Good News for Many Immigrants and Most U.S. Businesses

From NPR:

The chances that Congress will act on a comprehensive immigration bill this year have been dealt a possibly fatal blow in the Senate....

The measure was dubbed the "grand bargain" by its authors, who cobbled it together behind closed doors. It would have changed the way visas are issued from a system based on family ties to one based on merit. It also contained a guest worker provision, and new requirements for employers to verify the identities and legal status of their workers.

But critics from all sides assailed the measure as unworkable. Despite the optimism that it might yet be reconsidered, chances for the bill appear bleak.

More here.

As with virtually all immigration legislation, this was rotten stuff in that it would make the lives of people and businesses filled with bureaucracy and worse without faciliating anything positive. That said, it was probably politically about the best compromise politically available at the current moment.

The status quo--however awful it is--is probably better than the world that would have been created by this legislation. So, RIP.

Reason on immigration here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I agree with Nick that this bill would have been terrible for the US, but for totally different reasons. I would have liked to see the provisions sticking it to the companies for hiring illegals, but cest la vie.

  • ||

    Ken,

    Why are you against companies hiring people who are willing to work for the wages offered to them?

    I know of a company in my office complex that hires illegals, and those guys make like three times the minimum wage.

  • ||

    BTW, I post on here with a different handle, but because of the illegal immigrant thing, I don't want to get in trouble and would rather remain anonymous.

  • ||

    I don't like it when companies, or people (they are legal people) break the law, for one thing.
    I think the kind of immigration they encourage by doing this, that is pauper immigration (because they nearly always are looking for cheap labor) is terrible for the health of this nation (both literally in terms of public health, which peasants from 3rd world nations don't exactly excel in, and figuratively in that peasants bring a host of higher rates of social pathologies to this nation). I also think it is terrible for the illegals they hire: they get a workforce that can't complain because of their position, and companies love that.
    So there are some reasons. I wish we'd put the screws to them, big time.
    "BTW, I post on here with a different handle, but because of the illegal immigrant thing, I don't want to get in trouble and would rather remain anonymous."
    Totally cool and understandable. No explanation needed. The ideas here are all that matter.

  • ||

    When Carlyle called Parliament a "talking shop," he meant it as an insult. But I think it's one of Parliament's and Congress's best features. I love it when they talk something to death and ultimately leave us alone.

  • ||

    I'm glad because I think this is a non-issue and not really a problem. We have low unemployment and need workers. Immigrants need jobs.

    It's too bad that this frenzy of stupidity, border fences etc., has trickled down to the norther climes of Wisconsin. The Green Bay city council wants to enact an ordinance that will allow the city to take away the license of a business if they knowingly hire illegals.

    Great! Take away the livelihood of the owner and remove the jobs of everyone who works there, not just the illegals. Makes sense...if you're an idiot.

  • ||

    that is pauper immigration

    "Give us you tired, your poor, you huddled masses; yearning to be free."

    they get a workforce that can't complain because of their position

    Oh, they can complain plenty. Once they acquire the trade skills from a company, most of their competitors will try to draw them away with more money and more benefits.

    It's a true labor market, because the value of labor is dictated by said market, and they always make far more than minimum wage.

  • ||

    I'm not sure you addressed my listed concerns, but I'll address your comments.
    "It's a true labor market, because the value of labor is dictated by said market, and they always make far more than minimum wage." Shit, thats like saying that if I found some oompa loompas in my backyard willing to slave for candy then the market has decreed that candy is the going rate.
    "Once they acquire the trade skills from a company, most of their competitors will try to draw them away with more money and more benefits."
    One acquires a lot of skills picking grapes I guess...'Senor, you cannot bully me any longer, your competitors have recognized my ability to pluck the grape betwixt my thumb and forefinger with such skill, that I will be outta here is you dare bully me again.' Riiight.
    "Give us you tired, your poor, you huddled masses; yearning to be free."
    But please, don't give us your uneducated, superstition beleiveing (that's the Virgin in that wall paint), TB infected, corruption loving, cock-fight loving, gang related masses.

  • ||

    I am completely on board the Reason immigrant train. I like what the tart with the torch has to say (with silent lips)
    "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!"


    That's why I too am glad this bill in it's death throws.

  • ||

    "But please, don't give us your uneducated, superstition beleiveing (that's the Virgin in that wall paint), TB infected, corruption loving, cock-fight loving, gang related masses."

    MMMMMM! That's good jingoistic xenophobia.

  • Acolyte of Grotius||

    Non-US citizens vs. animals:
    Which is more deserving of freedom and why?

  • ||

    Matt, I hate jingoism more than most. Now let's get to the xenophobia part.
    Perhaps you can demonstrate that an overall concern over higher levels of disease, superstition, bad government ideology, and pathological cultural practices is xenophobic without refering to the point below; if so I would welcome it. But if not...
    Can you demonstrate that Mexican immigration, which dominates current immigration, does not have higher rates of:
    superstition
    TB (and other) infections
    corruption loving (well, I grant you here that I can only show the mother nation has high levels)
    support of practices like cock-fighting
    gang membership and other crime related variables

    ????
    I'm guessing you can't demonstrate that, can you? I've listed study after study on all those in recent threads and am frankly tired of always being the one to inject data into the innuendo debate. So I'm putting it on you. Justify your claims, buddy.

  • ||

    Immigrants do a hell-of-a-lot more than picking grapes. That's largely a stereotype.

    Now don't get me wrong, there are plenty of drawbacks to employing illegal immigrants, but much of what you listed could be solved if the immigrant in question was able to go to a hospital and get shots without the fear of being deported.

    As far as TB, we all get immunized here, so what are you worried about?

    And yes, even grape pickers live in communities of other migrant workers and they all talk. When one group finds an employer that doesn't treat them like crap, they bring in as many of their friends as they can.

    Just because they don't speak English doesn't mean that they don't talk (not saying you said that, but just saying).

    Shit, thats like saying that if I found some oompa loompas in my backyard willing to slave for candy then the market has decreed that candy is the going rate.

    It's nothing like that overly-fictional hypothetical situation. They are not held against their will; a major prerequisite for calling something "slavery."

    In my experience, workers are allowed to come and go whenever they want. Most even go home for a month each year to see their family, and we welcome them back at their previous pay rate when they return. How many companies do that for you or me?

    All this Tom Tancredo, anti-immigration stuff is just a straw man to hide the fact that our country is rotting from the inside.

  • Acolyte of Grotius||

    That question was directed to Ken.

  • ||

    "Non-US citizens vs. animals:
    Which is more deserving of freedom and why?"
    I don't want to go along with the threadjack, but this is an obvious reference to my defence of animal welfare in a recent thread.
    I think animals are worthy of moral consideration, but I don't think they get to eat my lunch, or that squirrels can sleep in my bed. I think immigrants deserve moral weight, but they cannot bring disease and cultural pathology into my neighborhood. Sorry.
    I think immigrants, illegal ones too, are certainly worthy of moral weight. Have you seen Dirty Pretty Things? It's a very moving portrait of the sh*t these poor humans go through.

  • ||

    Dirty Pretty Things is:

    A:About illegal immigrants in London, UK, which is a completely different country, and

    B:A fictional movie.

    Pwned!

  • ||

    "But please, don't give us your uneducated, superstition beleiveing (that's the Virgin in that wall paint), TB infected, corruption loving, cock-fight loving, gang related masses."

    Ken,

    By replacing about three words in your post it could be 1850, 1880, or 1920. What is different this time around?

    I mean at dinner parties you don't hear people say, "oh yeah my great grampa Enzo left a thriving buisness in Naples with a million Lira to come to New York to become a doctor."

    Or perhaps the USA would be better off with out the dirty I-Talians.

  • Dave W.||

    Immigration is one of those debates with a missing middle. Like abortion. Like gun regulation.

    As on those other issues, I find my own opinions falling between the extremes.

    In the grand scheme of things, I can see why HnR takes an open borders position, even though I don't fully agree. One thing the typical HnR analysis misses is that there are shades of degree between slavery and freedom, and that semi-slavery can be a bad thing for a nation, corrosive to its values, to put it the sappy way. But, tere is a lot of stupid, unrealistic xenophobia on the other side of the debate, so it is hard to begrudge HnR its extremism on this issue.

