New at Reason

June 4, 2007

Steve Chapman conducts a lonely search for sense and facts in the immigration debate.

Comments

Cerro|6.4.07 @ 9:31AM|#

Okay, I'm sold on the idea that we can't stop determined people from getting into the country.

So, little border control. But then if we try to disincentivise immigration by making it hard for them when they get here, for example by requiring registration, we all know that they'll still come and we'll end up with an underclass of illegals. That doesn't seem like a particularly humane option to me, plus it'll make people turn to crime etc.

So,if we can't keep them out, and we can't persuade them not to come, then what the hell can we do?

If the answer is that there's nothing we can do, then we can be sure of an awful lot of immigration, that's for sure. But large-scale immigration and a welfare state just don't work together, and it seems to me far more likely that people will want to hang on to the former rather than the latter. So, demand for curbing immigration will rise and we'll be back to square one.

Seems like a conundrum to me.

Your thoughts/solutions/silver bullets?

|6.4.07 @ 9:33AM|#

Probably Chapman's best article since he started writing for Reason.

One of the lesser talked about points of the immigration debate is that the assumption, by those who oppose a more open stance on immigration, that the government is competent to staunch the flow of people across the borders. Given the history of the War on Drugs, this is a highly dubious belief.

As with the WoD, there may well be further encroachments on the Bill of Rights to enforce a "War on Immigration". We could see a parallel line of events happening. Indeed, it appears it is already starting with the ...increased our efforts to seal the Mexican border, migrants have been diverted to remote areas that are harder to patrol, so much so that the rate of apprehension has actually fallen. So the Border Patrol steps it up a notch, then the smugglers figure out other ways, etc. etc. Government spending spirals as first enforcement and later punishment are increased. As the new policies are deemed ineffective, "zero tolerance" type policies are called for. People start getting years in prison for hiring "illegals". More tax money is spent on a pointless cause while human lives are ruined for engaging in honest economic activity (e.g., hiring employees, looking for a better job).

Of course, this doesn't address the heart of the matter. As someone pointed out on a previous thread, if the activity in question was not immigration but rather murder, we wouldn't care about the costs to arrest and prosecute those who commit it. So the "argument from efficiency" if I may call it such, is at best a secondary argument. As I see it, the real argument is whether a person's immigrating from one country to another in and of itself violates the rights of others. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that it does.

thoreau|6.4.07 @ 9:49AM|#

I don't have the energy for repeating all the same arguments, counter-arguments, and counter-counter-arguments in Yet Another Immigration Thread, so I will just post the following:

Whatever MikeP says is probably cool.

Seriously, the immigration threads almost always go over the same ground. Why not just periodically post a thread called "Immigration--Discuss!"?

AmericanResistance|6.4.07 @ 9:51AM|#

Chapman and the other open borders/amnesty advocates don't understand that to solve the immigration problem all you have to do is (1) militarize the border with Mexico and (2) make the fines and prison terms for hiring illegals so harsh, no one will do it. It will also cause all of these illegal aliens to leave the country. We just have to stand up and be tough.

AmericanResistance|6.4.07 @ 10:06AM|#

I also want to know why Chapman and other open-borders adovcates want to sell-out western civilization and our culture for $$$$$?

|6.4.07 @ 10:11AM|#

Dear AR, not to worry. The US culture (or a least some of the worst aspects of the US culture) are sweeping the world.

Globalization is not going to destroy the "american" way of life. It is just the opposite in fact.

|6.4.07 @ 10:14AM|#

The one-world government is us.

When MacDonald's and Hollywood can't to the job, we have marines and rangers to help out.

highnumber|6.4.07 @ 10:16AM|#

Open borders: still in favor.

|6.4.07 @ 10:23AM|#

I don't like the "open borders" phrase.

I think I'll take the pro-life/pro-choice naming convention and go pro-migration.

Mark Luedtke|6.4.07 @ 10:42AM|#

I addressed this at Townhall, but I'm very surprised to see such a government-centric philosophy presented at Reason. The American people, not the government, can most certainly stop the hiring of illegal aliens, but only if they have an economic incentive. My post from Townhall is included below.
--
Steve Chapman claims that America can't realistically stop illegal immigration. Once again a conservative expresses the opinion that only government can solve problems, and since government can't solve the illegal immigration problem, the problem is unsolvable. This is a crock, because its fundamental assumption is wrong - that the only possible solution to verify immigration status is dependent on government.

Hardliners think the way to get rid of illegal immigrants is to get rid of the jobs they fill. In the Senate bill endorsed by President Bush, advocates of tougher enforcement got a new system for employers to verify that their workers are entitled to be here. Anyone newly hired (and, in time, anyone with a job) would have to pass a check of federal databases.

It's a fine idea in theory, but note that it requires government authorization for every employment decision in a large, dynamic economy, an approach that is just slightly at odds with the free market. It also presumes a level of efficiency that conservatives do not usually expect of government.


It's a terrible idea in theory and would be worse in practice. This is how big-government conservatives and big-government liberals destroy America. Both liberals and conservatives mistake America for the federal government. America was made great by its people, not the government, and the American people can solve this problem. The federal government can't stop illegal immigration, but the American people can.

American employers are more than capable of effectively identifying the citizenship of their prospective employees. We don't need any special ID card. We don't need any big-government plan. All we need to do is provide employers and incentive to verify citizenship of their employees, and that incentive is already built into existing law - send employers who don't verify citizenship to jail.

Mr. Chapman is right that free market forces drive American employers to hire illegal aliens at lower wages than Americans will take for the same work. In the absence of any penalty for hiring illegal aliens, we can't stop the southern invasion. No fence will stop it. Militarization of the border won't stop it.

But when employers are faced with the prospect of going to jail, as proscribed by law, for hiring illegal aliens, they will stop hiring them. They will review the IDs and citizenship of their employees and they will thoroughly check the citizenship documents of prospective employees. Currently employed illegal immigrants will lose their jobs, and they will be unable to find new jobs. With no market incentive for being in America, illegal immigrants will go home and work to build the economies of their own countries and Americans and legal immigrants will take the open jobs at fair market wages.

There will still be a problem with counterfeit documents, but the vast majority of illegal immigrants don't buy counterfeit documents. They don't need to because our government refuses to enforce the law against employers. Our government wants illegal aliens to provide labor at sub-market prices.

The government is the problem. The people are the solution. All we need to do is enforce existing laws. By having employers take the jobs for illegal aliens off the market, the illegal alien invasion will be reduced to a manageable amount for existing authorities to handle. Hard-core illegal aliens who won't leave will be caught and deported. Counterfeiters, having a greatly reduced market and comparably reduced funds, will be arrested and convicted.

Highway|6.4.07 @ 10:52AM|#

Mark Luedtke, please tell me if I've summarized your post correctly:

The government can't stop illegal immigrants.

"The People" can stop illegal immigrants.

How?

By getting the government to punish more harshly those people who hire illegal immigrants. And then the government can go after the counterfeiters who provide illegal immigrants with forged documentation.

Would this be a correct summary? And if it is, wow, it makes my head hurt.

|6.4.07 @ 10:52AM|#

But when employers [drug users] are faced with the prospect of going to jail, as proscribed by law, for hiring illegal aliens [using illegal drugs], they will stop hiring [using] them.

...there, fixed that for ya....

Oh, wait, that hasn't worked out?? Damn...

highnumber|6.4.07 @ 10:54AM|#

Mr Luedtke,

Be prepared for the internal inconsistencies within your comment to be pointed out by someone with more time than I have.

|6.4.07 @ 10:54AM|#

Nice try Mark, except you are mostly wrong.

Employers do not hire low-cost labor so they can offer low prices. Consumers demand low prices, so employers hire low-cost labor or go out of business.

If you want to stop poor mexicans from crossing the border, then you need to convince the entire US population that they should willingly pay higher prices for a whole range of products.

highnumber|6.4.07 @ 10:55AM|#

Whoa, it started while I wasn't watching. More will come.

|6.4.07 @ 10:57AM|#

With no market incentive for being in America, illegal immigrants will go home and work to build the economies of their own countries and Americans and legal immigrants will take the open jobs at fair market wages.

Let's see...tomatoes...yes...I'll start with that.

They can be imported from Mexico or elsewhere for much cheaper than Americans might be willing to do the job. All tomato farmers (lots in the state of Florida), kiss your business goodbye.

hmmm...oranges?...all sorts of produce??...

There's much more to it than simply paying fair wages to Americans...

William R|6.4.07 @ 11:03AM|#

Chapman writes:Mexicans and Guatemalans and other illegal immigrants come here out of an elemental and healthy desire to improve their lot. Once they arrive, they get willing cooperation from Americans who find these foreigners can also enhance our welfare.

Yes, they enhance the welfare state. Poor uneducated folks grow the welfare state. .

Chapman is just a big proponent of corporate welfare. All the gains employers get from hiring cheap off the books labor, but dumping all the expense on the taxpayers. It's not a free market. Very simple to understand. Ron Paul knows it, Milton Friedman knew it. Too bad the folks at Reason are just so hopelessly clueless .

AmericanResistance|6.4.07 @ 11:05AM|#

I'll gladly pay higher prices for everything if it means America won't turn into a Third World country.

Don't you realize the immigrants will replicate the same dysfunctional socities that exist in their own countries?

thoreau|6.4.07 @ 11:09AM|#

I'll gladly pay higher prices for everything if it means America won't turn into a Third World country.

How much does bread cost in Communist countries?

|6.4.07 @ 11:09AM|#

I'll gladly pay higher prices for everything if it means America won't turn into a Third World country.

You are an anamoly, not even part of a small minority, compared to the overall population.

Don't you realize the immigrants will replicate the same dysfunctional socities that exist in their own countries?

Provide proof, or shut up.

AmericanResistance|6.4.07 @ 11:10AM|#

"How much does bread cost in Communist countries?"

Actually the price is quite low. Thats the problem. The problem in communist countries isnt the price, its the shortages.

But don't worry, given enough time the Third World immigrants will turn America into Chavez's Venezuela. Multi-culty paradise for all.

AmericanResistance|6.4.07 @ 11:11AM|#

Provide proof, or shut up.


Exhibt no. 1--Southern California.

thoreau|6.4.07 @ 11:16AM|#

Exhibt no. 1--Southern California.

A beautiful place with high real estate values and a booming economy?

The horror! The horror!

|6.4.07 @ 11:16AM|#

Mr Luedtke,

Be prepared for the internal inconsistencies within your comment to be pointed out by someone with more time than I have.

Mark Leudtke's biggest inconsistency is between his stance on this issue and his URL: freedomistheanswer.blogspot.com.

I hope for his sake that the blogspot freedomistheproblem hasn't yet been taken...

|6.4.07 @ 11:17AM|#

carrick says: "I don't like the "open borders" phrase.

I think I'll take the pro-life/pro-choice naming convention and go pro-migration."

Nah. Seize the high ground. If you're for more immigration, you're "pro-free-trade".

Mike Laursen|6.4.07 @ 11:17AM|#

Steve Chapman conducts a lonely search for sense and facts in the immigration debate.

I'm on the open immigration side, but I was disappointed that the blurb above turned out to be misleading. I thought it was pointing to an article full of hard research and facts.

AmericanResistance|6.4.07 @ 11:17AM|#

"A beautiful place with high real estate values and a booming economy?

The horror! The horror!"

It has a cost of living that is off the charts, out of reach to ordinary Americans. Its also ruled by a liberal Democrat elite who depend on the low class immigrants for their votes and power base. It also has high taxes and a massive welfare state. Not to mention a huge gap between the rich and poor, with a shrinking middle class. Behold--the future.

|6.4.07 @ 11:26AM|#

Nah. Seize the high ground. If you're for more immigration, you're "pro-free-trade".

Both "open borders" and "free-trade" carry a lot of emotional baggage.

So maybe the answer is pro-free-market.

|6.4.07 @ 11:28AM|#

AR, now you can post how Cubans are ruining Miami, and the Jews have locked up NY , and so on and so forth.

But you still have not proved your point. Not even close.

AmericanResistance|6.4.07 @ 11:31AM|#

So, carrick, you think that the mexican drug gangs in LA is a great thing huh? What about the cost of living, the welfare state, and the liberal democrat elite?

Guatemalan gangs are multiplying all over the south now. Charlotte Atlanta and northern Virginia are in the midst of a gang epidemic.

|6.4.07 @ 11:36AM|#

AR, what of the non-mexican drug gangs in LA?? Oh, those are fine since they're Americans, right??

AmericanResistance|6.4.07 @ 11:37AM|#

If there were only American gangs, the number of gangs total would be less. Yes or no?

|6.4.07 @ 11:40AM|#

American gangs are perfectly acceptable as opposed to ethnic gangs? Yes or No?

AmericanResistance|6.4.07 @ 11:41AM|#

No, they are not, I oppose all gangs. But closing the borders would drastically reduce the number of gangs. Yes or No?

highnumber|6.4.07 @ 11:41AM|#

If there were only American gangs, the number of gangs total would be less. Yes or no?

Number of gangs or number of gang members?
If I am going to make up a BS answer, I want to be able to tweak it perfectly to the terms of the BS question.

|6.4.07 @ 11:41AM|#

So, carrick, you think that the mexican drug gangs in LA is a great thing huh?

