a bit nuts. Different animal. But I think the simple economic truth
is that the US needs every warm body we can get, for our own
interests, not 'helping anyone out'.
|5.24.07 @ 9:47PM|#
Just reducing the scope of law enforcement's duties would go
a long way towards solving the enforcement/black market
problem.
True, but I don't see how that applies in this case. You will still
need to check the bona fides of every single would-be immigrant,
and close the borders against those who don't qualify. The fact
that you are changing the criteria for who qualifies and who
doesn't, doesn't change the fundamental requirements of controlled
immigration.
Which we (apparently) can't manage now. it makes me wonder just how
disingenuous the proponents of amnesty/opener borders, but not open
borders, no sir, really are.
|5.24.07 @ 9:50PM|#
If we needed both than wages would be swiftly rising for
unskilled labor even with the illegal immigration. The collapse of
these wages (construction alone is a damning example) shows these
immigrants are not needed, they are just being used to lower wages
for the working class.
The collapse of construction wages shows that the overall economy
is evolving. The industrial revolution destroyed the livelihoods of
many, many people. That is the consequence of progress.
No one gets a guaranteed rate of pay for life. Factory workers lose
jobs when they go overseas. Engineers lose jobs when they go
overseas. Tradesmen need to upgrade their skills, move to a
location where they can earn more money, or accept the lowered
wages. That's the way the world works.
|5.25.07 @ 1:07AM|#
No one gets a guaranteed rate of pay for life.
Government employees usually do, hotshot.
|5.25.07 @ 2:36AM|#
Carrick, that is one dishonest answer
"The collapse of construction wages shows that the overall economy
is evolving. The industrial revolution destroyed the livelihoods of
many, many people."
Those construction jobs were not taken over by robots, they were
taken by largely illegal immigrants. These jobs have not
disappeared, they are just being shielded from a tightening of
demand and the wage increases that follow.
"Tradesmen need to upgrade their skills, move to a location where
they can earn more money, or accept the lowered wages."
Yeah, those tradesman should move to..to..
Not one country in the EU would take a drywall installer through
their immigration program. Mexico would not, nor Japan or any other
country. This one way open border policy stiffs the working poor
plain and simple.
|5.25.07 @ 3:17AM|#
Those construction jobs were not taken over by robots, they
were taken by largely illegal immigrants.
And what if they were taken over by robots? Should the government
outlaw robots? Whatever the reason production costs go down, the
economy is better off: There is more construction for less
money.
Not one country in the EU would take a drywall installer
through their immigration program.
Perhaps you should take a look at Spain. From a BusinessWeek
article...
To fill jobs, Spain looked abroad. Immigration rose from 57,000 in 1998 to more than 600,000 for each of the past two years. The biggest influx, about 800,000 since the mid-1990s, came from Ecuador, followed by Morocco and Romania. Spain, unlike France and Germany, places no restrictions on immigration from the EU's new members in the old Soviet Bloc. Many from other countries arrived under the radar: An estimated 25% to 35% of the current immigrant population is illegal. But Spain has been generous with amnesty, granting legal status since 2000 to more than 1 million who could prove that they were employed.
Many found work in the booming construction sector. Across the suburbs of Madrid, armies of hard-hatted workers speaking a Babel of languages are building row upon row of apartment high-rises on freshly bulldozed hillsides. "If you work well, you always have work," says Constantin Nitu, a Romanian who arrived in Spain in 1999 to work as a day laborer and now runs his own small construction business, employing other Romanian immigrants.
|5.25.07 @ 9:29AM|#
Carrick, that is one dishonest answer
I don't mind being told I am wrong, but I object to being called
dishonest.
"The collapse of construction wages shows that the overall
economy is evolving. The industrial revolution destroyed the
livelihoods of many, many people."
Sorry it was late, and I left out a line . .
"Globalization is destroying the livelihoods of many, many people
today. Those are the consequences of progress."
|5.25.07 @ 11:35AM|#
MikeP,
"Whatever the reason production costs go down, the economy is
better off:"
Someone is better off, just not the American working class. You are
saying "well the wealthy will make more money, that is progress".
Less purchasing power for the most vulnerable is one kind of
progress I guess.
Carrick,
Your addendum moves you from dishonest to wrong.
The construction workers you mention either come from within the EU
(like coming from another state in the US) or were amnesty
recipients after illegal immigration.
Can a US drywaller legally immigrate to Spain? I know they can not
(sans marriage) because I can not immigrate to the EU and I have
three advanced degrees. A high school graduate with general
construction skills has no chance.
|5.25.07 @ 11:40AM|#
"the economy is better off: There is more construction for less
money..."
If developers can build for less many will- they don't seem to get
the whole supply and demand thing- increasing inventory- which
drives down prices. Add in the fools who got specialty mortgages
and you got the mess we're just starting to see the effects of
now.
I'm thinking if labor hadn't been so cheap(and in many cases
sub-par) inventory wouldn't be so high.
|5.25.07 @ 12:05PM|#
Carrick,
Your addendum moves you from dishonest to wrong.
Which statement?
The collapse of construction wages shows that the overall economy
is evolving.
The industrial revolution destroyed the livelihoods of many, many
people.
Globalization is destroying the livelihoods of many, many people
today.
Those are the consequences of progress.
|5.25.07 @ 3:25PM|#
RC Dean,
"True, but I don't see how that applies in this case. You will
still need to check the bona fides of every single would-be
immigrant, and close the borders against those who don't qualify.
The fact that you are changing the criteria for who qualifies and
who doesn't, doesn't change the fundamental requirements of
controlled immigration."
Running background checks on 1,000,000 people who line up and hand
you their documents each year and trying to find, capture, hold,
try, and deport 2000 who sneak over the border is a much smaller
job than trying to find, capture, hold, try, and deport 1,002,000
people who sneak over the border.
Ask yourself, what has the government done more successfully - stop
the importation of liquor entirely during Prohibition, or require
Seagrams et al. to abide by our consumer protection, labelling,
tax, and age laws?
|5.25.07 @ 4:18PM|#
All I can say is that it's a goddamn good thing construction
wages have been depressed.
It means it'll be all the cheaper to build that wall.
Of course I'm holding out for the canal the whole length of the
border. With mutant sharks to stop the swimmers.
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