  • Acolyte of Grotius||

    Your did not answer the question about freedom.
    If these "peasants" have a clean bill of health, should they be allowed to stay and work for wages they believe are fair?

  • ||

    Dakota
    Look, I see your point, a lot of opposition to Italian, or let's say my ancestors, Irish and German, immigration was plain old xenophobic racism.
    But maybe some of it was warranted. I mean, the Irish brought some great things, but they also brought the Irish mob, of the Irish ethnic manipulation of politics in cities that has been a burden in the US for a long time.
    I'm NOT saying the actions of these immigrant was not understandable, it most certainly was. But to pretend like the arguments against immigration in the past were all lunatic xenophobia is incorrect. The Irish, Italian and German immigrants brought real social drags, as well as social benefits, to the US. If the fomer outweight the latter then it was a bad thing...We need to ask ourselves that about current immigration.

  • Robert||

    "it was probably politically about the best compromise politically available at the current moment. The status quo--however awful it is--is probably better than the world that would have been created by this legislation."

    That's really depressing analysis -- that things are very bad, but the best change we can practically get would make things worse -- but typical conservatism, which sees the world as in a bad state getting worse, and that the best we can do is slow down change, losing as slowly as possible. Why is it this way?

  • ||

    "If these "peasants" have a clean bill of health, should they be allowed to stay and work for wages they believe are fair?"
    That's a big if, only in terms of that they are not checked by definition. But, no, not if they bring more woes than benefits.

  • ||

    P.S. It is true that some illegals get suckered into bad, low paying jobs.

    However, it is also true that plenty of U.S. citizens get suckered into things like Amway and Herbalife-style pyramid schemes.

    In this respect, the onus is on the individual not to be a dumbass when seeking employment.

  • Acolyte of Grotius||

    Whose analysis?

  • ||

    "It's a true labor market, because the value of labor is dictated by said market, and they always make far more than minimum wage." Shit, thats like saying that if I found some oompa loompas in my backyard willing to slave for candy then the market has decreed that candy is the going rate.

    That's correct, actually.

  • ||

    "As with virtually all immigration legislation, this was rotten stuff in that it would make the lives of people and businesses filled with bureaucracy and worse without faciliating anything positive."

    While I agree with this assessment, there are plenty of people out there who see filling the lives of people and businesses "with bureaucracy and worse" as a net positive.

    ...see "sticking it to companies" comments above and below for details.

  • ||

    Thus endeth the Bush Administration.

    Well, I suppose I'd better start paying attention to the 2008 presidential candidates now.

  • ||

    I see a lot of pontificating and punditry from Reason writers regarding immigration, but I have yet to see any one of them offer the workable, comprehensive solution they delight in mocking the Congress for not being able to craft.

  • Dave W.||

    "It's a true labor market, because the value of labor is dictated by said market, and they always make far more than minimum wage." Shit, thats like saying that if I found some oompa loompas in my backyard willing to slave for candy then the market has decreed that candy is the going rate.

    That's correct, actually.


    I am not sure I would want to live in a society with a high Oompa Loompa population. It doesn't seem like it would be that gr8.

  • VM||

    tired poor masses
    all soon will kneel before Zod
    yes, that means you, "ken"

    dat shit ain't funny
    "Acolyte of Grotius"
    but the name fits hier.

    Mr. Steven Crane
    endo'd on his bicycle
    some taintal damage

  • Oompa Loompa||

    Oompa loompa dippity mug you
    A world of oompas is bad for Dave W

  • ||

    "It's a true labor market, because the value of labor is dictated by said market, and they always make far more than minimum wage." Shit, thats like saying that if I found some oompa loompas in my backyard willing to slave for candy then the market has decreed that candy is the going rate.

    That's correct, actually.


    So these "slaves" get no benefit, like, say...

    Feeding a large family back home where there is no viable option for work.

    Receiving the medical treatment that is unavailable back home.

    Having a safe, (comparatively) corruption-free place to live.

    And on and on...

    You guys seem to forget that immigrants choose to do this for themselves. Hell, not only do they choose it, but they brave death to do it. Are you saying you know what's better for them? Where does that fit into free minds and free markets?

  • Acolyte of Grotius||

    Ken,
    How do you define xenophobia?

  • ||

    Ooompa loompas are known for their superstitious beliefs. And their love of cock-fighting.

  • Dave W.||

    Are you saying you know what's better for them?

    I think most anti-unregulated-immigration people are pretty clear that they take their position based on what they think is good for the class of US citizens they care most about.

    Frankly, I think pro-unregulated-immigration people take their respective position based on what they think is good for the class of US citizens they care most about. They tend to be less forthright about this than the other side, though.

  • ||

    "So these "slaves" get no benefit, like, say...

    Feeding a large family back home where there is no viable option for work."
    And keeping some poor,unskilled African American from feeding his family here.

    "Receiving the medical treatment that is unavailable back home."
    All at my expense, wonderful!

    "Having a safe, (comparatively) corruption-free place to live."
    And contributing to further cortption by his very being here (he is illegal you know).

    But instead of just responding, let me ask some guy: do you like Mexico? Cause I think the more Mexicans who come here en masse, the more we will be like Mexico. To think otherwise is to be racist (ah, ha my open border knee jerk pals), since I guess you assume that their culture will wilt in the face of ours.

  • ||

    "Some Guy,

    P.S. It is true that some illegals get suckered into bad, low paying jobs."

    Again to add a little perspective. Pounding railroad spikes over the Sierras for much less then native workers were paid, wasn't such a sweet gig.

  • ||

    "Ken,
    How do you define xenophobia?"
    The IRRATIONAL dislike of foreign born.
    I don't think I have it. My wife works with several Indian born. They are from the Indian elite. I actually think they are a great addition to our nation, making it BETTER. I'm not against immigration per se, in fact, give me MORE Indian and Asian immigration, PLEASE!

  • ||

    Some Guy -- What I meant by my "that's correct" comment was that Ken's economic analysis of the oompa loompa situation was correct. If oompa loompas are available and willing to cut my lawn for a handful of Hershey Kisses, then (at least for a time) that's the going rate for lawn-cutting of whatever quality oompa loompas provide. Of course, unless there are lots and lots of oompa loompas (or they're really bad at lawn-cutting), the demand for them will cause the price for their services to go up. That's just a matter of basic price theory. Ken somehow seemed to think that his hypothetical was damaging.

  • ed||

    Oompa loompas?
    How did Rachael Ray get mixed up in all this?

  • Acolyte of Grotius||

    How do you define elitism?

  • ||

    Feeding a large family back home where there is no viable option for work."
    And keeping some poor,unskilled African American from feeding his family here.


    Nothing's keeping the poor unskilled guy from working (assuming they are able-bodied) at the same job, but why work when that check comes on the first of the month? (And this refers to all races and origins, it's not just blacks, there's plenty of rednecks on welfare too.)

    "Receiving the medical treatment that is unavailable back home."
    All at my expense, wonderful!


    That's a non sequitur. Whether or not we subsidize health care is not the same as discussing immigration.

    Pounding railroad spikes over the Sierras for much less then native workers were paid, wasn't such a sweet gig.

    True, but this only offers perspective if applicable. As I stated several times in this thread, these guys make far more than minimum wage. In fact, the unskilled guys start out a higher pay rate than any college job I've ever held (mainly Subway and Bars, etc.)

  • ||

    (As in Subway "restaurants")

  • ||

    There are 12 million oompa loompas in this nation, pushing the market towards candy wages.

    Ed-Rachael Ray is not mixed up in this. She is too involved in my fantasies. That lovely woman, no twiggy like most media darlings, and oh, her pasta dish!

  • shecky||

    And keeping some poor,unskilled African American from feeding his family here.


    Any American, of any color, who cannot compete with an illegal immigrant that may not speak English, may not have any education, or have no formal skills, really needs to get off his/her ass and get some marketable skills.