So what about black gangs, and chinese gangs, and russian gangs, and irish gangs, . . .

Saying that each new group of immigrants produces a new set of lawbreakers does not prove the immigration per se is bad.

Most of the gangs specialize in one black market or another. The libertarian solution is to stop criminalizing vices. Then the black markets will go away.

What about the cost of living, the welfare state, and the liberal democrat elite?

The liberal/progressive slant of the population of CA is independent of mexican immigration. So that set of complaints is mostly irrelevant, unless you want to narrow the issue to immigrants using welfare state services.

The major problem with attempting to close the border is that it drives unskilled labor into the black market.

It doesn't matter whether the topic is sex, booze, drugs, cigarettes, or labor. Criminalizing undesirable behavior drives it into the black market which causes bigger problems than the original "bad behavior" caused.

AmericanResistance|6.4.07 @ 11:43AM|#

carrick, perhaps you missed the fact that Hispanics commit crimes (regardless of their income) at a far greater rate than natives. Maybe that explains why latin america is so dysfunctional.

|6.4.07 @ 11:44AM|#

perhaps you missed the fact that Hispanics commit crimes (regardless of their income) at a far greater rate than natives.

Provide a link or keep it to yourself.

AmericanResistance|6.4.07 @ 11:44AM|#

carrick-

Go to VDARE and read for yourself. study after study confirms it.

|6.4.07 @ 11:47AM|#

Don't you realize the immigrants will replicate the same dysfunctional socities that exist in their own countries?

You have yet to provide any substatial evidence to back up this claim.

AmreicanResistance|6.4.07 @ 11:47AM|#

hey, which one of you followed what happened to Lewistown, Maine? Its not full of Somali immigrants, who are soaking up welfare, and some of them dont even know how to use a doorknob or a toilet! sounds like fun, doesnt it?

thoreau|6.4.07 @ 11:48AM|#

And if they had just kept my Italian ancestors out of the US there'd be even less organized crime.

Arguing that a subset of any ethnic group commits crimes means nothing. Antarctica probably has almost no crime because there's nobody there.

highnumber|6.4.07 @ 11:52AM|#

Time to ignore "AmericanResistance(ToFacts)." He or she has clearly marked him/herself as a prejudiced bigot.

Mike Laursen|6.4.07 @ 11:57AM|#

Its also ruled by a liberal Democrat elite who depend on the low class immigrants for their votes and power base.

Actually, it's here in Northern California that we have the "liberal elite". Their power base are just ordinary middle-class people, who are mostly liberal. And very strong support from unions. I haven't seen much evidence that "low class immigrants" around here are involved in politics.

Southern California is fairly conservative with the notable exception of the Hollywood area, where those danged liberal movie people congregate. Orange County, south of Los Angeles County, is a notorious bulwark of conservatism -- the home of John Wayne Airport, for christsakes.

Rhywun|6.4.07 @ 12:00PM|#

If there were only American gangs, the number of gangs total would be less. Yes or no?

And violent crime wouldn't be shooting thru the roof like it is now! Oh, never mind.

William R|6.4.07 @ 12:10PM|#

thoreau | June 4, 2007, 11:16am | #
Exhibt no. 1--Southern California.

A beautiful place with high real estate values and a booming economy?

The horror! The horror!


Yes and California is turning to an anti freedom pro union leftist paradise. Productive people are fleeing. Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, and Texas are filling up with California's fleeing the Mexican invasion.

VM|6.4.07 @ 12:15PM|#

"hey, which one of you followed what happened to Lewistown, Maine? Its not full of Somali immigrants, who are soaking up welfare, and some of them dont even know how to use a doorknob or a toilet! sounds like fun, doesnt it?"

what a fucktard. Of course it's not Somalis, you vulgarian. It's students at BATES COLLEGE.

Bates: the Brown Univ. of NESCAC.

Whee whee whee! The siren of racism drowns out your ignorant words.

*Opens Formula 409 triumphantly

highnumber|6.4.07 @ 12:18PM|#

Productive people are fleeing [California].

I thought people were worried that Mexican immigrants were coming to California.

Rhywun|6.4.07 @ 12:25PM|#

Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, and Texas are filling up with California[n]'s fleeing the Mexican invasion

And they do nothing but bitch about it.

William R|6.4.07 @ 12:27PM|#

Mexican invaders, illegal aliens are turning California into a Chavez leftist union paradise.

Tom Walls|6.4.07 @ 12:27PM|#

Here's a novel idea.

Instead of all the hoo-ha about making illegals eligible for taxpayer-funded services, how about allowing US citizens to opt-out of the system and work under the table? hell, if Bank of America is allowing immigrants to open bank accounts not associated with a SS number, why not make that standard practice for everyone?

William R|6.4.07 @ 12:39PM|#

Tom Walls | June 4, 2007, 12:27pm | #

Here's a novel idea.

Instead of all the hoo-ha about making illegals eligible for taxpayer-funded services, how about allowing US citizens to opt-out of the system and work under the table? hell, if Bank of America is allowing immigrants to open bank accounts not associated with a SS number, why not make that standard practice for everyone?


And how much a chance do you think something like that has of becoming law? It ain't gonna happen. Face it, this massive demographic shift is going to turn the country left. National health care. More and more regulations. Short sighted corporate types cutting their own throats down the line in order to get cheap labor today.

Rhywun|6.4.07 @ 12:42PM|#

Mexican invaders, illegal aliens are turning California into a Chavez leftist union paradise.

I think American citizens have proven themselves quite capable of accomplishing the same thing all on their own.

|6.4.07 @ 12:44PM|#

Minimum wage @ $15/hr anyone?

Chucklehead|6.4.07 @ 12:55PM|#

AR, what of the non-mexican drug gangs in LA?? Oh, those are fine since they're Americans, right??

Don't forget the Chinese gangs.

Although you feel violent again an hour after fighting them.

William R|6.4.07 @ 1:03PM|#

Rhywun | June 4, 2007, 12:42pm | #

I think American citizens have proven themselves quite capable of accomplishing the same thing all on their own.


Unions were dying. With this massive influx of poor, unskilled, and uneducated unions are on going to be on the rise again.

|6.4.07 @ 1:19PM|#

highnumber | June 4, 2007, 10:16am | #
Open borders: still in favor.

Open borders: still not in favor.
North American Union: still in favor.

|6.4.07 @ 1:20PM|#

Chucklehead | June 4, 2007, 12:55pm | #

AR, what of the non-mexican drug gangs in LA?? Oh, those are fine since they're Americans, right??

Don't forget the Chinese gangs.

Although you feel violent again an hour after fighting them.

Damn it, chucklehead! A little warning would be nice before you post something that induces spitting out drinks...

VM|6.4.07 @ 1:22PM|#

Chuckle:

Aren't you supposed to fight the one that's pointing towards you, too?

hier is a clip demonstrating the problems with gangs. Note Highnumber beating the drum at the beginning of clip.

but as you can see hier, good ol' Amurikan ingenuity can take care of the hoards, regardless of color (of uniform).

|6.4.07 @ 1:34PM|#

Open borders: still in favor.
North American Union: not in favor.

North American Common Market: in favor.
North American Community: in favor.

Something akin to what the European Union is becoming -- a distantly governed agency of protectionism for the big economies against the interests of the small? Nope.

Cesar|6.4.07 @ 2:03PM|#

AR, I don't think Latin Americans are inherintly leftist. If they are leftist in California, I think its pretty much because they areassimilating to that particular culture.

Mexican immigrants are forming a huge part of the population of Texas now, but has Texas become more liberal? Hardly! Its still as conservative as ever.

Mike Laursen|6.4.07 @ 2:03PM|#

Yes and California is turning to an anti freedom pro union leftist paradise. Productive people are fleeing. Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, and Texas are filling up with California's fleeing the Mexican invasion.

Where to start...

First, people in California aren't anti-freedom. Northern California liberals are very strong on civil rights, but have different ideas of what constitutes economic freedom than you or I may have. They may be ignorant of economics, but most of them mean well and are not anti-business. And Southern California is conservative.

Second, people are still coming to California. Do you have statistics that show more people are leaving than coming here?

Third, unless you can site surveys of people who have left California, you and I are both guessing why they are leaving. My guess, from actually having lived here all my life, is that they are looking for a lower cost of living. The number one expense in most Californians budgets is housing, and high housing prices have more to do with land use policy.

Cesar|6.4.07 @ 2:10PM|#

People are leaving California for Nevada, Arizona, and Utah because of the cost of living.

The same thing is happening in the east--people are leaving New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania for Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. And theres no Mexican Invasion(tm) in Northeast as far as I know.

|6.4.07 @ 2:42PM|#

When I lived in Phoenix, the primary reasons that Californians gave for leaving Calinfornia were traffic (and commute times) and property values. These are linked together. It was nearly impossible for people to live within a reasonable commute of where they worked -- at least for the middle class.

They didn't leave because CA was too liberal. In fact, they frequently brought that attitude with them, and they wanted to change Arizona.

|6.4.07 @ 2:53PM|#

** sigh **

Oh we just CAN'T stop the illegals, like we can't stop drugs. Yes, because we have never actually tried to do either. I mean, really tried.

I can stop 'em both in about a day.

Oh you're in the US illegally? We shoot you. Dead. Oh you're selling drugs illegally? We shoot you. Dead. The same day we catch you.

How long before pretty much nobody is coming to America illegally? Or selling drugs? And the traffic jam at the crossing into Mexico is 500 miles long?

Simple, easy, low-cost. You need only make the punishment far outweigh the potential gain. This has been the whole problem with our approach to crime. The punishment should not "fit" the crime, the punishment should overwhelm the crime.

Yeah I know, I know. It'll never happen. Then how about blocking money transfers to Mexico and other countries? And how about making random catch-and-deportations of illegals (I can get you about 50 at the local Fairway supermarket if they're too much "in the shadows" for you), and when we catch them we confiscate everything they have and return them with literally the clothes on their backs? How about we kick their kids out of schools?

I can go on and on. There are dozens of things you can do to simply make it not worth it to be here illegally. None of them cost much. Instead, we have open border nitwits thinking we have an inexhaustible capacity to absorb people with little inclination to join our culture and for whom any sort of enforcement is just too "mean spirited."

And why is it that liberals are so keen about letting in the unwashed hordes? Hmmmm, for decades now the Left has been screaming about women's rights, animal's rights, and gay rights. Yet they want to continue importing millions of men for whom women's rights stop at the end of their belt strap, who treat animals with ghastly cruelty (find me a cock fight or a dog fight, and I'll find you a bunch of illegal Hispanics) and who detest gays. Makes sense. But then of course they'll vote for Democrats, so I guess the Left considers that a wash.

VM|6.4.07 @ 2:55PM|#

"Simple, easy, low-cost. You need only make the punishment far outweigh the potential gain. This has been the whole problem with our approach to crime. The punishment should not "fit" the crime, the punishment should overwhelm the crime."

obviously someone who understands "marginal deterrence".

whee whee whee! I saw peterike not wash his hands after he peed! And he sprinkled and didn't wipe the seat. whee whee whee!

Cesar|6.4.07 @ 2:58PM|#

"Yet they want to continue importing"

For the last fucking time, nativists, we haven't "imported" anyone since 1808.

|6.4.07 @ 3:01PM|#

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

But only if your white and from Europe.

|6.4.07 @ 3:07PM|#

I kept reading peterike's comment waiting for the final, "Of course it would be ridiculous to so punish people who are simply trying to build themselves a better life by their own efforts."

But it never came.

I suppose it's a truism: A reductio ad absurdum argument doesn't work with people who hold absurd beliefs.

|6.4.07 @ 3:14PM|#

"whee whee whee! I saw peterike not wash his hands after he peed! And he sprinkled and didn't wipe the seat. whee whee whee!"

Uh, yeah, whatever. Speaks more to your obsessions than mine.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.."

Screw your huddled masses, they are not my problem. That piece of maudlin Commie agit-prop should have been torn from the Statue of Liberty long ago. It was nothing but a later add-on that completely distorted the original meaning of that now-blindfolded statue.

"I kept reading peterike's comment waiting for the final, "Of course it would be ridiculous to so punish people who are simply trying to build themselves a better life by their own efforts." But it never came."

It's called "get in line." And you are a fanciful dreamer if you think these are nothing but people trying to "build themselves a better life." Please. Spare me your sentimental hogwash.

Cesar|6.4.07 @ 3:19PM|#

"It's called "get in line.""

There is no line.

"" And you are a fanciful dreamer if you think these are nothing but people trying to "build themselves a better life.""

What are they here for, then? Is it TEH RECONQUISTA!!!!!!one11,?

|6.4.07 @ 3:19PM|#

original meaning of that now-blindfolded statue

that would be justice, not the statue of liberty

That piece of maudlin Commie agit-prop should have been torn from the Statue of Liberty long ago.

so much for an enlightened conversation

so bye-bye troll

Tammy\'s lil sis|6.4.07 @ 3:20PM|#

peterike,

You're my hero!

Kisses!

Cesar|6.4.07 @ 3:23PM|#

VM-

Does Urkobold® favor open borders?

Rick H.|6.4.07 @ 3:24PM|#

I can stop 'em both in about a day.