  • ||

    Now we get to it. I'm against immigration, so I have no compassion, but HERE is compassion:
    "Any American, of any color, who cannot compete with an illegal immigrant that may not speak English, may not have any education, or have no formal skills, really needs to get off his/her ass and get some marketable skills."
    Yeah, screw those Americans who cannot compete, let them starve and die! I beleive in human rights!

  • Acolyte of Grotius||

    Ken,
    Do the American worker need protection?

  • ||

    Some Guy,

    I was just pointing out that every immigration wave we have had historically in the US people have taken jobs at less pay then the natives were willing to take. Often time in jobs that are more dangerous and less desirable.

    But alas there are no teaming hoards of filthy peasent class Chinese left in California....

  • ||

    "Do the American worker need protection?"
    Lord yes, they are not on a equal bargaining position, usually, with employers. To pretend otherwise makes freedom of contract, something I believe in, a mockery.

  • ||

    ...since I guess you assume that their culture will wilt in the face of ours....[Ken]

    Yeah it would be terrible if the Anglo culture of La Ciudad de Nuestra Senora la Reina de Los Angeles de Porciuncula, was taken over by Mexicans.

  • ||

    Yeah, screw those Americans who cannot compete, let them starve and die! I believe in human rights!

    So let me get this strait...

    We should keep able-bodied workers, anxious for a job, out so that maybe one day people here will get off their ass and work.

    Sounds like a splendid idea!

  • ||

    Ken:

    Sorry, new to reading comments here I haven't been following your postings. What threads? What studies? I guess I can look at them, once I know what they are, and see if they are legitimate and sound.

    However, I would have to say your categories are a little hard to work with.

    More superstitious? How do you define that, or the study after study that you have read? Personally I define religion as a superstition and we have pretty high polliing rates on believing in that. Although Mexico which is a predominately catholic country may be even higher than us. I can conceed you that but I don't see how it matters.

    Higher rates of TB and other infections. Again, pretty broad. I will give you that one also but given the health care system in this country I think we can handle it. Handling it would be enhanced by ensuring that the illegals payed income taxes to help support federal and local systems. Further there are studies that indicate that pristene environments, from a bacteria stand-point, may not be all they are cracked up to be. The sterilization of our homes may lead our children to be more susceptible to allergies asthma and disease later as they do not build up strong immune systems early. Just a thought. Still I would say even if you have data to back up the higher infections rates it is really inconsiquential.

    "corruption loving (well, I grant you here that I can only show the mother nation has high levels)"
    While it is backed up by studies that Mexico does have a high level of corruption I doubt people love it, but I believe you are willing to agree with me on that.

    "support of practices like cock-fighting"
    Do you have a problem with cock-fighting or practices like cock-fighting? I believe cock-fighting is still legal in one state in the union and has only been outlawed in other states in the last decade or two. While there may be a higher percentage of people in Mexico that don't have a problem with cock-fighting I doubt that it is a threat to our way of life.

    "gang membership and other crime related variables"
    Again you start out strong but then throw in an incredibly vague catchall. Gang membership may indeed be higher amongst immigrants, illegal or otherwise. History shows that as a predictable pattern in the US. Given the way not so recent immigrants feel about recent immigrants...the new ones tend to band together and the less recent immigrants tend to view gatherings of people different from themselves as "gangs." I think it is a problem, but one that will work itself out over time. It isn't as if crime would disappear if there were no illegal immigrants.

    So provide your studies if you want. My point is your points are broad, not well defined and not very important. They are just fear mongering in an attempt to justify a xenophobic position.

  • shecky||

    Yeah, screw those Americans who cannot compete, let them starve and die! I beleive in human rights!

    Yes. Remember, the bar is really quite low. If you can't compete with someone who's uneducated, unskilled, and speaks no English, you are unemployable. Period.

  • VM||

    The goalposts have moved so much in this debate, I say call a time out:

    horse sausage and foie gras break.

    how about this: have the nativists actually make an argument beyond the "feed a cold, starve a fever" level then respond. otherwise:

    les trolls ne croutez pas

  • ||

    I thank you Matt, your comments are thoughtful.
    Mexican immigrants have higher levels of Catholic beliefs that IMO are superstitious. I don't think these are good for our nation.
    The higher levels of TB and other disease can be found with a quick google searh.
    Corruption is measured, and higher in Mexico. Perhaps those fleeing Mexico flee the corruption, but I have yet to see that.
    Cock fighting, a la SIV, is a barbaric pratcice, one beloved by a higher rate of immigrants.

    Immigrant, and illegal immigrant crime, occur at high rates. It is a social drag.

  • ||

    Giada de Laurentiis>Rachael Ray

  • thoreau||

    Since this is an immigration thread, I'll just say that I agree with MikeP, if he shows up.

  • ||

    thoreau, this post is three bloody hours old! I've been sitting on the bottom like an addled schoolboy.

  • ||

    I've listed study after study on all those in recent threads and am frankly tired of always being the one to inject data into the innuendo debate.

    Yes, you provide an excellent example of the new tendency from the anti-immigration crowd to spout all sorts of statistical "proof" that Hispanics make bad immigrants.

    You do need to understand your audience though. Most here are not socialist or, for that matter, collectivists of any stripe. Macro statistics do not convince nearly as much as micro tendencies as evidenced by actual behavior. Furthermore, the presumed magic word "externality" doesn't fly when the internalities are so obviously overwhelming.

    Most importantly, however, why should I or anyone care if some average metric is dragged down due to immigration? As long as that metric has improved for the immigrant population and that metric has improved for the aggregate native population, then the country is better off. Open immigration passes that test for most all of these metrics.

  • Acolyte of Grotius||

    VM,
    Would you please pass the horse sausage and foie gras?

  • ||

    ah, an HFRO referance - maybe we should require all immigrants to enter the country in Soviet nuclear submarines

  • Chucklehead||

    Giada de Laurentiis + Nigella Lawson > Rachael Ray^2

  • ||

    There are 12 million oompa loompas in this nation, pushing the market towards candy wages.

    There is not "a market" for wages/labor. There are many markets, in accordance with many different types of labor for which there is a need. As many others have pointed out (e.g., hier), having people willing to provide a service at a lower price than was hitherto the going rate is no different from a great labor-saving invention. It's beneficial. It frees up resources for other types work.

  • Cosmo Kramer||

    Giada de Laurentiis + Nigella Lawson > Rachael Ray^2

    Yit-dit-dit -- catfight!

  • ||

    Australia uses a point system, and it seems to work pretty well for them. Of course, as the Australians pointed out when Congress announced this bill, the American version had no direct provision for companies who wanted to bypass the system and hire particular workers quickly, and deputizing private employers? That's either totalitarian or anarchist, and I'm not sure which.

    It seems that one can debate the merits of low-skilled workers from South America ad nauseum, but what's really ridiculous is the gauntlet through which we make skilled workers run. Not to anecdotalize too much, but I have a feeling that the experience of a Chinese friend of mine is by no means unusual. She has a Ph.D. in economics from UC-Santa Cruz and several actuarial exams, and speaks fluent English and Japanese, and an insurance firm wanted to sponsor her for an H1-B because there generally aren't enough American actuaries to fill the open slots and competition for the best candidates is fierce. Great, right? But the guv'mint, in its infinite wisdom, decided to set the quotas very low this year. There was a mad rush to start the process on the day the applications became available, and my friend didn't get in on the first round. Now her status is uncertain. At best, she's at the whim of her company, which can cut off her visa at any time until she gets permanent residency. At worst, she's heading back to Zhejiang Province.

  • Chucklehead||

    ... catfight!

    I imagine it as a pillow fight, actually.

  • ||

    To support Ken, I would make the distinction about legal immigration and what we have had happen - illegal immigration. The fact remains that many, many people from countries other than Mexico want entry and are being denied when they apply for a green card.
    I also think the issue of how many immigrants to allow has to be addressed honestly - is it 5, 10, 25, or 50 million a year? And if so, what criteria? And what country? I think its irrational to prevent doctors from entering, but take all the day labors Mexico can provide.

  • shecky||

    I think its irrational to prevent doctors from entering, but take all the day labors Mexico can provide.

    I think it's irrational to refuse people the economy wants to employ, be they doctors or day laborers.

  • ||

    maybe we should require all immigrants to enter the country in Soviet nuclear submarines

    What are they going to do? Sail into New York, pop the hatch, and say, "Here I am"?

  • Page 69 of the Leather Bound V||

    ...a sweaty pillow fight?

  • medplus||

    i thought it was feed a fever, starve a cold?

  • ||

    "Macro statistics do not convince nearly as much as micro tendencies as evidenced by actual behavior."
    I hate to break this too you, but MACRO stats are just summaries of MICRO tendencies, unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying. More INDIVIDUAL immigrantst either have TB or diseases, or are involved in criminal activity, or have undeducated standpoints, and when you ADD IT ALL UP it is a MACRO stat. Sorry.

  • ||

    Ken: "But please, don't give us your uneducated, superstition beleiveing (that's the Virgin in that wall paint), TB infected, corruption loving, cock-fight loving, gang related masses."


    H&R: Xenophobic Racist!

    Ken: I'm no racist, some of my best friends are uneducated, superstition beleiving , TB infected, corruption loving, cock-fight loving, gang members.

  • ||

    I just can't abide line-jumping.

    I won't even stand for it at the movie house, much less when it comes to the line for entry into the US of A.

    And then there's the FACT that many of the invaders from the south seek to take back the land that the USA purchased or conquered over a hundred years ago ( and don't give me any "theft" BS - all land is theft at the bottom).

  • ||

    Ken,

    The main problem with your stance is that it is based on shaky (at best) statistics. Do yourself a favor (as an exercise) and try and find some studies that show illegal immigrants are less involved in crime. Then compare the validity of the studies you find to the ones you are using to support your position.

    Report back with your results and analysis.

  • And then I walk in||

    ... sweaty pillow fight, oh yes...

  • ||

    And then there's the FACT that many of the invaders from the south seek to take back the land that the USA purchased or conquered over a hundred years ago

    You mean by, say, renting apartments?

  • ||

    I hate to break this too you, but MACRO stats are just summaries of MICRO tendencies

    Indeed. But in producing the summary, often essential truths are lost.

    In particular, telling me that Hispanic immigrants have higher rates of Catholicism or TB or undereducation than the general US population really doesn't tell me that their rates of all three are lower in this country than they would be in their home country. It also doesn't tell me that, except for TB, their immigration does not increase those rates in the native population, and the TB would be handled at the border if immigration was legal.

    See what I mean? Most stats "proving" group X is worse in some way than the native population simply don't tell you whether immigration from group X is a good thing or a bad thing. All information that would answer that question has been lost in the making of the statistics.

  • ||

    It would have to be New York, because the Labrador cost is just too cold, half of them would freeze.

  • ||

    Ken, re: your comments: "Look, I see your point, a lot of opposition to Italian, or let's say my ancestors, Irish and German, immigration was plain old xenophobic racism.
    But maybe some of it was warranted. I mean, the Irish brought some great things, but they also brought the Irish mob, of the Irish ethnic manipulation of politics in cities that has been a burden in the US for a long time.
    I'm NOT saying the actions of these immigrant was not understandable, it most certainly was. But to pretend like the arguments against immigration in the past were all lunatic xenophobia is incorrect. The Irish, Italian and German immigrants brought real social drags, as well as social benefits, to the US. If the fomer outweight the latter then it was a bad thing...We need to ask ourselves that about current immigration."

    As someone whose ancestors were Irish and German (and a lot of other nationalities as well), would you have me not exist because some Irish and German immigrants who were not my ancestors caused problems? Would you be OK with my Irish ancestors dying in the potato famine, or my German ancestors dying in Hitler's lovely Third Reich?

    You get enough people immigrating, you're gonna get some troublemakers. You get a large enough sample of people whose ancestors came here many generations ago, you're gonna get some troublemakers. So, do we condemn people en masse for the actions of a few, or do we evaluate each person on their own behavior, and kick out just those immigrants who don't show a willingness to work hard and obey the law?

  • ||

    I won't even stand for it at the movie house, much less when it comes to the line for entry into the US of A.

    If the movie house near you only holds 5,000 people, but 500,000 want to see a movie, I recommend you build a bigger movie house.

  • ||

    Do you think they will let me live in Montana?

  • ||

    I don't know, do you want a pick up truck, maybe even a recreational vehicle?
    and how do you like rabbits and plump American women?

  • ||

    I will drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?

  • ||

    JimBob says: "I see a lot of pontificating and punditry from Reason writers regarding immigration, but I have yet to see any one of them offer the workable, comprehensive solution they delight in mocking the Congress for not being able to craft."

    Ummm, the libertarian "workable, comprehensive solution": letting in anyone with job skills and without a violent criminal record, and letting them stay so long as they keep their jobs and stay out of trouble with the law -- that's been articulated over and over again at Reason. Coming up with anything remotely libertarian that a profoundly unlibertarian Congress would vote for -- that's impossible. Any compromise Congress would come up with would have to reflect the sort of people serving, which is why our schizophrenic freedom-denying current policy is likely to remain in place.

  • highnumber||

    I don't know, do you want a pick up truck, maybe even a recreational vehicle?
    and how do you like rabbits and plump American women?


    No.
    Maybe.
    With spaetzle.
    Without spaetzle.

  • Immigrant||

    I don't know, do you want a pick up truck, maybe even a recreational vehicle?
    and how do you like rabbits and plump American women?


    Please to show me the plump American womens hokay?

  • ||

    You can, if you aviod gun wielding cooks/spies

  • ||

    "but 500,000 want to see a movie, I recommend you build a bigger movie house."

    I object to line-jumping - the size of the line or accomodation aren't relevant.

    Even if there were romm to accomodate 100 times as many people, I still object to someone cutting into line in front of others who have waited (and observed the law, in the case of immigration).

    They just don't want to wait in line - so they cheat (and break the law, in the case of immigration).

  • ||

    They just don't want to wait in line - so they cheat (and break the law, in the case of immigration).

    You didn't get the point.

    There is no line.

    When there are 5,000 general purpose immigration visas handed out per year for the entire world, yet apparently demand for at least 500,000 more immigrants per year than there are visas, it makes no sense to talk about a "line".

    A "line" implies someone standing in it will one day get service. A quota that is so wildly low that the average person standing in it will never get service does not produce a "line": It produces a "wall".

  • ||

    "You mean by, say, renting apartments?"

    No, I mean by marching with Mexican flags chanting that they want the gringos to eat $hit and die.

    The campaign to accomplish the enlargement of Mexico at America's expense is called Reconquista, which is Spanish for Reconquest.

    For several decades, the border between America and Mexico has resembled a sieve; and for political reasons, the governments of both nations have refused to secure it. Mexican politicians encourage illegal immigration by their citizens into America for three main reasons. First, illegal immigrants send home money which in turn helps Mexico's economy. Second, Mexican politicians see illegal immigration to America as a way to reduce crime and poverty in Mexico. Third, most Mexican politicians hate America and back Reconquista.

    And before you call ME a racist, just remember that this isn't MY slogan:

    Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada

  • ||

    They just don't want to wait in line - so they cheat (and break the law, in the case of immigration).

    What if the line only exists because somebody with a power complex insists that there be a line? For example, what if the local librarian decided to allow only three people into the library at one time, and made everyone else line up outside the door waiting for a chance to get in? Would you blame line-jumpers or would you blame the librarian for making a stupid rule that serves no purpose?

    And what if there's a lightning storm on the horizon? Would you blame line-jumpers then?

  • KenK\'s superego||

    You forgot the part about staying off our lawn.

  • ||

    "You mean by, say, renting apartments?"

    No, I mean by marching with Mexican flags chanting that they want the gringos to eat $hit and die.

    The campaign to accomplish the enlargement of Mexico at America's expense is called Reconquista, which is Spanish for Reconquest.


    And you actually think that this movement has a snowball's chance of succeeding?

  • ||

    The further north they can get the snowballs...

  • ||

    KenK: "They just don't want to wait in line - so they cheat (and break the law, in the case of immigration)."