When someone states, in apparent seriousness, "The clear answer to [social problem x] is wholesale, state-sponsored murder!" it makes me realize I probably wouldn't be a very good parent.

|6.4.07 @ 3:28PM|#

"There is no line."

Oh so we agree on something.

"What are they here for, then?"

It's called milking the system. It's called taking with no interest whatsoever in giving back.

Regarding the dreary poem: "Emma Lazarus devoted herself to Zionist and Marxist causes after hearing about the pogroms in Russia in the 1880s."

Lazarus was a Marxist and a very bad poet. The poem was added about 20 years after the statue was raised. Wikipedia even notes: "Since 1903, the statue has been associated with Emma Lazarus's poem "The New Colossus" and has acquired a new meaning as a symbol of welcome to immigrants."

It was meant as a beacon to liberty, not as a welcome mat for every poor slob on earth. But then, back in those days, it wasn't so easy to get in and the streets weren't paved with free medical care and welfare checks.

Cesar|6.4.07 @ 3:32PM|#

"It's called milking the system. It's called taking with no interest whatsoever in giving back. "

Have you been asleep since Clinton's first term or something? The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 bars all immigrants (legal or illegal) from food stamps, TANF ("welfare") medicare and medicade. What exactly can they milk?

Maybe you refer to the fact they send their wages home? I guess you are one of those idiots who still believes in mercantilism. Yes, they dont spend all of their money here. But they have already added to the wealth of the economy simply by producing something. And the money which they send home is often used to buy things--which can include American goods.

Public schools? Well, they pay sales and property taxes like everyone else, so unless you are willing to take your kids out of school, too, quit your bitching.

highnumber|6.4.07 @ 3:34PM|#

Ooooo, the classic redirect!
"Immigrants are bad because Emma Lazarus liked the commies." I like, I like. Somebody call Dienstag. He'd love this.

|6.4.07 @ 3:37PM|#

It's called milking the system. It's called taking with no interest whatsoever in giving back.

Let's hypothesize that there was no way that illegal immigrants could now (as is the law since 1996) or ever get welfare. Let's further suppose that they could not even get free medical care or public schooling.

How many of the 500,000 illegal immigrants per year do you think would no longer come?

I think the answer to that question is, to the nearest 100,000, zero. Therefore, I don't think the illegal immigrants come here because of either the perception or reality that there is free money to be had on this side of the border.

|6.4.07 @ 3:38PM|#

The stuff about illegals not getting welfare and medical care and paying property taxes (you mean the twenty people living in the rental house down the street? they are paying a proportionate level of property tax?) is too laughable to even address. Please go to City Journal and get yourself a reality check.

"When someone states, in apparent seriousness, "The clear answer to [social problem x] is wholesale, state-sponsored murder!" it makes me realize I probably wouldn't be a very good parent."

That's pretty funny, if illogical. Ok, last comment of the day. And hell, probably forever. Commenting is so pointless.

Anyway, it's not "wholesale" murder. You only have to do it a few times before everyone gets the message. You just have to show you're serious. We have utterly lost the will to do that. Hell, we won't even put the terrorist vermin we catch in Iraq up against the wall, we've grown so gutless. Too wrapped up in our own moral self-regard I guess.

I would leave it with a final question. Answer seriously now. Despite whatever delicate misgivings you have about such a plan, I ask you. Would it work? If we make execution the punishment for illegal entry into the country, does illegal entry more or less stop? Yes or no?

That's all I'm askin'.

Cesar|6.4.07 @ 3:39PM|#

Let me use this thread to address another thing people always get wrong. The poor are not the biggest looters of the public treasury. Nope. The Middle Class is. Between Social Security, Medicade, public schools, student loans, various tax credits for home ownership, etc, they are the bgigest welfare queens of all. But very few people bitch about them. Why? Because they poor are an easier target.

Cesar|6.4.07 @ 3:41PM|#

peterike-

Their landlord pays a all kinds of taxes for his property, asshat.

But I guess you have never used government money in your life. Nope, not you, you hard working industrious middle class productive individual. No student loans, didnt send your kids to public schools, never drove on an interstate highway, and no student loans. And Im sure you won't be collecting your social security check or medicare either. Nosiree!

|6.4.07 @ 3:42PM|#

Get a clue, ya'll.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigration_reform.html

"Connecticut's Greenwich Hospital recently treated an illegal Guatemalan with severe drug-resistant TB, after his local hospital in Port Chester, New York, had gone bust from uninsured immigrants. The uncompensated bill for two and a half months of in-patient treatment totaled $200,000, not including the fees for the numerous specialists on the case, which probably added another $100,000 to $150,000. One surgery alone to remove a crippling accretion on his spine-a condition unknown outside the Third World-lasted an entire day. All of the Guatemalan's associates tested positive for TB, and all worked in restaurants, reports his surgeon, Dr. Katrina Firlik, in the Wall Street Journal. Such episodes, invisible to conservative elites, make a deep impression on local taxpayers and insurance policyholders."

That's a lot of milk. Troll out!

Cesar|6.4.07 @ 3:45PM|#

City Journal--yet another anti-immigrant publication thats actually run by a British guy. Why don't you read this from the Washington Post-


"A recent study using data collected through 2004 found that Hispanics in North Carolina (many of them immigrants, both legal and illegal) contributed $756 million in state taxes while costing about $817 million in public education, corrections and health care. That nets out to a modest $61 million drain on state coffers. But the study, by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, also found that that deficit was dwarfed by the fact that Hispanics contributed more than $9 billion, or some 3 percent, to the state's economy in 2004, an amount projected to double by 2009."

|6.4.07 @ 3:46PM|#

I would leave it with a final question. Answer seriously now. Despite whatever delicate misgivings you have about such a plan, I ask you. Would it work? If we make execution the punishment for illegal entry into the country, does illegal entry more or less stop? Yes or no?

No

highnumber|6.4.07 @ 3:50PM|#

Despite whatever delicate misgivings you have about such a plan, I ask you. Would it work? If we make execution the punishment for illegal entry into the country open the borders but run health and criminal screenings, does illegal entry more or less stop? Yes or no?

More or less, yes.

Mike Laursen|6.4.07 @ 3:52PM|#

Answer seriously now. Despite whatever delicate misgivings you have about such a plan, I ask you. Would it work? If we make execution the punishment for illegal entry into the country, does illegal entry more or less stop? Yes or no?

No, it wouldn't work. The need to make a living is powerful enough that people will still come here. What would happen is an escalation of violence.

VM|6.4.07 @ 3:53PM|#

Cesar: URKOBOLD might have open borders to lure people into his kitchen. Or he might not. The URKOBOLD is inconsistent based on whatever whim strikes!

|6.4.07 @ 4:28PM|#

While I'm greatly concerned that statists like Ted Kennedy are driving this push for more immigrants, no doubt believing that they'll tend to vote more for union-hugging statists like him, if you go far enough back all my ancestors were immigrants. Heck, if you go back far enough, even Native Americans were immigrants. One of my great-grandfathers stowed away on a cattle boat from Scotland because he wasn't a big fan of starvation. Similar views on starvation of my Irish ancestors fleeing the potato famine. So, if someone wants to, at great personal risk, come here and work, and can keep out of trouble with the law, I'm OK with that. I don't give a rip if their skin is a bit beiger than mine. And, BTW, that's a pro-free-market libertarian position, so why is this such a contentious issue on an allegedly libertarian website?

William R|6.4.07 @ 4:31PM|#

Cesar | June 4, 2007, 2:10pm | #
People are leaving California for Nevada, Arizona, and Utah because of the cost of living.

The same thing is happening in the east--people are leaving New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania for Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. And theres no Mexican Invasion(tm) in Northeast as far as I know.


Hilarious. Pathetic too.

Americans are fleeing California while foreign national move in. If Americans are leaving New York for Georgia, well that only makes sense.

Cesar|6.4.07 @ 4:33PM|#

"Americans are fleeing California while foreign national move in. If Americans are leaving New York for Georgia, well that only makes sense."

Yeah, you know in some alternate universe where the South won the Civil War, people in the Confederacy are bitching for a wall on the Potomac.

William R|6.4.07 @ 4:38PM|#

Cesar has all the liberal BS talking points down. The Manhattan Institute is an anti immigrant rag. etc etc. Geeeshhh, Tamar Jacoby, the most fanatical pro illegal alien individual around works at the Manhattan Institute. then he rambles off those stats in North Carolina which are pure propoganda. Factoring schooling, medical, jailing, housing etc etc, illegal immigration is a huge drain on the state of North Carolina.

Mike Laursen|6.4.07 @ 4:40PM|#

And, BTW, that's a pro-free-market libertarian position, so why is this such a contentious issue on an allegedly libertarian website?

My guess is that a guy like AmericanResistance are just Googling for blogs that mention "immigration". He probably has no idea what kind of website Hit & Run is.

Cesar|6.4.07 @ 4:41PM|#

William R.-m RTFA. And Im not a liberal, anymore than you're a fascist.

Cesar|6.4.07 @ 4:44PM|#

BTW, I don't agree with everything the Washington Post says. I just agree with them in this instance. They favor free trade, too, are you against that also cause it leans to the left on many other things?

Hell, I agree with Marx on guns (arm the people) it doesn't make me a Marxist!

Rhywun|6.4.07 @ 5:16PM|#

Please go to City Journal and get yourself a reality check.

I read it quite often myself--but not when it's Heather MacDonald, who's made quite the career out of lumping tribes together and saying how awful they are.

Ventifact|6.4.07 @ 6:16PM|#

this thread is highly atypical of H&R, I'll say...

highnumber|6.4.07 @ 6:32PM|#

Ventifact,

Open border/free trade folks fending off and ridiculing anti-immigration nativists is atypical at H&R? Not for an immigration thread.

highnumber|6.4.07 @ 6:43PM|#

Wait, no Lonewacko. You're right, Ventifact.

|6.4.07 @ 6:52PM|#

illegal immigration is a huge drain on the state of North Carolina.

Illegal immigration is the only thing keeping NC agriculture, which depends on Christmas trees and tobacco, afloat. There are no, and I mean no, native born workers lining up to harvest either. Which, if you had ever had green tobacco sickness, or spent 16 hours a day trying to harvest trees off of a 45 degree slope, would be perfectly understandable.

If you think that NC doesn't need immigrants, you're obviously not talking to the farmers.

|6.4.07 @ 6:53PM|#

Eventually Peterike will mention camps and gas chambers. Wait for it...

|6.4.07 @ 7:12PM|#

If you think that NC doesn't need immigrants, you're obviously not talking to the farmers.

If you think that America needs to get its tobacco and Christmas trees from NC then you're not a libertarian.

|6.4.07 @ 7:14PM|#

QUIZ: Which of these two worldviews is more consistent with classical liberalism and libertarianism?

A) Employers can hire whoever the heck they want, without government interference. Period. Workers can work for whoever the heck they want, without government interference. Period.

B) The federal government can, based on an artificial, oftentimes undemarcated arbitrary line winding through the Southwest that resulted from historical happenstance over a century ago, issue thousands of pages of laws, rules, and regulations interfering with free employer-employee relations, complete with a slew of taxes, fees, paperwork, and the mandatory ID cards so beloved of authoritarians everywhere.

****

The anti-Dan. T. comments:

Dammit, this quiz is too hard. Maybe I better flip a coin to help me to decide which of these outcomes results in more freedom.

Cesar|6.4.07 @ 7:27PM|#

"
The anti-Dan. T. comments:"

I love how "Dan T." is now to trolls what "Xerox" is to copying machines and "Tivo" is to DVRs.

SIV|6.4.07 @ 8:27PM|#

No welfare- same number of illegal immigrants?

Bullshit. With no free schooling EBT cards or medical care there would be fewer women and dependent children.


Other than the subsidies the main problem I see with current immigration "policy" is the selective enforcement against immigrants and employers based on class, skills and education.

Americans and legal residents are more expensive to employ as it is far riskier to hire them "under the table" and not comply with employment laws.

Cesar|6.4.07 @ 8:36PM|#

SIV-

Immigrants, legal or otherwise, don't get EBT cards (again, people, please for the love of God read the 1996 Welfare Reform Act).

|6.4.07 @ 9:07PM|#

Bullshit. With no free schooling EBT cards or medical care there would be fewer women and dependent children.

Not only are you wrong about EBT cards, but the driving force behind the emmigration of entire families is not welfare, but family reunification. In the early 80's, before fences were built in Texas and San Diego, relatively few families relocated entirely. The men would come work in the US for a month or two, go home for a visit, and then come back. Now, however, since fences have restricted border crossing sites to desert areas, the border crossing journey is too dangerous to have to make over and over. So, working men bring their families with them, rather than cross the desert repeatedly. This is one of the well-studied, unitentional effects of fencing - and an important lesson in this debate, in that it hightlights that the unintentional effects of any immigration policy are likely to be as important, if not moreso, than the intentional ones.

|6.4.07 @ 9:09PM|#

If you think that America needs to get its tobacco and Christmas trees from NC then you're not a libertarian.

I don't, necessarily. I was simply citing it as an example of how North Carolina in particular benefits from immigration.

SIV|6.4.07 @ 9:53PM|#

Cesar, Tacos no EBT cards?

YES THEY DO

Where the fuck do you guys live?
You do have to be legal to get food assistance
but the State doesn't expect the anchor babies to buy their own food so the card goes to a parent.