    My ancestor who stowed away in a cattle barge also didn't want to wait in line -- because he would have starved to death.

    And, if your survival depends on getting in a building somewhere, and the line to enter stretches for miles from the entrance and is moving REAAALY slow, and they're carting off corpses of people who've died waiting to get to the front of that line, and there's plenty of room for everyone inside the building, and the people inside the building actually need you to do vital work that isn't getting done due to a lack of laborers -- would you maybe look for a different entrance, and screw the heartless bureaucrats at the head of the line letting just a trickle of people in?

  • ||

    "A quota that is so wildly low that the average person standing in it will never get service"

    So, I can't see myself EVER getting Packer football season tickets, since there are tens of thousnads of people in line and only a few become available every year. You suggest I just steal tickets from somebody who has them?

    Or do you think building a stadium with 500,000 seats is the right answer? In taht case who gets the seats that actually have a view?

  • ||

    "and there's plenty of room for everyone inside the building"

    But there's not.

  • Acolyte of Grotius||

    KenK,
    What informs your view of economics?

  • ||

    "My ancestor who stowed away in a cattle barge also didn't want to wait in line -- because he would have starved to death."

    Was it illegal to enter the USA that way in those days, or was he just stealing transportation?

  • ||

    "And you actually think that this movement has a snowball's chance of succeeding?"

    In a word, yes.


    Most Mexicans living in America illegally -- and in some cases, even legally -- consider themselves Mexicans, not Americans. In fact, in some city neighborhoods in the border regions, one does not see American flags flying but Mexican flags.

    In recent years, a number of individuals elected to political office in such American cities have been Mexicans who have attained American citizenship while retaining their Mexican citizenship. While such dual citizenship is encouraged by the Mexican government, it is not consistent with the oath of office in my nation. But it is allowed nevertheless. Thus we in essence have foreign nationals occupying government offices in the United States of America. Such individuals are unabashedly pro-Reconquista and anti-American. Their loyalty is for another nation, and their goal is to annex their area of representation to that foreign nation.

    The shifting population demographics of the American Southwest are in favor of the neo-conquistadors. Not only are hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants pouring across the border from Mexico into the United States yearly, but the same people are having far more children than the average American couple.

  • ||

    "and there's plenty of room for everyone inside the building"

    But there's not.


    There may not be room for everyone, but there's certainly room for the millions of illegals who are already here (QED), plus a lot more than we currently let in.

  • VM||

    but the same people are having far more children than the average American couple.

    ooooh *click* KenK is merely upset that he's not gettin' any.

    Well, I recommend the book URKOBOLD Gets Down and BATES. It may help you a bit. It's $69 on Amazoom

  • ||

    KenK,

    First of all, an illegal immigrant in no way displaces someone standing in the legal line.

    Should the Packers build a stadium that holds 500,000 seats? If it makes economic sense, then they should. Who gets the seats with a view? Whoever pays the market rate for seats with a view.

    Do you see the difference between the private voluntary mutually beneficial association of a football team and its patrons versus the thwarting of the private voluntary mutually beneficial association of an employer and employee that restricted immigration represents?

    If the stadium had 5,000,000 seats, all with something of a view, but the state of Wisconsin said only 60,000 seats could be sold, that is a better analogy to immigration law.

  • ||

    If the movie house near you only holds 5,000 people, but 500,000 want to see a movie, I recommend you build a bigger movie house.

    I, like thoreau, will continue to let Miep speak for me in this forum.

    Though, honestly, I can't see why he bothers.

    What's the point of arguing with someone who doesn't know the difference between the Green Bay Packers and the United States of America.

  • ||

    What's the point of arguing

    I keep hoping something good will emerge.

  • ||

    I bother because, to some degree, it's fun.

    But perhaps it is mostly because I, too, used to doubt that immigration was good for the nation. I believed that migration should be free for individual rights reasons alone. But the appreciation of how immigration is actually good for a country is not really intuitive. That mismatch between the moral and the pragmatic guided a good bit of my improving my understanding of economics. Now the appreciation of the benefits of immigration is intuitive to me.

    And, finally, there is always some new argument the anti-immigrant forces come up with that I can test my understanding against. I don't know where it started, but this latest rash of statistics-based assertions is all over. I heard David Frum spouting them on a Marketplace commentary. I also heard in moving around the AM dial yesterday a nativist talk radio host say, "I have a bunch of new statistics on Hispanic immigrants you have got to hear."

    The methods of the anti-immigration folk keep changing. The underlying reasons, however, remain the same: protectionism, nationalism, nativism.

  • ||

    "and there's plenty of room for everyone inside the building

    But there's not."

    Take a plane flight over the Southwest. Drive through Phoenix's outskirts and watch all the houses going up on the edge of mile after mile of empty land. It's not wall-to-wall skyscrapers. Most of the country looks nothing like Hong Kong. You could fit a billion people in this country and still have empty land. The limitations on growth are water; food; the pace of assimilation into our culture; and, most of all, our meddling government that won't let us freely associate, hire anyone we want, and live our lives as we please so long as we don't harm others.

  • ||

    In recent years, a number of individuals elected to political office in such American cities have been Mexicans who have attained American citizenship while retaining their Mexican citizenship. While such dual citizenship is encouraged by the Mexican government, it is not consistent with the oath of office in my nation. But it is allowed nevertheless. Thus we in essence have foreign nationals occupying government offices in the United States of America. Such individuals are unabashedly pro-Reconquista and anti-American. Their loyalty is for another nation, and their goal is to annex their area of representation to that foreign nation.

    KenK -- Please identify these individuals and the offices they hold, and point me to their pro-Reconquista statements. They probably pose as much of a threat to the USA as a Lieberman presidency would pose to Christendom.

  • ||

    "telling me that Hispanic immigrants have higher rates of Catholicism or TB or undereducation than the general US population really doesn't tell me that their rates of all three are lower in this country than they would be in their home country."
    Uhh, yeah, MikeP. My point is that I would like LOWER amounts of superstitious Catholicism, TB, and undereducation (and don't forget gangs and crime) in this nation, and if we have immigrants with HIGHER THAN THE US AVERAGE (do you dispute that, please do, refutation is a click away) then we GET MORE OF IT THAN WE WOULD IF IT WERE PROHIBITED. See? This is the country you and I live in, so I'm worried about the rates, er, HERE.
    "Do yourself a favor (as an exercise) and try and find some studies that show illegal immigrants are less involved in crime."
    Neu Mejican, a thoughtful comment as I have come to expect from you. I have seen articles that mention that SECOND generation immigrants have higher crime rates than FIRST. And that is a point in favor of the immigration crowd. But my point is that if the first generation crime rate is higher than the average US rate then we have a socialdrag, period.
    I'm not "KenK" but I will say this, only a certain amount of folks can fit into Lambieu field and still have a pleasant football experience. Just because some folks REALLY want to see the game and DON"T MIND sittin on each others laps doesn't mean they get to ruin us season ticket holders experience.

  • ||

    "You get enough people immigrating, you're gonna get some troublemakers. You get a large enough sample of people whose ancestors came here many generations ago, you're gonna get some troublemakers. So, do we condemn people en masse for the actions of a few, or do we evaluate each person on their own behavior, and kick out just those immigrants who don't show a willingness to work hard and obey the law?"
    Jh, I see your point, but it contains some massive ignorance (I'm guessing to allow you to still hold true to "libertarian convictions" as defined by the requisite think tank). Do you want an immigration system that lets everyone in and THEN evaluates who "shows a willingness to work hard and obey the law" and then kicks out those who dont? Jesus, we only have one now that ostensibly kicks out the illegals and it MISSED 12 million. So how is that going to work? Better to recognize that current immigration has high levels of social pathologies and exclude them all.

  • ||

    This is the country you and I live in, so I'm worried about the rates, er, HERE.

    Why? Why are you so phenomenally invested in the value of some metric over the entire 300 million population of the United States? Who are you trying to impress? Luxembourg?

    Accepting for the moment your perception that Catholicism is something bad... The rates of Catholicism among Hispanics presumably decrease when they immigrate. The rates of Catholicism among natives presumably decrease when they see how superstitious this new population of Catholics is. Both cohorts see their rates decrease. Why the hell care if the rate in the nation as a whole has increased?

  • ||

    Just because some folks REALLY want to see the game and DON"T MIND sittin on each others laps doesn't mean they get to ruin us season ticket holders experience.

    This is an argument that I can understand. You don't want more immigrants (or more immigrants of a certain class or culture) because they would change -- and in your view "ruin" -- your experience. Fine, that's a logical argument. I don't share your view, but it is logical. When you try to dress it up with economic and political and medical trappings, however, it becomes flawed and takes on at least the appearance of dishonesty or self-delusion about your motives.

  • ||

    we only have one now that ostensibly kicks out the illegals and it MISSED 12 million. So how is that going to work?

    There are two reasons that the illegals get "missed".

    One is that they are a necessary ingredient in the US economy, so many people take great efforts to try to keep them here.

    The second is, as you note, the sheer volume of the problem.

    Better to recognize that current immigration has high levels of social pathologies and exclude them all.

    Better to recognize the individually pathological and get rid of them. If immigration is free and the pathological immigrants work commodity labor, it is in absolutely no one's interest to protect the pathological immigrant. He can be replaced.

    Today, in contrast, it is in lots of people's interests to protect the twelve million illegal immigrants against attempts to deport them for no individual cause whatsoever.

  • ||

    Let me just state one thing clearly about Packers tickets. While it is true that the waiting list for season tickets is extremely long...anyone can attend virtually any Packers home game. They just have to pay the price that ticket sellers, in the area reserved for ticket sellers, are selling tickets at.

    Seems analogous to a temporary worker program to me. Could it be that a small market NFL team named after the meat packing industry could tell us something about the free market?

    Not that that has anything to do with immigration.

  • ||

    Let's just mirror how Mexico treats it's southern border - nobody can complain about that, can they?

    ps. I've done my part for Social Security - sired five taxpayers.

    pps. The wife's fixed now but I get all an old fart like me can handle. Sure, I'd trade places with Hef, but that ain't gonna happen.

  • ||

    Thanks jp, I too think, and have said that this is the heart of the argument. I don't like Mexico, I like the way things are, and I don't want a law to pass to change my experience. In fact, those who really, really like Mexico can go there (snap, they probably have tougher immigration laws than we do).
    I do think that when I "dress it up with economic and political and medical trappings" I'm NOT being dishonest, because I do actually think high levels of corruption, ignorant superstition, crime and disease will ruin my experience too, and it can be demonstably shown that current immigration has levels of all the above HIGHER than the US average (which means of course that they ADD to those things overall).
    Disease: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5511a3.htm
    Crime: http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
    Education and costs: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
    Superstitious religious beliefs of Latino immigrants: http://www.facsnet.org/issues/faith/espinosa.php

  • ||

    While I'm running the smackdown I might as well be complete:
    Corruption: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html

  • ||

    So, Ken, based on your statistical arguments, do you think the rest of the states are better off or worse off because of the open borders they have with Mississippi and Puerto Rico?

  • Heh heh...||

    Worser!

  • ||

    I do actually think high levels of corruption, ignorant superstition, crime and disease will ruin my experience too

    I feel the same way, but with emphasis on the word "high." I am not convinced that the illegal immigration we have now has substantially increased the levels of those things, and I don't think that would change if we granted amnesty to our current illegals and made it easier for many more to come in legally. At the same time, I am convinced that immigration, including immigration of poor Mexicans, is beneficial to the US as a whole.

  • VM||

    hier is a press release where URKOBOLD's guest worker program has been presented as a resounding success.

    One could easily imagine extrapolating these results to the US...

  • ||

    "I am convinced that immigration, including immigration of poor Mexicans, is beneficial to the US as a whole."

    Yeah, screw all the out-of-work roofers, drywallers, tilemen, etc.

    And if you can't get into an emergency room when you have a real trauma, bleeding, life-threatening type emergency - well that's just too bad.

  • ||

    Anybody talk to the Germans about how well their guest worker program is working?

  • Wikinger Elch||

    In Ordnung, danke. Nun leck mich am Arsch und schlei' di iba di Heisr.

  • ||

    Yeah, screw all the out-of-work roofers, drywallers, tilemen, etc.

    Won't the five little taxpayers you've produced increase the population and thus grow up to sharpen competition for precious roofing, drywalling, and tiling jobs?

    And if you can't get into an emergency room when you have a real trauma, bleeding, life-threatening type emergency - well that's just too bad.

    If I have a "real trauma," then I have no doubt that I will get into an emergency room. If OTOH I go to an emergency room because I neglected to see a doctor about my infected toenail, then I deserve to wait for hours.

    BTW, speaking of waiting, I'm still waiting for the names of US office-holders who are Reconquistadors.

  • ||

    Ken:

    A sampling from your stats...from http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
    From the Lies, damn lies and statistics file. "• 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. "

    How many total homocide warrants were issued in LA? The article doesn't say. It would stand to reason that a high percentage of them would be outstanding for illegal aliens as they have probably fled the country. Same goes for the fugitive felony warrants. The author is only giving the slice of the stats that favor a crisis in immigration argument. How about the opening sentence, "Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens." Presumably the rest are citizens. The stats in this article do not back your notion that crime rates are higher among illegals. The article does call out some data that two LA gangs are 60 percent illegals. It would be nice to know how the study arrived at those numbers. That said, that is only two gangs. What about the total gang population in LA?

    As far as the Catholic thing...I don't really care if Mexicans are 70 percent Catholic or if much of the hispanic population in the US is switching to Protestanism. As long as church and state are separate it does not matter. You can be superstitious all you want as long as you keep it out of government. How about this "About 93 percent of all Latin-Americans, coming from 22 countries, self-identify as Christian." (http://www.facsnet.org/issues/faith/espinosa.php)I think in the US we are in the mid 80s. You think 8 percentage points or less makes a difference in your overall experience as a citizen?

    All I have time for now.

  • ||

    You'll find no arguments from me defending the right of folks from Mississippi to immigrate to the US :). It's a backwater.

  • highnumber||

    Anybody talk to the Germans about how well their guest worker program is working?

    First let's talk to them about this thing "ß."

    Why don't they just use "ss"?

    What?

    Oh, right.

  • Der Republikaner||

    hier showz dat vee agree vit zee KenK. Ja Ja.

    Deshalb lautet die wichtigste Forderung der Partei DIE REPUBLIKANER:
    Bewahrung der deutschen Heimat, keine multikulturelle Gesellschaft, kein Vielvölkerstaat!


    Glad to see that there are some people on your side, there, d00d.

    HIGHNUMBER:

    DO NOT QUESTION THE POWER OF THE "SCHARFEN S"!

  • ||

    "Jh, I see your point, but it contains some massive ignorance (I'm guessing to allow you to still hold true to "libertarian convictions" as defined by the requisite think tank). Do you want an immigration system that lets everyone in and THEN evaluates who "shows a willingness to work hard and obey the law" and then kicks out those who dont? Jesus, we only have one now that ostensibly kicks out the illegals and it MISSED 12 million. So how is that going to work? Better to recognize that current immigration has high levels of social pathologies and exclude them all."

    Ken, the one second sound bite answer: YES.

    The longer answer: I used to think more or less like you. I still am greatly concerned about the possibility that a lot more immigrants would result in an even more statist government. I lived in a state, Hawaii, that has a very unionized, high-tax, big-spending statist government, propped up by recent immigrants. But, I also can't countenance telling employers they can't hire anyone they want. I enjoy the low prices and innovative economy made possible by these immigrants. And the reason we have 12 million or so illegal immigrants in our country is because the marketplace demands their labor, and the compromise that Congress has settled on is sorta an "don't ask, don't tell", let 'em in while fulminating about the consequences of the fairly porous border that relieves the demand for workers.

    So, while I'm uneasy about opening the borders, I'm even uneasier about the current policy or any other possibility that I've heard as a solution.

    And if such a carefully considered answer is what you still characterize as "massive ignorance", I'm curious as to what I'd have to do to get all the way to being merely sorta ignorant. Seems more like a cordial difference of opinion than ignorance to me.