I live and work in immigrant heavy areas(and shop at Super Mercados) and I never used to see it- the last few years it has become common .Interestingly,when the shoppers are a family-including a father- it is unusual.Women with children you can expect it.

Don't forget the "welfare rights" movement and the incentives for social service agencies to find more clients.

|6.4.07 @ 10:10PM|#

Yeah yeah, illegal immigrants never get ANY government assistance, because like there's ZERO fraud in government programs, right? But of course. But what about legal low-skill immigrants?

"In FY 2004, the average low skill immigrant household received $30,160 in direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services from all levels of government. By contrast, low-skill immigrant households paid only $10,573 in taxes in FY 2004."

And of course the only difference between legal and illegal is a matter of time. Oh wait, sorry, that was just Fed gov't cost.

"At the state and local level, the average low skill immigrant household received $14,145 in benefits and services and paid only $5,309 in taxes. The average low skill immigrant households imposed a net fiscal burden on state and local government of $8,836 per year."

The only difference between legal and illegal is time. And illegals receive a reasonable portion of what legals get. Their children are allowed into schools (at an average cost of $9,600 per child per year). They walk into emergency rooms and get treatment. They drain resources from countless state and local programs that have no particular restrictions (welcome to your Sanctuary City!!). And of course the anchor babies they so readily pop out are eligible for everything.

"Illegal immigrants themselves are not eligible for means-tested welfare benefits, but illegal immigrant households do contain some 3 million children who were born inside the U.S. to illegal immigrant parents; these children are U.S. citizens and are eligible for and do receive means-tested welfare."

So stop with your pathetic "immigrants don't get any benefits" nonsense, because it's a lie and you know it.

This doesn't even begin to factor in the impending disaster to Social Security, as millions who put relatively little into the system (due to their low wages and often off-the-books wages) will suck out the same as everyone else. And Medicare.

"Based on my current research, I estimate that if all the current adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. were granted amnesty the net retirement costs to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion." (From the Heritage Foundation)

Oh and there's that little old factor of crime.

"Meanwhile, almost one in three Mexican-American males between the ages of 18 and 24 recently reported being arrested, one in five has been jailed, and 15,000 illegal aliens are currently in the California penal system."

But we're worried about who's going to pick Christmas trees in North Carolina.

Well how about this, from that hotbed of nativism, the NY Times. "In 2000, 65 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless - that is, unable to find work, not seeking it or incarcerated. By 2004, the share had grown to 72 percent."

If there is massive unemployment among unskilled black youth, why are we allowing even ONE unskilled Mexican into the country until the black unemployment rate is essentially zero? This is a huge ball that the black "leadership" has dropped. But that's hardly a surprise.

OK, open borders harpies, I have a question for you. No really, a serious question. Open border, ok, fine. Until when? When do they shut? When every Mexican and South and Central American is in the United States? When every African joins them? When ever Middle Easterner and Eastern European and Chinese and Indian shows up? When does it end, or does the logic of your position just happen to imply suicide for Western Civilization?

Yeah, it does.

It's sadly no longer in print from Amazon (funny, I got it last year), but if you open borders types want to understand your souls, you need to read "The Camp of the Saints."

|6.4.07 @ 10:37PM|#

Until When?

Once this poor chap makes it over

from NYT article

William R|6.4.07 @ 10:42PM|#

Tacos mmm | June 4, 2007, 6:52pm | #

"Illegal immigration is the only thing keeping NC agriculture, which depends on Christmas trees and tobacco, afloat. There are no, and I mean no, native born workers lining up to harvest either. Which, if you had ever had green tobacco sickness, or spent 16 hours a day trying to harvest trees off of a 45 degree slope, would be perfectly understandable.

If you think that NC doesn't need immigrants, you're obviously not talking to the farmers."


The above is so typical of those expecting and demanding subsidized labor. Bring in the cheap labor and pay em off the books. Dump all the expense on the taxpayers. If North Carolina agriculture needs illegal labor to survive, then perhaps it is time for it to fold up shop. Do something else. Or maybe they might try paying more so they can attract legal labor.

Book of the Month Club|6.4.07 @ 11:25PM|#

It's sadly no longer in print from Amazon (funny, I got it last year), but if you open borders types want to understand your souls, you need to read "The Camp of the Saints."

But it is still in print.

|6.4.07 @ 11:31PM|#

"But it is still in print."

Huh. I searched on it, and only got links to used versions, one of them going for $105! Go figure. Must be a open borders type running the Amazon search engine.

Well that's good news, anyway. Everybody go read it. It should be required reading at every high school and college in America.

highnumber|6.4.07 @ 11:39PM|#

The above is so typical of those expecting and demanding subsidized labor. Bring in the cheap labor and pay em off the books. Dump all the expense on the taxpayers. If North Carolina agriculture needs illegal labor to survive, then perhaps it is time for it to fold up shop. Do something else. Or maybe they might try paying more so they can attract legal labor.

What?!

Stop making farms use the labor that you determine is legal. Let them determine which labor they will use.
Let freedom ring, man!

Cesar|6.4.07 @ 11:53PM|#

Camp of the Saints?

as VM would say WHEE! Its the French Mein Kampf.

Cesar|6.4.07 @ 11:57PM|#

For the record, yes, I read the racist screed. I got through the turgid writing style and racial paranoia, and I wasn't convinced.


I can do a short synopsis here. Theres starvation in India, so millions of Indians hijack a ship and head for France. The French navy doesn't sink the ship, and the French army wont shoot them when they land. So they turn France into another India, and marginalize the whites there, even running a whorehouse so Indians can have their share of white women (funny how all right wing screeds have to throw the "minorities getting white women" thing?)


As I said above, the writing style is horribly turgid and boring .

Ironically, India today is growing quickly economically and will probably be a developed country in my life time.

highnumber|6.5.07 @ 12:01AM|#

Open border, ok, fine. Until when? When do they shut? When every Mexican and South and Central American is in the United States? When every African joins them? When ever Middle Easterner and Eastern European and Chinese and Indian shows up? When does it end, or does the logic of your position just happen to imply suicide for Western Civilization?

If the borders were open, why would everyone keep coming? What would their incentives be? Jobs? Fantastic, if our economy keeps creating jobs to be filled, we'll need them.

Regarding "suicide for Western Civilization," tell me exactly what you are afraid of. The USA currently defines "Western Civilization." In fact, I think we could say that we have grown out of "Western Civilization" and surpassed it, superseded it. We are a melting pot. Every group of immigrants that the nativists said would destroy our culture made it stronger, made our country what it is today. I'd rather live in this country right now, going forward, than any other country that has ever been.

Cesar|6.5.07 @ 12:18AM|#

peterike-

I read your screed about how much immigrants cost us. How much do YOU cost us, pal? In fact, how much do native born middle class white males cost us every freakin year? I bet its a hell of a lot more.

We are all on the government crackpipe, asshat. Its just that social security, medicare, unemployment benefits, etc, they are all acceptable cause middle class people use them too.

Cesar|6.5.07 @ 12:22AM|#

peterike-

Should we read Mein Kampf and The Turner Diaries also?

William R|6.5.07 @ 12:25AM|#

highnumber | June 4, 2007, 11:39pm | #

Stop making farms use the labor that you determine is legal. Let them determine which labor they will use.
Let freedom ring, man!


Ohhh brother. Sure, I'll sign off on that if the farmers agree to pay for all the medical, schooling, jail, etc etc etc that the illegal labor will cost the taxpayers.

highnumber|6.5.07 @ 12:43AM|#

William R,

Really? You will? So, the only reason you are against open borders is the welfare state.
Cool. I'm against the welfare state too. From what I've read, enough "illegal" immigrants pay taxes and SS money (see, they get fake SS #s so their employers think they're legal and pay the payroll taxes, and sometimes the immigrants get TINs and pay the IRS themselves to be as legal as possible under the circumstances), or at least contribute enough to the economy that they cover these costs you worry about.
So, if we open border types can show you that this is the case, you are on our side, yes?

William R|6.5.07 @ 1:05AM|#

Open border types are loons. Goods are services crossing borders is good. People aren't. Goods and services get used up. People stay and change the nature of things and not for the best. The welfare state isn't going anywhere. The more poor people we bring in only grows the welfare state. This isn't rocket science. We have enough poor people. They already have a claim on my paycheck. Why on earth would I favor bringing in more poor people. Build the wall, enforce the laws on the books. And lets start Protecting America's Sovereignty

highnumber|6.5.07 @ 1:18AM|#

So you lied to me?

Mike Laursen|6.5.07 @ 1:19AM|#

"In FY 2004, the average low skill immigrant household received $30,160 in direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services from all levels of government. By contrast, low-skill immigrant households paid only $10,573 in taxes in FY 2004."

Hah! I counter your Heritage Foundation statistics with a Cato statement about your Heritage Foundation statistics: "Several state-level studies have found that the increased economic activity created by lower-skilled, mostly Hispanic immigrants far exceeds the costs to state and local governments,"

highnumber|6.5.07 @ 1:22AM|#

Why did you lie to me, William R?

Mike Laursen|6.5.07 @ 1:23AM|#

Another quote: "When the payroll tax contributions of immigrants are taken into account, the Urban Institute found that the foreign born constitute a net fiscal windfall to the public sector of some $20 billion a year."

http://www.cato.org/dailys/4-22-97.html

|6.5.07 @ 1:37AM|#

Steve Chapman is wrong. The current wave of immigration started because Congress passed the 1965 immigration act, and another wave started after the 1988 amnesty. Eisenhower was able to clamp down on the southern border without even an act of Congress with Operation Wetback. A graph showing the effect of these acts of the government is here. Immigration restriction was effective from 1924 until 1965, it can be effective again (as such restrictions are effective in many other countries, with Mexico being far harsher to its own central american immigrants than the US is to Mexicans). The problem is that those in charge DO NOT WANT it to be effective. Kennedy on the left and Bush on the right (with those terms being what they are in current American politics) both can't stand restrictionists and are willing to screw over the Samuel Gompers and Tancredos that should be their base when it comes to this issue.

Libertarian James Fulford has more on the successes of border/immigration enforcement in Chingo Blingo is Wrong - We Can Deport Them All.

highnumber|6.5.07 @ 1:42AM|#

Libertarian Conservative VDare contributor James Fulford has more...

That's more like it!

|6.5.07 @ 3:00AM|#

My perspective comes from the front lines of Los Angeles. I am sympathetic to the open borders argument, and it seems to me in the long run we will benefit economically from the all the illegal immigrants that come from the south. I know that the mexicans at least assimilate pretty damn fast.

But I don't live in the long run, and now it seems that there are a lot of people that bear the cost of the mass illegal migration without getting the benefit (maybe they need to eat more of that cheap lettuce or buy a carwash). Those that bear the cost are those that have to live in the places like east L.A., boyle heights, El monte, pacoima, etc. Maybe all hispanics look alike to some of you, but some of the "mexicans" in those places are actually americans, drowning in the dirty, gang infested streets (with "soaring real estate prices" - why that's a good thing, i am not sure). I know I wouldn't live there.

I just think mabye we should consider a little more what they feel like having tons of 2nd world poor people dumped in their neighborhood so the rest of us can have a cheaper cost of living.

In other words, even though I support the theory of open borders, I thank god that I can afford to stay away from all people I support coming over.

John Rohan|6.5.07 @ 6:09AM|#

TGGP - you are absolutely right. There's no inevitability to people crossing the border. Yes, its determined and resourceful people doing it, but that's why you need resourceful and determined people defending it.

If I were to take Chapman's philosophy to its conclusion, (which is to do nothing about the border at all) then why bother even trying to stop the drug trade. Just let it happen, man!

Immigration is great. But uncontrolled immigration is not. You need to do it responsibly; when it happens to faster than the people can assimilate you end up with tremendous social unrest.

http://shieldofachilles.blogspot.com

|6.5.07 @ 6:28AM|#

I have to disagree with Chapman. Japan, for example, does not have millions of illegal immigrants, despite the fact that billions of people in the neighborhood make a few bucks a day rather than the first-world wages found in Japan. How do they do this? Magic? Maybe Chapman should ask.

We could reduce illegal immigration by 90% simply by:

A: Actually punishing it to a significant degree. This means JAIL TIME and PERMANENT BANS, not being dropped just across the border so you can sneak back tomorrow.

B: Seriously punishing those who hire them. Again, JAIL TIME for egreious offenders and major fines for the rest.


Yes, we should have more immigration. But we could not possibly absorb the hundreds of millions that want to come here. We have to have a fair, orderly process for allowing people in - and those who cheat the system should be punished, period.

|6.5.07 @ 6:59AM|#

I haven't read the whole thread, but I've noticed an interesting undercurrent in the anti-immigration posters. They cite immigration as producing a whole range of problems--drug gangs, enlarging the welfare state, who knows what else--which are all essentially created by the government and then--this is the truly brilliant part--they advocate an expansion of the government to get rid of the problem!

It boggles my mind. I realize that these issues are valid concerns, but the solution is not addition, but subtraction. We're not going to get rid of immigrants by any means, not when the incentive to hire them is so high--they have a superior work ethic to most americans, meaning they often can easily outbid americans at high wages--and the disincentive to stay in their home countries is so low--Mexico, for instance, has a horrendous government.

And one last point. Anti-immigration folks say they fear america being turned into a third-world country by immigrants. They say they are willing to pay higher prices for the privilege of not having to think about non-citizens actually contributing to the economy. But let me ask you, where do you think such wide-scale protectionism will lead us? It'll put our economy in the crapper, that's what it will do. The anti-immigration policies will NOT serve as a shield that will protect the u.s. until we can get rid of the disastrous drug and welfare policies--these policies will never be gotten rid of, not when the incentive on the part of the government is so high. It will merely serve to create the equivalent a national labor union. And we know what happens when we let unions have their way--entire factories devoted solely to housing lounging union members will be the least of our worries. Or do you think that people will give up their privileges to people who can outbid them in almost every way without a fight?

|6.5.07 @ 7:22AM|#

Nas: We have to be realistic. The government exists. Nation-states exist. They aren't going away. The problem I have with the libertarian logic in the immigration issue is that it refuse to acknowledge the very non-libertarian reality that we live in.

In a perfect world, anyone could live anywhere they want, and it wouldn't affect anyone to a large degree or in an involuntary manner where another chose to live. However, the real world does not work this way. When someone moves to America and becomes "American", I suddenly gain all sorts of responsibilies towards them, and they gain the reverse in return. Given that these partnerships are NOT going away, it is clear that we DO, then, have the right to chose with whom we enter such partnerships with.

If you truly believe that we should have completely open immigration in THIS reality (by such a policy, I mean anyone can come as long as they can get here, possibly criminals excepted), please explain how you plan to deal with the several hundred million that would come. Who would feed them? Who would educate them and their children? Who would house them? Who would pay their Social Security and medical bills?

Remember, I need a real world answer, not "I am a libertarian and those problems are their business, not mine!"

|6.5.07 @ 8:10AM|#

Remember, I need a real world answer, not "I am a libertarian and those problems are their business, not mine!"

In the real world, the number coming will not be several hundred million -- at least not until many decades have passed, by which time the population trends of the world will have tipped over and, one would hope, a number more nations will be a lot wealthier.

Also in the real world, the US will not completely open its borders unless the problems caused by the immigrants are their business, not the US's.

You can't posit the fantastic hypothetical of protectionist Americans finally finding either a brain or a heart and opening the borders while forbidding the less fantastic hypothetical of their not tightly restricting the draw due to welfare.

|6.5.07 @ 8:25AM|#

... protectionist Americans finally finding either a brain or a heart and opening the borders ...

Actually, given the legion of fears that restricted immigration folk want to have validated, I should have added courage to the list.

Perhaps The Wizard of Oz was not an allegory about late 19th century politics after all, but an allegory on immigration!

|6.5.07 @ 8:40AM|#

In the real world, the number coming will not be several hundred million -- at least not until many decades have passed, by which time the population trends of the world will have tipped over and, one would hope, a number more nations will be a lot wealthier.

Mike P,
If they could, half of latin America, half of Africa and Asia would want to move to US or Western europe. Even those people who are doing relatively good in their own countries in Asia and latin America would like to come here because the level of living standards, economics and social security in US and Western Europe is beyond what the countries from where these immigrants come can offer.

|6.5.07 @ 8:51AM|#

Chad said:

"In a perfect world, anyone could live anywhere they want, and it wouldn't affect anyone to a large degree or in an involuntary manner where another chose to live. However, the real world does not work this way. When someone moves to America and becomes "American", I suddenly gain all sorts of responsibilies towards them, and they gain the reverse in return. Given that these partnerships are NOT going away, it is clear that we DO, then, have the right to chose with whom we enter such partnerships with."

Who is this "we"? I don't want my money being used to build a border fence or throwing people in jail for hiring good laborers. If we're talking about rights and voluntary association, we're talking about getting rid of the government.

"If you truly believe that we should have completely open immigration in THIS reality (by such a policy, I mean anyone can come as long as they can get here, possibly criminals excepted), please explain how you plan to deal with the several hundred million that would come. Who would feed them? Who would educate them and their children? Who would house them? Who would pay their Social Security and medical bills?"

Several hundred million? I thought your problem was that libertarianism was too unrealistic, and here you are saying that the population of the U.S. is going to be increased by hundreds of millions if you drop the border patrol. Let's assume the entire population of Mexico DID move to the U.S., though. Well, who feeds and educates mexcians NOW? Other Mexicans. Remember, these people are economic agents as well: they are just as capable of meeting supply and demand as we are. As for social security, that's a bad idea even if you don't have massive influxes of immigrants anyway.

Willliam R|6.5.07 @ 9:01AM|#

highnumber | June 5, 2007, 1:18am | #
So you lied to me?


How so ??

|6.5.07 @ 9:05AM|#

"If they could, half of latin America, half of Africa and Asia would want to move to US or Western europe. Even those people who are doing relatively good in their own countries in Asia and latin America would like to come here because the level of living standards, economics and social security in US and Western Europe is beyond what the countries from where these immigrants come can offer."

And past a certain point, the push factors in the home country are outweighed by the home country's pull factors. For instance, all of the newly available capital left by millions of people leaving--many people are going to stay, and in a saturated labor market many people are going to come back, as well. Furthermore, as the number of people diminishes, the price of labor in the home countries will go up, meaning many people will stay to take advantage of that and, like before, the labor market in the countries that have experienced immigration will be saturated and it will be in the interest of many to go home. Besides, something like fifty thousand people a day enter the middle class in east asia because of the recent industrialization and increased freedom. SOMEBODY is gonna stay for that.

|6.5.07 @ 9:14AM|#

And past a certain point, the push factors in the home country are outweighed by the home country's pull factors. For instance, all of the newly available capital left by millions of people leaving--many people are going to stay, and in a saturated labor market many people are going to come back, as well. Furthermore, as the number of people diminishes, the price of labor in the home countries will go up, meaning many people will stay to take advantage of that and, like before, the labor market in the countries that have experienced immigration will be saturated and it will be in the interest of many to go home. Besides, something like fifty thousand people a day enter the middle class in east asia because of the recent industrialization and increased freedom. SOMEBODY is gonna stay for that.

I agree. But, look at the number of failed and poor states around the world. And, at the moment, the goals of many millions of people of these countries are to get to the West. And that is a sheer number. America can still accept and provide for millions of immigrants without a considerable restraint on its social and economical structure. However, the influx of immigrants all at once, from all these states around the world as a result of open border would be unsettling, uncertain and unknown. So, all that is asked for is a humane border control that takes in consideration of aspiring and hopeful people beyond US border and those people within the border who are most likely to get negatively affected as a result of mass migration. The balance should be achieved.

|6.5.07 @ 9:20AM|#

gy, finding the balance requires subtlety, and the government can't do subtlety. It can't even figure out that labor unions cost the economy trillions of dollars over the years.

I say, let "borders" be determined by property rights. That's something of a problem, given that most cities, which were formerly private associations, have been made "public," but that's a minimal problem compared to a system that turns agricultural workers into serfs and props up the drug trade, allowing drug lords to run armies.

highnumber|6.5.07 @ 9:22AM|#

William R,

First:
I'll sign off on that if the farmers agree to pay for all the medical, schooling, jail, etc etc etc that the illegal labor will cost the taxpayers.

Then, when I asked if we could show that the "illegal" immigrants aren't a drain on the welfare system:
Open border types are loons. Goods are services crossing borders is good. People aren't. Goods and services get used up. People stay and change the nature of things and not for the best. The welfare state isn't going anywhere. The more poor people we bring in only grows the welfare state. This isn't rocket science. We have enough poor people. They already have a claim on my paycheck. Why on earth would I favor bringing in more poor people. Build the wall, enforce the laws on the books. And lets start Protecting America's Sovereignty

You would never accept open borders, because you are a nativist, right?

William R|6.5.07 @ 10:53AM|#

HighNumber, you're out to lunch boy. Nativist, bigot, restrictionist. When the name calling starts, you've lost the debate. I don't accept open borders. why would any sane person? I've always been upfront here. For example. I've said numerous times I don't think we should allow Muslims to settle here. Islam is not compatible with free classical liberal societies. Western Civilization. Recent events in Europe is all the evidence I need.

|6.5.07 @ 11:11AM|#

If they could, half of latin America, half of Africa and Asia would want to move to US or Western europe.

They can want lots of things. Do they have the means? More importantly, can the US economy make jobs for them quickly enough to support an extremely high rate of immigration? If it could, that would be wonderful and mark the fastest economic gains the US has ever known in its history.

If, as I think is more likely, the economy won't generate more than 3 or 4 million new jobs for immigrants a year, that accounts for maybe 5 or 6 million entries. Counting the ones who return to their homeland makes a consistent flux of maybe 4 million a year. It would take 25 years to get 100 million immigrants. After 75 years you get to 300 million, still shy of "several hundred million" and way too far out in time to make valid predictions of the economic state of the world.

Even those people who are doing relatively good in their own countries in Asia and latin America would like to come here because the level of living standards, economics and social security in US and Western Europe is beyond what the countries from where these immigrants come can offer.

The level of living standards and the economics are out of the reach of anyone who is not employed. Someone who is doing well is not going to get up and transport himself to another land with a much higher cost of living unless he has good prospects for a job. If he does have those prospects and gains that employment, he should be welcome. If he doesn't, he won't come.

Mike Laursen|6.5.07 @ 11:31AM|#

If they could, half of latin America, half of Africa and Asia would want to move to US or Western europe.

Well, then. Let's start giving them a free ride to Western Europe. :-)

highnumber|6.5.07 @ 12:05PM|#

William R,

1. If you are so concerned about name calling, why do you call me, "boy"?

2. I never called you a "bigot." I wrote "nativist." Nativism is "the practice or policy of favoring native-born citizens over immigrants." It is an accurate description of your beliefs, no?

William R|6.5.07 @ 12:16PM|#

Boy is not name calling. It's an expression. Ohhhh boy!!

Second Nativist is the typical smear thrown around by open border elites when they've lost control of the debate. And they've lost this one big time. The people are sick and tired of this mass immigration from south of the border. Entire towns, neighborhoods, and communities have been ruined.

William R|6.5.07 @ 12:19PM|#

Wonderful News from the Open Border Elites

highnumber|6.5.07 @ 12:24PM|#

William R,

You need to practice the link tags. :)

Anyway, carry on with your bad self. All the best to you and yours.

|6.5.07 @ 12:31PM|#

William R said some funny things:

"When the name calling starts, you've lost the debate."

but, in the next two sentences:

"I don't accept open borders. why would any sane person?"

In other words, he says that insults are bad and then implies that anyone who disagrees with him is insane.

Bill, it's very difficult for anyone to rationally consider your position when you ignore the basic rules of rhetoric.

|6.5.07 @ 12:43PM|#

I usually expect reason from Reason. Not always true apparently. The huge financial cost, in the tens of billions, of illegals borne by social services far outweighs any advantage conferred on the economy by the cheap labor they provide. It's not true they do jobs Americans won't, it's just they will do them for less. The majority of illegals are uneducated and unskilled and contribute little to the vitality of the economy. While we can't stop them all we could certainly slow the flood to a trickle. Here's how:

Eliminate the "anchor baby". Children of illegals should themselves be illegal.

Build a wall on the southern border. Patrol it and equip it with sensors.

Mandate and fund INS to start deporting illegals whenever they are found. Streamline the process so the whole procedure takes days not years.

Heavy fines and enforcement for employers who knowingly and repeatedly hire illegals.

Some will still come but not nearly as many.

highnumber|6.5.07 @ 12:52PM|#

Huh, I usually expect science fiction from W Gibson...

|6.5.07 @ 12:57PM|#

W. Gibson said:

"It's not true they do jobs Americans won't, it's just they will do them for less."

That's not necessarily the case--immigrants tend to have a superior work ethic to americans. I remember hearing about one restaurant on the radio that paid its staff of immigrants 15 dollars an hour because they worked much better than native born people. Furthermore, assuming that what you said IS the case, why will it help our economy to artificially raise the costs of doing business?

"Mandate and fund INS to start deporting illegals whenever they are found. Streamline the process so the whole procedure takes days not years."

And while we're at deporting twelve million people, let's start getting rid of the welfare state. Or, maybe they're equally impossible.

As for whether they do more harm than good to the economy--maybe you don't remember how Colorado's agriculture sector recently collapsed after they started seriously cracking down on immigrants?

|6.5.07 @ 1:01PM|#

The huge financial cost, in the tens of billions, of illegals borne by social services far outweighs any advantage conferred on the economy by the cheap labor they provide.

"Tens of billions" is fractions of a percent of US GDP. It is lost in the wash of the immigrants' contributions to the economy.

It's not true they do jobs Americans won't, it's just they will do them for less.

The choice is generally not between an American doing it for more and an immigrant doing it for less. It's between an American doing it for more and the job not existing. I would rather the job exist and that someone be found to do it. Both employer and employee clearly gain. And society gains the wealth of the producer surplus.

Eliminate the "anchor baby". Children of illegals should themselves be illegal.

Or they should simply be disqualified from receiving welfare, like their parents.

The rest of your proposals are expensive and border on fascist and, as you note, do not really solve the issue.

|6.5.07 @ 1:30PM|#

The majority of illegals are uneducated and unskilled and contribute little to the vitality of the economy.

And this is a fait accompli, isn't it.

Higher valued jobs are offered by higher valued employers who can't afford to risk, in your words, "heavy fines and enforcement." Furthermore, higher skilled potential immigrants have far more opportunities at home and in other lands and are not willing to risk getting into the US only to live and to work in the shadows.

If there were no conceivable punishment that the employer or employee could possibly face, then many more illegal immigrants would be higher valued and higher skilled.

And if the US simply opened up the borders, far more legal immigrants would be higher valued and higher skilled.

But you deny both those possibilities, instead tightening enforcement and increasing punishment. The "solutions" you suggest only push the skill level of those willing to traverse your border security further down the ladder.

Nicely done.

|6.5.07 @ 1:33PM|#

Cesar, Cesar, Cesar, your moral grandstanding is tedious in the extreme. You rant:

"I read your screed about how much immigrants cost us. How much do YOU cost us, pal? In fact, how much do native born middle class white males cost us every freakin year? I bet its a hell of a lot more."

Lemme see.... I don't get anything from Social Security. I don't get any government medical care. I don't get transfer payments of any kind from the government. And between Fed, state and local taxes approximately 50% of my income is taken from me. The local government does pick up my garbage, though.

"We are all on the government crackpipe, asshat."

Maybe you are, which explains a lot.

"Its just that social security, medicare, unemployment benefits, etc, they are all acceptable cause middle class people use them too."

If I had my druthers, Social Security and Medicare would vanish tomorrow. There is a place for short-term unemployment benefits. But please, if you want to get rid of a good 75% of what the government does, I'm right with ya man!

And I know this is just talking into the wind, as facts can't break through the self-righteous varnish covering so many of you, but a few more fun tidbits.

"Figure 15 reports use of means-tested programs for households headed by Mexican immigrants and natives in which at least one person works. The results show that among working households, use of means-tested programs by Mexican immigrants is dramatically higher than that of natives. Thus, high rates of welfare use by Mexican immigrants are not the result of a lack of work. Rather it stems from the fact that a large share of Mexican households have low-incomes and unstable employment histories and thus use a great deal of public services."

Yes, one minute to cross the border, and a lifetime of sucking the teat!

"However, the results also indicate that illegal immigration imposes significant costs on public coffers. Whereas 14.8 percent of native households use at least one of the five major welfare programs, among households headed by an illegal alien from Mexico the figure is 24.9 percent. Illegal immigrants from Mexico primarily receive welfare benefits on behalf of their American-born children. Overall, the results in Figure 16 indicate that whether legal or illegal, immigrants from Mexico make heavy use of means-tested programs."

Yes I know, they're just taking the welfare that Americans won't take, that's all.

Oh and more things to love them for! "Illegal immigrants burying the border in garbage."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0603bordertrash-ON.html

But then we all have to accept filth in the neighborhood, peeing in the open, flopping about on any lawn that's around as lovely signs of cultural "diversity," as opposed to just disgusting behavior by third-world dirtbags. But we can't ever bring culture into the argument, because you know it's nativist and racist and bigoted to suggest that one culture might be better than another.

So Cesar, are you cool with Muslim honor killings too?

|6.5.07 @ 1:40PM|#

So Cesar, are you cool with Muslim honor killings too?

I have to ask, since otherwise this question would be a total non sequitur...

Would liberalized immigration into the US increase or decrease the number of Muslim honor killings?

|6.5.07 @ 1:44PM|#

"In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens."

"A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the bloody 18th Street Gang in California is illegal (estimated membership: 20,000); police officers say the proportion is undoubtedly much greater. The gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complicated drug distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and is responsible for an assault or robbery every day in Los Angeles County."

"The continuing surge of illegal and legal migrants is changing American politics, demographics, and culture in ways that have yet to be grasped. But one of the most profound changes is already visible: the breakdown of the distinction between legal and illegal entry. Everywhere illegal aliens receive free public education and free medical care at taxpayer expense. In 13 states, they can get drivers licenses, according to Mexican officials. States everywhere are being pushed to grant in-state college tuition and scholarships to illegal aliens; many accede. One hundred banks, over 800 law enforcement agencies, and dozens of cities accept an identification card created by Mexico to credential illegal Mexican aliens in the United States. The Bush Administration has given its blessing to this "matricula consular" card, over the strenuous protest of the FBI. The massive security loopholes in the card, warns the FBI, make it a natural for money launderers, immigrant smugglers, and terrorists. Border authorities have already caught an Iranian man sneaking across the border with a Mexican matricula card, as well as an alien smuggler with seven cards, each with his picture and a different name."

"Hiring practices in illegal-immigrant-saturated industries are a form of play-acting: Millions of illegal workers pretend to present valid documents, and thousands of employers pretend to believe them. The law imposes no obligation on the employer to verify that a worker is actually qualified to work, and as long as the proffered documents are not patently phony, the employer will nearly always be insulated from liability merely by having eyeballed them. To find an employer guilty of violating the ban on hiring illegal aliens, immigration authorities must prove that he knew he was getting fake papers - an almost insurmountable burden. Meanwhile, the market for counterfeit documents has exploded. Fraud now pervades every aspect of the immigration system. In one month alone in 1998, the INS seized nearly two million counterfeit documents in Los Angeles, destined for workers, welfare seekers, criminals, and terrorists."

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back704.html

Awww heck! Open the floodgates!!!

|6.5.07 @ 1:49PM|#

"I have to ask, since otherwise this question would be a total non sequitur..."

It's not a non sequitur at all. It follows directly on the notion that open borders types feel there are no cultural issues at play in massive immigration. That importing millions of people who have little or nothing in common with our culture has no meaning, because cultures have no meaning. Which is the same as saying one is as good as another.

"Would liberalized immigration into the US increase or decrease the number of Muslim honor killings?"

If more Muslims showed up, it would mean more honor killings. That's sorta obvious. For more on that, see Exhibit A: Europe.

And whaddya mean "liberalized" immigration? Status quo at the moment is pretty much anybody, any time can get in here (illegally). How much more liberal you want it?

Cesar|6.5.07 @ 1:55PM|#

"Lemme see.... I don't get anything from Social Security. I don't get any government medical care. I don't get transfer payments of any kind from the government. And between Fed, state and local taxes approximately 50% of my income is taken from me. The local government does pick up my garbage, though.
"

Im sure you will take all you can from social security and medicare when you hit 65! And how many tax credits do you get for various things?

I guess you went to private schools, paid for your own college at a private university, and never drive on public roads, either. And don't get any tax credits. Nope, none at all.

As for the honor killing thing, yeah, that happens to have absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. But I suppose deporting all the redneck scots-irish would lower domestic violence considerably. Why don't we do that?

You recommended that we read white supremacist literature (and a badly written piece of one, at that!), that pretty much disqualifies anything you say after that point. Into zee filter, ghet.

|6.5.07 @ 1:59PM|#

If more Muslims showed up, it would mean more honor killings. That's sorta obvious.

Really? These killings don't happen in Muslim nations? Why would they suddenly happen if Muslims moved to the US?

And whaddya mean "liberalized" immigration?

By "liberalized", I mean more open than today but, for the sake of discussion, not necessarily completely open.

Status quo at the moment is pretty much anybody, any time can get in here (illegally). How much more liberal you want it?

I want it legal.

Cesar|6.5.07 @ 2:04PM|#

BTW, I wasn't talking about you specifically being a middle-class white, male, welfare queen. But plenty of them exist in this country. I'd bet $100 that various kinds of government benefits given to the middle class take up way more of teh federal budget than what goes to the poor, especially after 1996.

But oh noes! We don't want to speak about that! Lets scream at the underclass because it makes us all feel superior.

Cesar|6.5.07 @ 2:14PM|#

BTW, a whopping 18% of households that recieve foodstamps are hispanic. Hispanics are 15% of the population.

41% are white, and 36% are black. It doesn't sound like hispanics (immigrants or otherwise) are terribly over-represented.

Mike Laursen|6.5.07 @ 2:48PM|#

Build a wall on the southern border. Patrol it and equip it with sensors. ... Mandate and fund INS to start deporting illegals whenever they are found. Streamline the process so the whole procedure takes days not years. ... Heavy fines and enforcement for employers who knowingly and repeatedly hire illegals.

Wow! Isn't this going to cost a lot?

|6.5.07 @ 3:00PM|#

"A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the bloody 18th Street Gang in California is illegal (estimated membership: 20,000); police officers say the proportion is undoubtedly much greater. The gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complicated drug distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and is responsible for an assault or robbery every day in Los Angeles County."

Sounds like an argument for legalizing drugs to me, since drug laws essentially give a protectionist monopoly to those who are most willing to engage in violence, getting rid of gun control, and for getting rid of unions, welfare, and other economic controls which cause unemployment, making crime a better option. Not to mention allowing neighborhoods to privatize streets, and communities to privatize in general. Hey, it's about as possible as keeping all or even most of them out. Nope, I see nothing inherently wrong with people moving from one place to another. Does it sound unrealistic? Yeah, but it's really the only option. Things aren't going to get LESS violent when you try to deport twelve million people. There isn't a government program in the world with that kind of scope which wouldn't become violent (Unless it was some kind of flower and peace-sign delivery service).

highnumber|6.5.07 @ 3:16PM|#

If y'all need a drink, here's your excuse:

For a magazine called Reason, this site sure attracts a lot of ignorant nativists!

(No offense intended to anyone offended. In other words, I'm sorry that you are offended. In other other words, too bad! I'm tired of you. In the words of the Big Lebowski, "The bums will always lose!")

William R|6.5.07 @ 4:37PM|#

The only ignorant person on this thread is highnumber. He/she is a pimp for the corporate welfare class

highnumber|6.5.07 @ 4:56PM|#

William R,

That is the coolest insult ever thrown at me. Out of left field to be sure, but so crazy that it's cool. I'm going to tell all my friends. Thank you.
And what I said earlier still goes.

William R|6.5.07 @ 5:01PM|#

William R|6.5.07 @ 5:11PM|#

Cesar's stats are so bogus it is behond belief. Hilarious. Fewew than 50 percent of hispanics finish High School. They have now passed Blacks when it comes to out of wedlock birth. So much for the famoous family values

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20979

Cesar|6.5.07 @ 5:37PM|#

William R.-
I guess they all liars.

Rhywun|6.5.07 @ 5:47PM|#

Children of illegals should themselves be illegal.

Which is what they do in Europe, and why they have more problems with immigrants than we do. I've said it before: treat your "guest workers" like shit, and they will treat you in kind.

William R|6.5.07 @ 5:48PM|#

They're bogus. Does it distinguish between citizens and illegals etc etc.

Cesar|6.5.07 @ 5:51PM|#

William R.-

I didn't say "18% of households are immigrants" I said "18% of households which recieve food stamps are hispanic.

William R|6.5.07 @ 6:12PM|#

Cesar, half the hispanics in this country are illegal aliens. they're not supposed to get any welfare, but we no they do. So yes, the stats are very bogus.

Mike Laursen|6.5.07 @ 6:15PM|#

William R., look at the last article you linked to:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20979

It mixes statistics about legal and illegal Hispanic populations. In fact, most or all of the articles linked to in this entire discussion thread jump around among statistics and observations about various populations. Sometimes they are talking about legal immigrants, sometimes about illegal immigrants, sometimes both; sometimes Hispanic populations, sometimes all low-skilled immigrants.

Cesar|6.5.07 @ 6:20PM|#

How do you "no" they do? I guess every single government agency that reports the statistics on food stamps is lying.

I'll say it again. According to the Department of Agriculture, 18% of the households in this country that receive food stamps, 18% are Hispanic.

Since a lot of immigrants are Hispanic, this says to me "Hey! Most of them come here to work! Imagine that!" I guess that was lost on you.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to go on welfare now, even for a legal citizen?

If not, why don't you read this very informative reason article on what welfare is like post-welfare reform.

Urkobold®|6.5.07 @ 6:24PM|#

William R, TU MADRE ES UNA BRUJA Y TU PADRE ES UN PERRO. TIENES LA CABEZA DE PIEDRA.

DID LITTLE MARIA BREAK YOUR HEART? DID PEDRO STEAL HER FROM YOU?

THE MORE YOU TALK, THE MORE OBVIOUS IT IS THAT YOU ARE A BIGOT. GO HIDE UNDER YOUR BED AND WAIT FOR THE THE HORDES RIDING NORTH. FEAR THEM, FOR THEY WORK HARDER THAN YOU, ARE BETTER LOOKING THAN YOU, AND ARE SMARTER THAN YOU. YOUR TIME IS OVER. NO ONE IS SORRY.

William R|6.5.07 @ 6:24PM|#

I know it does Mike. But the aricle just points out that Hispanics use huge amounts of social services. The bottom line. Have kids out of wedlock, you're going to be getting some form of government help. We are importing a huge underclass. Cheap labor for the Corporate class and dump all the cost on the taxpayers. Ron Paul knows it, Milton Friedman knew it. This isn't Rocket Science.

William R|6.5.07 @ 6:30PM|#

Urkobold® | June 5, 2007, 6:24pm | #

THE MORE YOU TALK, THE MORE OBVIOUS IT IS THAT YOU ARE A BIGOT.

Here it comes. I knew it. How do you know a liberal is losing a debate??? He calls you a bigot ..

|6.5.07 @ 6:38PM|#

I went back and forth with Tim Cavanaugh once about Reason's stance on immigration.

I actually agree in part with their position that we should have basically open boarders. However, the reason I diverge is because of the existance of the welfare state which in and of itself attracts more illegals. Reason, of course, supports the dismantaling of the welfare state but also realizes that is probably a pipe dream at this point. If not for the vast welfare state illegals would not be able to work at such a steep discount to the citizen worker. An illegal working for $6/hr at a job that a legal worker would demand $10/hr for is in many cases subsidized by the government.

Illegals can get a large array of "free" government services. For example, this money is usually paid under the table so no deduction for taxes and SS and medicare is taken out. Also, if the illegal worker gets hurt or sick he/she knows that they can go and obtain free medical care (paid for by tax payers and insurance premium payers). If the illegal has a child in this country then that child is afforded citizenship automatically and then can legally get these services and more.

One op ed piece I read recently that calculated what the average extra services were worth concluded that many illegals being paid a wage of $6-8/hr were actually making $30-36/hr if all the government services they have access to were calculated into the wage.

So I am all for doing all we can to keep these people out until such time that we dismantle the welfare state and our country goes back to the way our founding fathers intended.

Urkobold®|6.5.07 @ 6:40PM|#

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOU HAVE CALLED A BIGOT A BIGOT?

HE CALLS YOU A LIBERAL.

William R|6.5.07 @ 6:43PM|#

Cesar, you're just lost on this. The people coming here to work are mostly very poor unskilled uneducated folks. They will grow the welfare state. The future of the country isn't resting on people with strong backs. That was fine at the turn of the 20th century when industrialization was taking place. Now we need PhDs, Engineers, Scientist. What we don't need is more poor people. The unemployment rate for young black men between 17-25 is 50 percent.

Cesar|6.5.07 @ 6:52PM|#

William R.-

Why do you doubt the ability of a dynamic economy like we have in the United States to move people up the economic ladder and into the middle class? Its usually leftists who do that.

Do you think all these immigrants will remain poor and uneducated forever and ever because theres a limited amount of wealth in this world? Wow, how Marxist of you.

I'm for bringing in PhDs and scientists too, the market demands those people as well.

William R|6.5.07 @ 7:01PM|#

Simple Cesar. There's just no evidence that Hispanics are moving up the ladder. It sounds bad. but the stats back me up. They've now passed blacks for dropping out of school. Out of wedlock birth which is a straight path to poverty and welfarism.

I know there are lost of hipanics that have achieved the American dream. But for the most part, the growth in government welfarism is a direct restult from massive immigration from south of the border.

Cesar|6.5.07 @ 7:10PM|#

Really?

Check out the stats for first, second, and third generation Mexicans. They seem to contradict that.

If you take out the recent immigrants, they are moving up the ladder. My mother's side of the family is a living testament to that.

William R|6.5.07 @ 7:14PM|#

Cesar, 3rd generation Mexican immigrants have a 50 percent drop out of school rate. A sure fire sign of long term economic decline.

Cesar|6.5.07 @ 7:21PM|#

"Cesar, 3rd generation Mexican immigrants have a 50 percent drop out of school rate. A sure fire sign of long term economic decline."

The rate declines until the fourth generation. Now, do you know what that means? It means the ones that don't intermarry and stop referring to themselves as "Mexican" are the ones who have problems.

Anyway Im done with this thread its about to be pushed off the front page, anyway.

|6.5.07 @ 9:02PM|#

Because this page objects to posting more than five links, I will break up this post into multiple parts.

First, in order to prevent anyone from attempting to argue with my posts by saying that I am just bad, bad, bad, note that I am an emotivist/Stirnerite egoist. You might as well accuse me of being a servant of the Dark Side of the Force, since to me it is all just imaginary talk with no grounding in reality. Present some data rather than sob stories.

Regarding the vaunted work ethic, which the Inductivist shows be lower (in terms of employment and hours) than for Anglos. When it comes to assimilation, welfare dependency, crime and illegitimacy go up, education plateaus. They are assimilating AWAY from the middle class. You can bleat all you want about how first generation immigrants (who are older on average than criminals) are too scared of being deported to commit crimes, but when you take that generation you must take the second and third that come after them, unless of course we switch to the more sensible Gulf state model where they are truly "guest workers" and do not have families in our country. Remember further that we are not trading our least productive and most dysfunctional citizens with Mexico (much as I wish that were so), but adding to existing problems that our government has shown less a competency to handle than a propensity to exacerbate. Please respond with data rather than platitudes or admit you were wrong.

|6.5.07 @ 9:02PM|#

In my view, the most important problem is the political impact they will have. Hispanics are possibly the most anti-libertarian large demographic group. Even if the Republicans succeed, as Bush and Rove seem to believe they will, get Hispanics to vote for them, it will not be for libertarian reasons. Both parties will shift away from appealing to libertarians and toward the populism that appeals to the poorer and less educated. The political culture in latin america is already notoriously dysfunctional, and it has started to infect America now as well. Just like the immigrants, I do not want to live in Mexico, which the United States will slowly become like.

I also do not want to have to choose between having our old underclass and their slightly (but not enough to live somewhere safer) more fortunate neighbors ethnically cleansed by gang warfare or engaging in a war demanding enough to unify hostile populations (as the Civil War and the two World Wars did for previous generations). Having a lull in immigration due to legislation like that in 1924 might not work as quick as massive conscription and camaraderie formed under fire, but it would involve much less waste and destruction and contribute less to "the health of the state".

One final piece of evidence: While I do not believe something can objectively "good" or "better" than something else, as all is just subjective preferences that cannot be aggregated, those preferences do still indicate something. When I see net migration from one territory to another, it usually indicates to me that the latter area is preferable (usually just by staying out of the way) to the former. Rafts go from Cuba to Miami, East Berliners flee west and even during the war North Vietnamese headed south rather than the other way around. If immigrants were of a great benefit, making everything vibrant and serving the oh-so-vital functions of gardening and whatnot, we would expect to see internal migration toward areas with more immigrants (as was the case in the 19th century when farmers flocked to the cities). Instead it is the opposite.

I look forward to anyone presenting evidence to dispute what I have presented. I will disregard those who attempt to do so without data.

Mike Laursen|6.6.07 @ 1:19AM|#

You say "present data", then you go off on a weak chain of deductive logic to draw conclusions about the effects of immigration based on statistics about people moving to and from "coastal megalopolises", as if calculating the reasons people move to or from a place wouldn't require an extremely complex multi-variable equation.

Furthermore, statistics about huge groups such as "Hispanics" are of limited usefulness, since they tell us nothing about more specific sub-populations, and nothing about individuals. I can assure I have met many examples of individual illegal Hispanic immigrants who do indeed possess the "vaunted work ethic"; you're broad groups statistics do not address at all the moral argument that anybody willing to work as hard as these folks I have known deserve to be welcomed, not treated as criminals.

|6.6.07 @ 1:26AM|#

If immigrants were of a great benefit, making everything vibrant and serving the oh-so-vital functions of gardening and whatnot, we would expect to see internal migration toward areas with more immigrants (as was the case in the 19th century when farmers flocked to the cities). Instead it is the opposite.

This is quite confused.

People moved to the cities in the 19th century because the industrial revolution was raising opportunities and wages in the cities while lowering demand for farm labor. Immigrants also ended up in the cities for exactly the same reason. Preference for living next to immigrants was not a first order cause of the common destination.

As for the current exodus of people from cities, it is not due to pressures from the poor, as you seem to imply, but to pressures from the rich. US society keeps getting wealthier and wealthier. The nicest places to live draw more money, find the prices bid up beyond a level the middle class would like to pay, and see an exodus of those middle class looking for a better standard of living. Immigrants, minding less the lower standard of living, move in.

In neither example is the migration of natives and the migration of immigrants correlated in the way you suggest.

Eric|6.6.07 @ 1:40AM|#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Around 488,000 people fled the country for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimates that 500,000-700,000 illegals had left Texas voluntarily.

|6.6.07 @ 2:38AM|#

" Our leaders are better off trying for small improvements than insisting on grand solutions. In this and most other spheres of government endeavor, conservatives should know, it's wise not to expect too much. "

I think that's exactly what conservatives are asking for: enact the improved employer verifications for internal enforcement and execute the border security measures already on the books. Worry later about the illegals who are already here. Just stop the flow first.

Not sure about your logic regarding futility. To take your logic to its conclusion: people steal cars to improve their economic condition. There are a heck of a lot of cars stolen every year. As long as an economically valuable asset is left on the street in plain sight people are going to steal it. Instead of enforcing the existing laws it would be better to declare the activity legal. Yeah, that would improve the situation.

And crossing the border is not the only crime being committed by illegals. There is tax evasion, voter fraud, and identity theft. If the government is going to overlook these crimes, wouldn't it:

- according to your logic, be better to declare these activities legal;

- be fair to give all citizens a built-in amnesty for two non-violent felonies good for the rest of their life? I'd sure like to not pay my taxes.

Your futility argument is good for income tax, too. It would be impossible to have an efficient system that forced 150 million people in this country to give up a substantial portion of their earnings every year. The government isn't competent to do that because people will always do what's in their economic best interest, regardless of the legality of their acts. Oh, wait a minute...

|6.6.07 @ 8:44AM|#

Once again, people of Carrick's ilk prove that the Lib party will be forever doomed to obscurity.

highnumber|6.6.07 @ 11:28AM|#

JohnD,

People of "carrick's ilk"?

Those who doubt anti-Latino propaganda?

Those who would oppose a modern day Know Nothing party?

I think those qualities are far more popular than you seem to think.

|6.6.07 @ 12:44PM|#

I can assure I have met many examples of individual illegal Hispanic immigrants who do indeed possess the "vaunted work ethic". Those would be what we call "anecdotes" and anecdotes are always trumped by statistics. The United States is not currently selecting subpopulations or individuals. The immigrants are selecting themselves and their relatives. I do not care about cherry-picked examples of beneficial immigration which I do not deny exist; I am interested in the aggregate effect.

MikeP, I am not asserting that 19th century farmers has much of a desire to live next to immigrants. Their presence likely had negative externalities even back then, although to a lesser extent than today. Your hypothesis that the rich are driving out the middle class from coastal areas has a flaw: there are not enough of the rich moving in (would "gentrifying" be the right word?) to account for much of the middle class moving out. So are the rather small number of rich people buying such disproportionately large amounts of property that the middle class cannot affordably live there anymore? That is highly doubtful. A better explanation is the very large population movement of immigrants to these cities that rather than having nuclear families have extended families that pool together more paychecks while living under one roof.

highnumber, if you want to assert a political position is popular, cite some poll numbers. Like these, which show it is the issue where the general public most diverges from Washington elites. That is why "nativist" referendums pass with lots of support and Pete Wilson (who is erroneously thought to have unleashed a GOP destroying tidal wave of latino voting rage) was re-elected despite being one of the least popular governors and eventually left office (due to term limits) very popular. As a libertarian I must recognize that the general public disagrees with me on a lot of issues (and Caplan is right to point out that the elites often hold more sensible views). But you tried to assert pro-immigration sentiment is popular when the facts are to the contrary. Why don't you instead present evidence that I (and others) should take a more favorable view of immigration? That would be a more important tactic than just calling people "anti-Latino" "Know Nothing [I know it was a political party but you are using it as a pejorative]" "bigot" "racist" and so on as many are content here to do.

Mike Laursen|6.6.07 @ 1:13PM|#

Those would be what we call "anecdotes" and anecdotes are always trumped by statistics.

Not so. Lump statistics about a group don't tell the whole story. If the statistics that have been thrown out in this discussion at least had a bell curve, you could see that there is individual variation.

Don't fool yourself that lumping a bunch of individuals into a huge group, "Hispanics", and coming up with a number that describes their aggregate behavior makes you an in-depth analyst with great insights about Hispanic culture.

Mike Laursen|6.6.07 @ 1:23PM|#

Your hypothesis that the rich are driving out the middle class from coastal areas has a flaw: there are not enough of the rich moving in (would "gentrifying" be the right word?) to account for much of the middle class moving out.

I'm not sure about Mike P's hypothesis. The only area I'm really familiar with is Santa Clara County (a.k.a. "Silicon Valley"). What appears to be going on here is what would probably be officially categorized as the upper middle class (not"the rich") are buying up most of the available real estate. And real estate availability is heavily constrained by land use policy.

The closest thing I've seen to "white flight" are friends moving to better neighborhoods in the same county, usually giving the reason that their old neighborhood's school isn't first rate. It could be argued there is a racist element to this local "white flight" to better school districts, since the poorer performing schools in the area generally have a higher Hispanic enrollment.

|6.6.07 @ 1:42PM|#

Your hypothesis that the rich are driving out the middle class from coastal areas has a flaw: there are not enough of the rich moving in (would "gentrifying" be the right word?) to account for much of the middle class moving out.

The rich -- or, more accurately, the upper middle class -- don't move in as much as they move up.

I don't know which of the coastal megalopolises you live in, so I don't know what's going on in your coastal megalopolis. In the coastal megalopolis where I live, higher land prices drive out middle class factory and service industries and drive those who want to live in more than 2000 square feet to move to other places.

A better explanation is the very large population movement of immigrants to these cities that rather than having nuclear families have extended families that pool together more paychecks while living under one roof.

Since this pooling of resources concentrates many workers into a single market player, I think it's an extraordinarily poor explanation. Have you looked at per capita incomes in coastal megalopolises?

|6.6.07 @ 2:28PM|#

Since this pooling of resources concentrates many workers into a single market player, I think it's an extraordinarily poor explanation.

In case my point isn't clear, TGGP, let me quote the article you cite...

Los Angeles, defined by the Census Bureau as Los Angeles and Orange Counties, had a domestic outflow of 6% of 2000 population in six years--balanced by an immigrant inflow of 6%. The numbers are the same for these eight metro areas as a whole...

Your hypothesis is that those arriving concentrate their purchase or rent of housing stock into much less space than those leaving, driving up prices and inducing the outflow. Given that the number of people arriving is equal to the number leaving, that clearly cannot be the explanation for why people are leaving.

|6.6.07 @ 10:42PM|#

Jimmydageek says…" Let's see...tomatoes...yes...I'll start with that.

They can be imported from Mexico or elsewhere for much cheaper than Americans might be willing to do the job. All tomato farmers (lots in the state of Florida), kiss your business goodbye."

Here is a reality check for you jimmy. In the 60's when the Bracaro program was ending the California tomato growers predicted an end to their industry, at that time California produced 3 million tons of tomatoes. Did the industry die with the end of the program? No they were forced to mechanize. By so doing the California tomato growers now produce 12 million tons of tomatoes, and you might want to sit down for this jimmy, with far less people than the 1960's. By various innovations labor was CUT 97% , we now produce 4 times the amount of produce with far less people. We are the low cost producers, we export to Mexico all sorts of tomato products, we kick their ass in the market place. High labor costs spur innovation that can have far reaching effect in other areas, a beneficial effect you don't get if your answer to labor costs is to import cheap labor. The premise that we need low cost labor for certain industries is flawed because the concept does not allow for any innovative solutions to fix the problem, the solution to the cost of running an office in the 1960's was the computer, not importing hordes of typists from Mexico.

|6.7.07 @ 12:19AM|#

Not so. Lump statistics about a group don't tell the whole story. If the statistics that have been thrown out in this discussion at least had a bell curve, you could see that there is individual variation.
I never claimed that there was no individual variation. I didn't give the names, ages and favorite colors of every single immigrant, which of course means I am not giving the "full story", but nobody really wants to know the "full story". Aggregate measurements matter. I am not denying that variation exists, but so what? Acting on the assumption that traits we are concerned about have a gaussian distribution (and even criminality can be usefully modeled that way) how might my opinion change on immigration once I learn sigma given that I know mu? Suppose sigma is very small. That indicates that a very small portion are significantly better than average. Suppose on the contrary that it is large. That indicates that a very large portion are significantly worse than average. Does my opinion on the desirability of immigration change much? No. The latter would make me all the more in favor of a skill-based system to select the wheat and keep out the chaff, though I would be in favor of that anyway even if variance was 0 (which of course it isn't) to make more of our immigration come from China, India, Europe and even Africa (currently African immigrants are more likely to hold white-collar desk jobs than native-born white Americans) rather than Latin America. Your anecdotes, on the other hand, mean NOTHING to me, given that they represent a statistically insignificant portion of the whole and I do not know enough about you to consider you any kind of authority on the subject.

I agree with you on land use policies being a significant factor in housing prices. It has been my impression that these restrictions have long been prevalent in coastal California. If significant increases (and not at a sort of long-running rate) closely preceded the shift in California's demographics I might reduce the impact I ascribe to immigration. One factor that is very important in the high housing prices but I do not believe is responsible for the recent shift from being a net importer vs exporter of native born citizens is that being coastal limits to the degree (in a rotational rather than merely scalar sense) of available area of expansion. That is because those factors are constant.

It could be argued there is a racist element to this local "white flight" to better school districts, since the poorer performing schools in the area generally have a higher Hispanic enrollment.
That's not necessarily "racist". Hispanics are moving out as well since they presumably do not like poor schools (which, as Steve Levitt pointed out in Freakonomics, have little to do with the school itself and more to do with the patrons of the school). The declining quality of schools is certainly a negative externality of immigration, which a serious economist would take into account rather than dismissing such concerns as bigoted, as too many economists (who themselves might be rather dismissive of charges of racism when it comes to employment discrimination) seem to do.

The rich -- or, more accurately, the upper middle class -- don't move in as much as they move up.
That has long been true in California. What it doesn't explain is why a state that was for much of the 20th century a destination for Americans is now losing citizens of every age, income level and race. Immigration on the other hand has been nearing peak levels (and the children of previous waves of immigration coming of age) closely coinciding with this turn of events. How many people have been moving up? The rich are a smaller portion of the population than the poor and size of property scales much less than linearly with respect to income/wealth , so I don't think we're seeing people rise up from the middle class, taking their neighbors property to drive them out & population density down. What we are seeing is areas that were once predominately white or black becoming mostly hispanic. I should note that asians are also immigrating in significant numbers and also can exhibit extended rather than nuclear family structures, but since there are less of them it is less important to discuss them. While writing about this Yogi Berra's remark "It's so crowded nobody goes there anymore" keeps repeating in my head. Neither Yogi's story nor the theory offered seem to make much sense.

I don't know which of the coastal megalopolises you live in
I don't think I said anything about where I live. I could very well be an Alaskan or chatbot.

Given that the number of people arriving is equal to the number leaving, that clearly cannot be the explanation for why people are leaving
If I assumed that the supply of housing was both the only factor in interstate migration and perfectly inelastic and migration (both interstate and international) was the only demographic factor, it would fit perfectly, though of course that wouldn't be right. Extended families consist of multiple generations. Not all of them will be immigrants. When you take immigrants you also take their children, unless you have have a true guest-worker system where they don't have families here. Given how high their birth-rates are, it would be short-sighted to look only at those who actually immigrated rather than second, third and fourth generations. If I assumed that the immigrants were just like the old population of California, than their mere presence would not be able to account for people leaving. But that is precisely what I am NOT claiming! What I am saying is they have externalities associated with them that make living near them unpleasant (even for Hispanics, as this article points out well). As I mentioned before, the worst externality I believe has yet to really make itself felt: "on the question of more taxing and spending, Hispanic Republicans are slightly more liberal than white Democrats. Indeed, Hispanic Republicans are to the left of African-Americans!". Bush thinks its inevitable that hispanics will determine elections and seeks to curry their favor. Even if he succeeds, policies favored by hispanic Republicans frighten me. Of course, I don't think he'll succeed as numerous attempts by Republicans to do that have shown negligible effect. We'll instead get policies favored by hispanic Democrats! And as long as they qualify as a special population forever eligible for affirmative action, anti-discrimination lawsuits and reserved spots for government contracts, what reason do they have for seeing the state as their friend and the market as sufficient? I occasionally hear that minorities hassled by the police are natural libertarians who will rally to end the war on drugs, but the truth is the opposite. People with libertarian views tend to be well educated, well employed and unlikely to have much to worry about from the cops. The underclass resides in the opposite corner of the Nolan chart.

Mike Laursen|6.7.07 @ 1:39AM|#

TGGP, what statistics prove that you should be allowed to be in the United States?

Mike Laursen|6.7.07 @ 1:50AM|#

The underclass resides in the opposite corner of the Nolan chart.

You couldn't possibly have data to support that assertion. You can't tell me that someone has administered the Nolan test, gathering income statistics on the income levels of the test takers.

What you actually have are shaky conclusions drawn from long, error-prone deductions from the statistics you quote, but conclusions that fit your preconceived notions.

Statistical analysis, without using other methods to validate your conclusions, is shaky scientific method. You're not the genious you think you are.

|6.7.07 @ 2:44AM|#

TGGP,

Nothing you said refuted my point. Perhaps the problem is my first use of the word "rich" in intentional contrast to "poor", when I'm really talking about "upper middle class". Sorry about the confusion.

The increase in housing costs are due, as Mike Laursen noted as well, to the upper middle class, not the rich per se. That is the case in my coastal megalopolis. And, watching the effect firsthand, it seems to me to be utterly universal in a locale where the upper middle class is growing.

You, on the other hand, offer zero evidence that immigrants are driving out natives. You offer no refutation of the plain point that if immigrants are living more densely than natives and if exactly as many immigrants arrive as natives leave, that the immigrants could not be driving up housing costs. You instead blame the immigrants for making living next to them unpleasant.

What an argument.

Around here when polls are taken of the biggest issues faced by businesses to keep employees, the top two issues are housing cost and traffic congestion. And the top two reasons people leave are housing cost and traffic congestion. Living next to immigrants does not make the list at all.

Mike Laursen|6.7.07 @ 2:49AM|#

What I am saying is they have externalities associated with them that make living near them unpleasant (even for Hispanics, as this article points out well).

The article you link to says nothing about living near Hispanics being unpleasant. Furthermore, the article relies on anecdote about a particular Hispanic family members' decisions to move to Kentucky to tie together a bunch of broad statistics about birth rates, literacy, and employment.

I thought anecdote doesn't matter.

|6.7.07 @ 10:32PM|#

"Anyone newly hired (and, in time, anyone with a job) would have to pass a check of federal databases. It's a fine idea in theory, but [i]t... presumes a level of efficiency that conservatives do not usually expect of government."

I have worked as a tax preparer for a nationally known company for several years. If I enter an incorrect social security number for a taxpayer, the return is rejected, often within hours and never longer than one day. Why couldn't the same system be adapted to check the social security numbers of new hires?:

Don|6.8.07 @ 3:08PM|#

As Senator Mary McCaskill testified yesterday on the floor of the senate - the key to illegal immigration is enforcement of employer sanctions. Illegal immigration is about money. Money earned by illegal immigrants and money saved by employers of illegal immigrants. Midwest meatpackers used to pay $15 to $16 per hour, but now with all of the illegal immigrant labor, they pay $10 to $11 per hour.

Enforcement of existing employer sanctions was too low before and has become nonexistant under the Bush administration - not one of their DOJ priorities. We need stiffer penalties and a high level of enforcement.

|6.10.07 @ 11:20AM|#

The situation is not unmanageable, after all you can use the same thing that drives people here - self interest - to manage their presence. Undocumented come for jobs, not necessarily to settle. When border crossing was simple they used to go home regularily, and even now with more risk the stats say 50% return home after a year. So, guest worker arrangements with documented aliens are a match to the economic needs without the migration. And the other side of things is that being undocumented is hell, you are at risk of all sorts of problems, so you make migrant work documented and a lot of folks, probably most, will comply and now you have a much reduced security problem. If the migrant joins a documented program they have better security too. This actually raises their bargaining power and limits the effect of undercutting wages of US citizens.

Just like drugs, a lot of the bad effects of migrant work are due to criminalization. But unlike drugs, you can't really point to anything immoral or bad about being a migrant worker - so why keep it criminal?

Step back a moment, what is the goal here? Is the goal to keep migrant work a criminal activity and build up an internal bureaucracy capable of tracking every worker? Or is the goal to have borders where we can keep track of who crosses the border and maybe pick the risky ones out from the good? These are totally different goals, and seems to me that xenophobia is hijacking paranoia to achieve goal one by justifying it as goal two.

|6.10.07 @ 4:13PM|#

AmericanResistance wrote:

Chapman and the other open borders/amnesty advocates don't understand that to solve the immigration problem all you have to do is (1) militarize the border with Mexico and (2) make the fines and prison terms for hiring illegals so harsh, no one will do it. It will also cause all of these illegal aliens to leave the country. We just have to stand up and be tough.

Militarizing the borders didn't work for those of my ancestors who were here before all the Eurotrash started arriving.

For that matter, no "militarized border" has ever stopped the flow of people across it, only made it more difficult. The Soviets learned this lesson, as it was taught daily in Germany. They tried concrete, mines, dogs, razor wire, machine guns, cameras, aircraft, snipers, spotlights, night vision, chemical dust, informants, re-education, killing zones . . .and still they were unsuccessful.

|6.10.07 @ 4:24PM|#

John Bennett wrote:

Step back a moment, what is the goal here? Is the goal to keep migrant work a criminal activity and build up an internal bureaucracy capable of tracking every worker?

BINGO!!!! We have a winner!!!

Look at what they have been able to do by stirring people up over illegal aliens. The same people who, 25 years ago, were in arms over the very THOUGHT of a national ID are now DEMANDING it, to protect our country from these "dangerous aliens."

Our Elect Officials point to the way that illegals "come here for the welfare" (most don't), but NONE of them brings up the simple (and workable) idea of denying welfare to anyone who doesn't prove eligibility. That's what they would do if that were really the issue, but their goal is to run our lives, and they've found the place to swing the rubber hammer and get the conservatives' reflexes to work.

All you gotta do to move a mountain is find the weak spot and start digging.

|6.11.07 @ 1:51PM|#

As a former practicing immigration attorney, the solutions are blindingly obvious. First, we must reverse the ridiculous Ronald Regan policy banning nongovernmental organizations from discussing birth control, including abortion in third world countries. Second we need to seriously ramp the access to contraception in the third world. Lastly, and counterintuitively we need to seek policies which raise the wages and living standards in the Third World. A good place to start would be end crop subsidies and import restrictions and tariffs on foreign agricultural products.