  • highnumber||

    Grant me one indulgence: I am going to make Ken & KenK into one commenter. In fact, if you can think of some way to combine your names into one, that would be cool. I throw it out to the crowd for suggestions. Ken+KenK, any ideas, anyone?
    I'm trying to simplify my life.

    VM,
    You ever eat Blue Diamond Smokehouse Almonds?
    Good, good stuff. If you see any of the jalapeño flavored, pick some up for me, would you?
    Almonds are really good for you.

  • ||

    high -- I like your striving for simplification. But I think there's a non-negligible difference between Ken and KenK that should be respected. Ken seems to have a brain. KenK, not so much.

  • VM||

    good stuff High#! Good stuff.

    Have you ever been to Feast?

    Hier's what Metromix has to say:

    Feast's multicultural menu lists dishes with Mexican, Indian and Mediterranean influences. "It's a neighborhood restaurant with a global beat," says [Chef Debbie] Sharpe.



    Yet another reason why I Love America. Love Love Love. We are THE melting pot. We kick ass. There is no other place close.

    USA USA USA!!!!!

    Devon Ave (from Western Ave going west. SURPRISE!).
    Chinatown.
    Greektown.
    Andersonville (Swedentown)
    Lincoln Square (Germantown).
    Pilsen (surprise!)
    Highland Park
    Lake Forest
    Near North
    Beverly
    Bridgport

    Neighborhoods now reflective of the entire mix of a vibrant, diverse city in all of her beauty.

    Individuals desiring to be free coming here and making their lives better and, in turn, enriching ours.

    Individuals looking for opportunity and by achieving it, making the next generation stronger. Roll up your sleeves. You've got work to do. And you're welcome to pursue your entrepreneurial dreams hier. Nobody will hinder, but there's no safety net. But you can do it! Just like we're all doing. Just like our parents and grandparents before us. Just like our kids. You're American. You're hard wired to strive and achieve. Just plug it in.

    America: generation after generation. We kick ass. And continue to get even kick-assier!

    But that's just one small part of why being American is so special for me. And even searching, I know that I will find something new each day - something each day to affirm why I love being an American. Why I love that we can take the huddled masses yearning to be free. And why our growth is limitless. There are no limits to individual creativity and entrepreneurial spirits. That's what America brings out.

    Now I'm off to a jazz show, and I won't forget the tickets like last week.

  • highnumber||

    In the words of Jimmy Gestapo, "America Rules!"

    Enjoy the show!

    I'm off to pick up the boy.

  • ||

    "Seems more like a cordial difference of opinion than ignorance to me."
    Point well take, allegation retracted and shame written on face.
    I shouldn't pretend this is an easy issue (I often just react to the HRers who treat it as such from the other side). I do think the strongest argument for it is the libertarian one of, who are we to tell folks who just happened to be born elsewhere they can't come in. I just think there is too much problems with current immigration to eoncourage it.

  • ||

    "If I have a "real trauma," then I have no doubt that I will get into an emergency room."

    Not if the emergency room (or whole hospital) has been closed because it was forced to serve illegals who skipped on the bills.

  • ||

    "KenK, not so much"

    Yeah, never was much for bowing before the wondrous wisdom of my elite, effete, betters who only have the good of the poor, pitiful common folk in mind when they decide what would be best for everyone.

  • ||

    Not if the emergency room (or whole hospital) has been closed because it was forced to serve illegals who skipped on the bills.

    But if the hospital has been closed because it was forced to serve legal residents who skipped on the bills, then he will get into its emergency room?

  • Acolyte of Grotius||

    KenK,
    Are you are wise enough to tell businesses what is best for them, i.e. whom they may or may not hire?

  • SIV||

    "cock-fight loving"

    Well at least the immigrants are partially "assimilated".

  • Cosmo Kramer||

    Little Jerry looooves to cock-fight.

  • ||

    Now... add illegals to the mix.

    They can't pay you, in almost all cases. They don't have addresses to which you can send collections agencies. There are government grants to help offset the cost of indigent medical care... but they're insufficient to cover more than a portion of the cost of indigent care for citizens. Add the extra cost incurred in treating illegals, and the grants become pittances.

    That's why hospitals are closing emergency departments in areas with high illegal-resident populations. Hospitals have to pay their people, their utility bills, and their overhead costs. They can manage it when emergency departments are not getting paid for a third of their emergency department work, and underpaid for another third.

    They *cannot* manage it when they are not getting paid at all fifty or sixty percent of the time.

    THAT is the reason the illegal resident issue is forcing some border state hospitals to close emergency departments, and forcing others into bankruptcy.

    >Sure, treating patients will cost some money. Bandages. Sharpening the
    >scalpels. Running the new CT Scan machines. And food for the patients.
    >Buying more medicine. Frankly, I'd rather have the staff practicing on
    >illegal immigrants, honing their skills, in anticipation of the time that
    >I'll need treatment.

    Permit me, again, to note...

    If the doctor is treating an illegal resident, the odds are they're not getting paid. Neither is the hospital. TANSTAAFL.

    In your reply, you wrote:

    >... There are regulations about how long you can keep patients >waiting, and lawsuits -- Southern California seems to have plenty of lawyers >who like that sort of thing -- result.

    I couldn't find any such laws in my research; I suspect that southern California lawyers are using prolonged waiting times as the hook to argue for malpractice, rather than appealing to a statute... but I may not be correct.

    In either case, tort liability is a second or third order effect, not the principal issue. It's a matter of income -- if you're not getting enough income to cover the bills, you close. When you have an influx of people who can use a system and not pay for it, you aren't getting enough income...

    And the result is bankruptcy and ER closures.

    It's as simple as any other example of the Cold Equations.

    >... As to requiring Mexico to pay for the bankruptcy of San Diego due to
    >services to illegal immigrants, good luck.

    Couldn't agree more.

    http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail408.html#ER2

  • ||

    KenK says: "That's why hospitals are closing emergency departments in areas with high illegal-resident populations. Hospitals have to pay their people, their utility bills, and their overhead costs. They can manage it when emergency departments are not getting paid for a third of their emergency department work, and underpaid for another third."

    Ummm, they're closing their emergency departments because the frickin' government, pursuing a welfare state agenda, requires them to treat all ER patients regardless of ability to pay. Repeal that law, and it won't matter how many indigent folks want to use the ER, it'll only go belly-up if the administrators are VOLUNTARILY too generous with the uncompensated care.

    The problem isn't we're being too libertarian advocating for open borders, the problem is we're not being libertarian enough about free markets for health care.

  • ||

    Ummm, the libertarian "workable, comprehensive solution": letting in anyone with job skills and without a violent criminal record, and letting them stay so long as they keep their jobs and stay out of trouble with the law -- that's been articulated over and over again at Reason.

    "Throw open the borders and let God sort 'em out" isn't a real solution, and you know it. And it seems like background-checking all these folks to make sure they're not violent criminals, making sure they're employed, and making sure they get deported if they break the law would require an awful lot of federal manpower. Not to mention that so-called solution says absolutely nothing about keeping people out who refuse to respect its tenets- you know, the ones who don't keep their jobs, hide a violent criminal history, or misrepresent their job skills to gain entry. So, an immigrant comes here, fucks up, gets deported...and then what? My guess is he jumps the fence again, just like he did before the libertarian solution.

    By the way, how do you define "job skills?" Nick Gillespie seems to think "job skills" are had by anyone who is willing to do whatever someone wants them to do for whatever wage that someone is willing to pay. If that's the correct criteria, well shit, who doesn't have job skills? A fetus?

    The "libertarian solution," as you put it, would do nothing but ensure the status quo on a larger scale, with more spending to keep track of it all. Give me a break.

    I'm not against immigration at all. I'd just like to see immigration handled in a way that would benefit both the US and the immigrants. Please convince me that a libertarian solution can do that.

  • ||

    "'Throw open the borders and let God sort 'em out' isn't a real solution, and you know it. And it seems like background-checking all these folks to make sure they're not violent criminals, making sure they're employed, and making sure they get deported if they break the law would require an awful lot of federal manpower."

    So Ellis Island wasn't a "real solution"? Seemed to work reasonably well. That's the rough draft of the model I was proposing for screening at the border -- with the immigrants paying the tab for whatever manpower was needed to process their application, not the taxpayers. Making sure they're employed -- yeah, real hard to do a computer run to make sure they file their tax returns.

    I may not be an expert, or have all the details of the most efficient way to do this, but this isn't reinventing the wheel. It's already been done on a massive scale.

  • ||

    "So Ellis Island wasn't a "real solution"? Seemed to work reasonably well." Did it? It worked so well that the public rose up and put an end to it after a generation. And I don't think you can chalk it up to just racism and nativsim, we had that throughout our history. There really were serious problems that were associated with the mass flow of immigrants back then (municipal corruption, crime, public health).

  • ||

    Did the perceived problems due to the mass flow immigrants cause Smoot-Hawley too? Or is the better explanation for reactions to both free migration and free trade that the public was a rabble of protectionist simpletons.

  • ||

    I think the whole idea that Smoot Hawley caused the depression is revisionist bullshit. We have a pro-market pro-business field day in the 1920's and it damn near ruined the country. Laissez-faire types have trouble living it down, hence the remarkable claim that if we just followed MORE pro-market strategies we would have avoided the Depression. But, thats another thread. I listed the problems associated with immigrants that led to the 1924 actions, the municipal courruption, the crime, the public health problems. Jesus, libertarians don't blame THAT on Smoot Hawley know do they? That is one flexible boogey-man.

  • ||

    Boogedy-boogedy.
    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/SmootHawley.htm

  • ||

    You seem to have misunderstood me. I didn't say that Smoot-Hawley caused the problems that people of the day perceived to be due to immigrants. I said that the same mentality that caused immigration restriction caused Smoot-Hawley as well. The perceived problems were excuses: The essential reason was raw protectionism.

    And this has implications for the current day. The only reason immigration reform is politically conceivable today is that it focuses on "jobs Americans won't do" on the low end or "jobs essential to American competitiveness" on the high end.

    Open borders that would allow the immigration of people whose skills compete with the big fat middle of the US population is a political nonstarter due to pure, raw, stupid protectionism.

  • ||

    Ken -- You're blaming the victim with your 12:45 pm post. The Great Depression started because of bad monetary policies by the Federal Reserve -- first they had inflationary policies in the 1920s, which led to business excesses chasing a too-rapidly growing supply of money, coupled with irrational exuberance of investors who didn't think the party would ever end, or at least end as horribly as it did. Then, when the Fed overreacted and tried to rein in the inflation, they overdid it and went into a deflationary mode -- and when a bank run started, failed to inject the liquidity to prevent it from turning into the much more massive wave of bank failures that did occur. Then, instead of fixing the cause, FDR took office and started his New Deal tinkering that kept smothering any chance of a recovery from the previous excesses -- sorta of like, the shower water is too hot, let's fix it -- then cranking the handle the wrong way and making the water hotter and hotter.

    So, yeah, government caused the problem, and government interference kept it from being merely "a depression" and turned it into the Great Depression.

  • ||

    I think jh's explanation pretty much nails it. The Federal Reserve and then FDR took a standard cyclical "panic" (contraction) and turned it into a balls-up.

  • ||

    Yeah, the Fed cause it. Interesting libertarian urban legend, traced well here: notice that Saint Milton actually blames the Fed (government, oh the horror, the horror) for not DOING MORE.
    Face it, you guys had your laissex-faire pro business decades and they pretty much crippled capitalism.

  • ||

    Forgot the link:
    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Fed.htm

  • Robert||

    "Coming up with anything remotely libertarian that a profoundly unlibertarian Congress would vote for -- that's impossible. Any compromise Congress would come up with would have to reflect the sort of people serving, which is why our schizophrenic freedom-denying current policy is likely to remain in place."

    But is no improvement at all possible under those conditions? Maybe something that's not pretty, but better.

  • ||

    Yeah, the Fed cause it. Interesting libertarian urban legend, traced well here: notice that Saint Milton actually blames the Fed (government, oh the horror, the horror) for not DOING MORE.
    Face it, you guys had your laissex-faire pro business decades and they pretty much crippled capitalism.


    The point is that there was not laissez-faire during the 1920s and continuing into the 1930s. Instead, there was (among other things) incompetent government management of the money supply. Friedman's point, with which I agree, is that once the panic started, the Federal Reserve continued in its incompetence and reacted in the wrong way. In other words, given government involvement, there are things the government could have done affecting the money supply that would have mitigated the effects of the panic. Believing that the doctor who advised the patient could have done a better job is not inconsistent with also believing that the patient would have been served best by having no doctor at all.

  • ||

    I think most experts that look at that time period think that the increase in government presence in say, 1987, compared to 1929, is what kept Stock Market woes from becoming Great Depressions.
    You have to realize how much like Marxists you guys come off as when you try to explain away everything in order to keep your "one principle" unblemished. True blue Marxists react to the failure of Communism in Eastern Europe by simply saying "well, they were never REALLY Marxist" or "if they were REALLY Marxist everything would have been OK." If faced with a more Marxist environment, they simply hunt down any non-Marxist element and blame it. Libertarians react to the fact that this calamity occured in a much more laissez-faire evnironment than, say, now or 1987, by saying "well of they were REALLY never laissez-faire and if the had just been REALLY MORE laisse-faire then everything would have been great." When faced with the failure of a more laissez-faire environment, libertarians simply track down one non-laissez-faire element and blame it. Better to acknowledge that any ideology wrapped up in "one great principle" will fail to totally capture empirical and even normative reality, though it may provide tremondous insight, and that no ideology should be applied in the extreme. Instead, a TENDENCY to laissez-faire or Marxism would serve an adherent better than such a religious orientation and zeal.

  • ||

    Ken --

    I don't claim that absence of government interference in the economy would put an end to panics or contractions. They are endemic to any market. Nor do I believe that a central bank is necessarily a problem. As our experience with Volcker and Greenspan showed, a well-run central bank can do a lot to smooth out business cycles. Bernanke seems to be cut from the same mold. However, I also recognize that under the wrong management, a central bank can make matters worse, as the Federal Reserve did in the 1920s. I'm cautiously optimistic that we can avoid those mistakes for some time, while remaining aware of the risks.

    BTW -- I highly recommend Empire of Wealth, by John Steele Gordon. He presents (among other things) at least one plausible explanation of how government meddling caused the stagflation of the 1970s and the savings-and-loan mess of the 1980s.

  • ||

    And it seems like background-checking all these folks to make sure they're not violent criminals, making sure they're employed, and making sure they get deported if they break the law would require an awful lot of federal manpower.

    So will "securing the border".

    The question, therefore, is, or should be, "Which is a better use of federal manpower?"

  • ||

    ...making sure they're employed,...

    Take a page from the Australians. Don't give welfare benefits (except emergency aid) to immigrants for a fixed period after their arrival. Without welfare benefits they will go home if they can't find jobs.

    I doubt you'll find too many libertarians arguing with that. you'll have to take that up with the liberals.

    In light of what illegal immigrants are willing to pay smugglers to enter the country I would also propose that applicants for immigration be charged a two-part fee. Part would, as it does now, cover the application processing costs, while part would be held in escrow as a sort of good conduct bond. After a certain time the money can be refunded or if the immigrant offends in any way the funds can be used to defray the costs of making things right up to and including deportation.

  • ||

    Yeah, screw all the out-of-work roofers, drywallers, tilemen, etc.

    Errr, how many out-of-work native-born roofers, drywallers, tilemen, etc. do you know? Or for that matter know of?

    All the contractors I know would practically cut off a body part to find enough people to fill all the openings they have.

  • ||

    Correction: In the next to last post of mine replace this para:

    "I doubt you'll find too many libertarians arguing with that. you'll have to take that up with the liberals."

    with:

    I doubt you'll find too many libertarians arguing with that. You'll have to take that up with the liberals. For that you need to go to DailyKos or the Huffington Post or some other such place where the pinkos hang out.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement