There Is No Joy in Juarez

David Weigel | June 28, 2007

The immigration bill has failed again, garnering only 46 yea votes to the 60 it needed for cloture.

Read reason articles on immigration issues—including the content of this dreadful bill—right here.

Comments

|6.28.07 @ 11:53AM|#

I don't care much for the positions of most of the Senators who opposed this bill, but it was a large steaming pile of horseshit, so I can't say I'm unhappy regarding this development.

Four times out of five, the failure of Congress to pass a bill is a very good thing.

|6.28.07 @ 11:56AM|#

Our immigration policy SUCKS. But the proposed immigration reforms just keep getting worse. The motivation to "do something" is exactly backwards. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, doing nothing is less destructive than whatever the Congress critters come up with. Still, what we got now SUCKS.

The Wine Commonsewer|6.28.07 @ 11:59AM|#

I've been to Juarez, there's no Joy there with or without immigration reform.

GILMORE|6.28.07 @ 12:00PM|#

three cheers for legislative stalemate

|6.28.07 @ 12:05PM|#

I've been to Juarez, there's no Joy there with or without immigration reform.

I've been there as well and did find some joy. But that's back when I was a drunken slut. Take it for what it's worth.

|6.28.07 @ 12:12PM|#

I've been lost in the rain in Juarez. It was Easter time too.

The Wine Commonsewer|6.28.07 @ 12:16PM|#

J sub D, did you bring home any hitchhikers?

The Wine Commonsewer|6.28.07 @ 12:17PM|#

J sub, I always wanted to be a slut but there weren't any takers.

|6.28.07 @ 12:21PM|#

JsD,
Do you have red hair by chance?

thoreau|6.28.07 @ 12:46PM|#

I agree with MikeP.

And also Pro Libertate.

|6.28.07 @ 12:52PM|#

Immigration reform is dead. Long live free migration.

|6.28.07 @ 12:53PM|#

J sub D, did you bring home any hitchhikers?

TWC - How the hell did you know? Medical records are supposed to be priveledged information.

Tomas Stevens|6.28.07 @ 12:53PM|#

Let's forget about a border fence, and instead build the world's largest hedge maze and open our borders. VIVA!

|6.28.07 @ 12:54PM|#

Warren - No. Why do you ask?

|6.28.07 @ 1:10PM|#

Oh, no reason, just the read-headed-slut thing.

TLB|6.28.07 @ 1:38PM|#

It's a "dreadful bill" now? Somehow I think Reason might have a different take if the winds hadn't shifted. And, of course, Reason's coverage of this issue - in effect - supported the bill.

And, their coverage of this issue - in effect - supports massive subsidies to crooked businesses and a massive welfare state (by giving more power to those who push the latter). They might say they oppose those things, but their positions tend to support what they claim to oppose.

And, just yesterday, Weigel snarked about TedHayes without mentioning a clear violation of his FirstAmendment rights that occured over the weekend. Those "libertarians": they can't even support the FirstAmendment anymore.

|6.28.07 @ 1:42PM|#

The next 100 illegal aliens that cross the Mexican-American border are harder workers and understand freedom a million times better than any of the shmucks in the Senate. That said, this bill was a steaming pile of horse shit that deserved to die.

|6.28.07 @ 1:48PM|#

As far as I know Mexico ain't exactly lining people up and shooting them in the streets. If Mexicans want to immigrate, why don't they wait and do it legally?

|6.28.07 @ 1:52PM|#

The FirstAmendment is now subject to RandomCapitalization too?

TLB if you won't give us the reasons why you RandomlyCapitalize words, can you at least list the words that you RandomlyCapitalize? thnx.

|6.28.07 @ 1:54PM|#

It's a "dreadful bill" now?

It's been a dreadful bill since its beginning, and it has gotten only more dreadful with every amendment added in the Senate.

You are correct that Reason writers have been sounding less and less happy with it as time has passed. But they never actually said anything like, "This is a good bill."

And, of course, Reason's coverage of this issue - in effect - supported the bill.

Saying that bad laws need reform does not mean that you will take any "reform" that comes along.

Reason's coverage has argued for liberalized immigration -- liberalized enough that there would be no market demand for illegal immigration. By that simple metric, the Senate bill does not measure up.

|6.28.07 @ 2:01PM|#

The bill is bad because it simultaneously attempts to punish illegal aliens (fines, return to country of origin, etc), while at the same time extending to them the hope of legal residency or citizenship and doing little or nothing to go after employers who hire illegals.

In other words, a whole bunch of illegals would jump through silly hoops to become legal residents, and immediately be replaced by another wave of illegals who would continue working for below-minimum wage under the table, since new unskilled workers would still have a difficult time getting into the USA.

|6.28.07 @ 2:02PM|#

If Mexicans want to immigrate, why don't they wait and do it legally?

Here's a little puzzle in queuing theory...

Let's say a server can service 5,000 arrivals per year. Let's further say that arrivals at the server number 500,000 per year.

What is the steady-state wait at the server?

You may work in groups if you like...

|6.28.07 @ 2:03PM|#

The illegal immigrants didn't "cut in line" because, unless you are a PhD or from a developed country there is no line.

|6.28.07 @ 2:07PM|#

Extra credit puzzles:

1. Devise a model of death for those waiting in line at the server. Does the average wait time become finite? If so, what is it now?

2. Now presume it costs $500 per year to wait in line at the server. Devise a model of wealth for those waiting in line. Does the average wait time become finite? If so, what is it now?

|6.28.07 @ 2:08PM|#

I can kinda sorta read Spanish.

When I was on vacation last winter in Mexico, every other store, hotel & restaurant had a Help Wanted "se solicita" sign up.

The Walmart had 2 pages of jobs posted.

thoreau|6.28.07 @ 2:11PM|#

And do you think that the economy in Mexican vacation spots is representative of the nation's economy as a whole?

Should I extrapolate from Fort Lauderdale or San Diego to rural Kentucky?

CL|6.28.07 @ 2:31PM|#

Should I extrapolate from Fort Lauderdale or San Diego to rural Kentucky?

Hey now. Johnson County is booming!

D.A. Ridgely|6.28.07 @ 2:38PM|#

Should I extrapolate from Fort Lauderdale or San Diego to rural Kentucky?

I'm pretty sure extrapolating in public is illegal in Kentucky.

What Weigel forgot|6.28.07 @ 3:29PM|#

Should I extrapolate from Fort Lauderdale or San Diego to rural Kentucky?

If Kentuckians moved there for those jobs, that would be called InternalMigration. Here's an example:

http://dreamsacrossamericaonline.org/story/video/2007/06/11/rusty-hicks

Eh.

|6.28.07 @ 3:50PM|#

List of words to be ReandomlyCapitalized thus far-

IllegalImmigartion
MexicanGovernment
PoliticalCorruption
PoliticalPower
SenateBill
RacialPowerGroups
HilllaryClinton (with three"l"s)
InternalMigration
FirstAmendment
PoliticalCorrectness

Did I miss anything?

|6.28.07 @ 3:52PM|#

If someone needed to give the world an enema, they'd apply the stuff through Juarez.

I do have to say that until it became a fiefdom of drug lords, Nuevo Laredo was MUCH nicer than the city on this side of the border, as was Piedras Negras. I point that out to anyone who believes that border towns just have to be worse on the Mexican side.

|6.28.07 @ 3:59PM|#

Majority of US Senate Decide US to Not Become Mexico AnyTime Soon.
That's what the headlines should read, and we should be happy to see that bill go away (since those who enjoy Mexico, it's vibrant culture and hardworking citizens can easily go set themselves up there).

|6.28.07 @ 4:29PM|#

The bill sucked plain and simply because the Government of the USA is already charged with defending our borders. We a sa country should not have to agree to having millions of law breakers shoved down our throats to only then be promised the tighter border control they have never produced yet promised several other times. When in fact it is the main charge given to the government is protection of the borders. I don't recall anywhere in my civics classes about the governments roll being that of the one who decides if pro ball players should be allowed to take steroids. Something tells me our founding fathers would give a shit about that but have definete issues with handing out free passes to come here after you have broken out laws.

If the illegals make up an almost proportionate amount of the population as compared to the unemployment rate in the US there is your answer. Perhaps if those that refuse to work were forced to we could then send home all those coming here to do the jobs Americans won't do.

Why does Mexico enforce its southern borders with its military and then expect us to put out maps and water coolers at ours?

As far as I am concerned until the government can manage to do those things it was originally charged with handling they have no business getting involved in anything else. And even if they did those charged tasks perfectly that is all they are legally able to do so they should not be allowed to deviate from those tasks to begin with. Could these constant deviations to pointless issues be the reason we have the problems we do now with borders and immigration? I think so personally since no one can do everything and those in office seem to do nothing they were charged with doing in the position they now hold. Its basically disregard of duty and country to extend your powers where they do not legally belong while ignoring those that you are legally obliged to worry about.

|6.28.07 @ 4:52PM|#

When in fact it is the main charge given to the government is protection of the borders.

A charge, by the way, that is entirely consistent with permitting general immigration, restricting individuals from entering only for reasons of compelling public interest such as being a felon, foreign agent, or carrier of contagion.

The problem with "illegal immigration" is the "illegal" part, not the "immigration" part. Legalize it, and the problem goes away.

|6.28.07 @ 5:02PM|#

"The problem with "illegal immigration" is the "illegal" part, not the "immigration" part. Legalize it, and the problem goes away."

First eliminate the handouts, then legalize it.

|6.28.07 @ 5:18PM|#

Eliminate the handouts and legalize immigration independently. One injustice should not be held hostage to another.

|6.28.07 @ 5:25PM|#

I am more concerned with my pocket-book than what MikeP thinks is not just.

The simple fact is that American taxpayers have no obligation to pay for imported poverty.

|6.28.07 @ 5:38PM|#

By the way, when I say "eliminate the handouts" I am not saying eliminate welfare in the US. I mean eliminate all of the handouts to those here illegally: no school freebies, no medical freebies, no food freebies, etc. In fact, I think employers of illegals should be forced to pay the social costs of their illicit employees.

Eliminating welfare for citizens and legal immigrants is a completely separate issue in my opinion.

|6.28.07 @ 5:40PM|#

A charge, by the way, that is entirely consistent with permitting general immigration, restricting individuals from entering only for reasons of compelling public interest such as being a felon, foreign agent, or carrier of contagion.

All true, of course. However, since we can't really stop anyone from coming in, its pretty academic, ain't it?

|6.28.07 @ 6:03PM|#

All true, of course. However, since we can't really stop anyone from coming in, its pretty academic, ain't it?

If your comment refers not to the observation that there is no conceivable way to stop general immigration but to the observation that neither can you stop actually undesirable immigrants crossing the border...

In the free immigration case there is every reason to think that the adequate supply of legal immigrants would make the value of illegal-for-cause immigrants drop to nil. Furthermore, the problem of dealing with illegal-for-cause immigrants is a significantly smaller one for ICE to manage.

|6.28.07 @ 6:09PM|#

The simple fact is that American taxpayers have no obligation to pay for imported poverty.

Nor do they have any obligation to pay for home-grown poverty.

But, indeed, I would rather see an open immigration law that strongly limits government support to immigrants than one that doesn't.

There are enough good reasons for immigrants to immigrate. There are no grounds for adding a bad one.

|6.28.07 @ 6:19PM|#

The problem with "illegal immigration" is the "illegal" part, not the "immigration" part. Legalize it, and the problem goes away.

Mike, do you think that is what Mexico thought when they decided to let high levels of immigration of Anglo's to Texas occur? Culture matters, and to have unlimited immigration of folks from one culture to another will cause drastic cultural change. I like US culture. You perhaps don't mind drastic change.

|6.28.07 @ 6:50PM|#

I like US culture. You perhaps don't mind drastic change.

Or perhaps I believe that US culture is superior in important ways that will win out in the end.

In your example, there were important ways that Texian and Tejano culture was superior to Mexican. The reasons for secession were at least as much due to those differences as to the fact that so many of the immigrants were Anglo.

In any event, are you suggesting that the world, or even the US, would be better today if Texas did not secede?

|6.28.07 @ 7:06PM|#

"Nor do they have any obligation to pay for home-grown poverty.

But, indeed, I would rather see an open immigration law that strongly limits government support to immigrants than one that doesn't."

As I said earlier, home-grown poverty is a completely separate issue from immigration.

The existence of a generous welfare state that caters to illegals makes the whole "open borders" notion untenable though. We can't afford them. if those who emply the illegals had to pay the social costs (education for the kids, medical care at the local emergency room, etc.) then I suspect allure of all that "cheap labor" would fade; in fact, it would not be so "cheap" anymore.

Ken makes a valid point about the clash of cultures as well.

|6.28.07 @ 7:21PM|#

The existence of a generous welfare state that caters to illegals makes the whole "open borders" notion untenable though.

In that case, you can get back to me when the US has a generous welfare state that caters to illegals. Just as a hint, there is nothing behind your "etc.".

As I have noted, I would hope that a liberalized immigration law would strongly restrict government services. For example, citizen children of immigrants here fewer than n years should not be eligible for the welfare other citizens get.

|6.28.07 @ 7:26PM|#

"In that case, you can get back to me when the US has a generous welfare state that caters to illegals..."

In California, where I live, the state pays something like $9000 per student per year for schooling in the public education system. The public school system here is heavily loaded with the children of illegal immigrants. California tax-payers spend billions of dollars for education of these kids.

Consider yourself gotten back to.

|6.28.07 @ 7:33PM|#

In California, where I live, the state requires every child of school age to attend school. Requires it! Then they actually demand to pay for it!

I don't know why. Something about educated masses being better for the civic sphere than uneducated masses. I don't know. They claim the education pays for itself many many times over with children entering adulthood with some ability to market some skills in the economy. Even at the ridiculously high sum of $9000 per child. Whatever.

What were we talking about again? Oh, yes... Freedom.

|6.28.07 @ 7:41PM|#

"What were we talking about again? Oh, yes... Freedom."

No Mike, that was the imaginary conversation in your head. We, on this real thread, were talking about US taxpayers footing the bill for the impoverished citizens of a foreign country.

|6.28.07 @ 7:42PM|#

To put it less facetiously, wayne...

The ostensible reason for universal support of public provisioning of education is that educated 18-year-olds are better contributors to the commonweal than uneducated 18-year-olds.

Now you might deny that, but the expenditure is justified as an investment. If the immigrants' children are going to still be in the US when they are 18, the same justification as an investment should hold for them.

If you don't believe in public education, then, again, it is utterly independent of whether the person being educated is a native or not.

|6.28.07 @ 7:47PM|#

No Mike, that was the imaginary conversation in your head.

In my imaginary conversation, I get to use the <blink> tag.

|6.28.07 @ 7:48PM|#

Mike,

This is the 21st century. Feel free to speak in era appropriate terms.

I agree that public education is a good investment. However, I see no reason why I should pay to educate foreign citizens.

I am not alone in this thinking. For example, in Mexico children that are not Mexican citizens are not allowed in their public schools without paying the full freight. So, if you go to Mexico and take your kids along the taxpayers of Mexico refuse to foot the bill to school your children. Seems fair to me.

|6.28.07 @ 7:55PM|#

I agree that public education is a good investment. However, I see no reason why I should pay to educate foreign citizens.

Because by the time they turn 18 they will likely be US citizens. Being against immigrants' education is isomorphic with being against immigrants.

Nonetheless, I would not oppose an open borders bill that required immigrants to pay for their children's education.

But if you start going too far in that direction, you end up with anti-immigration adherents whining that the immigrants aren't assimilating into the larger society. There are pluses and minuses to differently providing universal civic services. I don't buy that it's that big a deal one way or the other. Others do.

|6.28.07 @ 8:01PM|#

"Because by the time they turn 18 they will likely be US citizens. Being against immigrants' education is isomorphic with being against immigrants."

You can't just wave the magic wand and make those 18 years go away, Mike. In that time US taxpayers will have spent many billions of dollars to shape those illegals into US citizens. I see no reason to absorb those costs.

It is not "whining" to observe that an unassimilated large group causes social problems.

|6.28.07 @ 8:10PM|#

I'm not sure cultures are "better" in some cosmic sense than other cultures, and even if they are, I'm not sure that the "better" ones are destined to "win out" when outnumbered (or simply greatly diluted).

|6.28.07 @ 8:55PM|#

I didn't say that the better culture in toto would win out. I said that important ways in which a culture is superior will win out.

I really don't care whether hot dogs, apple pie, and white picket fences are replaced by burritos, flan, and green picket fences. I do care whether individualism, mutually voluntary association, and a willingness to part with the collective will defeat protectionism, nationalism, and nativism.

|6.29.07 @ 12:05AM|#

When a country has open borders, that country loses its sovereignty.

|6.29.07 @ 12:37AM|#

When a country has open borders, that country loses its sovereignty.

This is such a silly thing to say.

Do you think the US was not a sovereign country before 1882, at which time it became just slightly sovereign? Then it became more sovereign in 1917 and 1921 before reaching its height of sovereignty in 1924?

Anon|6.29.07 @ 3:39AM|#

Just look at how much immigration in the past has messed up our country. Just look at it. The Italians (terrorists!!). The illiterate Irish. The Poles. Jews. Chinamen! Scandinavians. We've been skipping from disgrace to disgrace.

Clearly no policy has been as unhealthy for our nation than letting the aforementioned inside our Great Wall of America.

Sometimes libertarians can be |6.29.07 @ 3:48AM|#

The problem with a lot of you open border asshats is your hand waving about how open border laws come along with preventing impovershed migrants from getting taxpayer funded benefits.

Now read this carefully and slowly: Preventing migrants from accessing welfare and schooling and other benefits IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

Can you understand that? Can you emerge from your little fantasy world for a femtosecond and realize that even a barely workable open border solution is never going to emerge?

They tried denying non-citizens benefits in California with a proposition on the ballot, and it survived passage about 9 seconds before some shitsucking judge struck it down.

You policy wonks really need to reassociate with reality. The shells of ideology that filter out the real world are getting nearly opaque.

THX1138|6.29.07 @ 3:54AM|#

>>> Just look at how much immigration in the past has
>>> messed up our country. Just look at it. The Italians
>>> (terrorists!!). The illiterate Irish. The Poles. Jews.
>>> Chinamen! Scandinavians. We've been skipping from
>>> disgrace to disgrace.

Another brainless prat bearing a useless and broken comparison. Seriously, if you really think any of those are fair analogies to a tidal wave of millions of uneducated and insular migrants born and bred on the concept that the southwestern US is actually ill gotten gains from Mexico, you are so disassociated from reality that you should be on heavy medication and probably in an institution of some sort for your own safety. Seriosuly, I cannot understand how otherwise educated people can be so utterly zero brained on this issue, and just spew the same tired old cliches over and over. Just shows that libertarians can be commit as much intellectual dumbfuckery as any ideological nitwit in any of the other political camps.

Doctor Gulag|6.29.07 @ 3:55AM|#

>>> I'm not sure cultures are "better" in some cosmic
>>> sense than other cultures,

Then you have run out of functioning neurons, and are clinically dead.

|6.29.07 @ 9:20AM|#

I absolutely endorse, without reservation, MikeP's position. However, thoreau's ideas I reject completely.

|6.29.07 @ 10:28AM|#

"I do care whether individualism, mutually voluntary association, and a willingness to part with the collective will defeat protectionism, nationalism, and nativism."
Yeah, and history shows that its pretty much always a foregone conclusion that the latter never overcomes the former, especially with uneducated peasants? So let's play chicken with our nation under those odds..

|6.29.07 @ 10:31AM|#

"Then you have run out of functioning neurons, and are clinically dead."
Alright, Doc, in what sense is one culture "better" than another? Maximization of overall utility (what about the Matrix, hey, they were all happy hooked up to the thought machine)?
Russia's fatalism makes for crappy capitalism, but damn good arts & letters. It's all relative to what you value.

|6.29.07 @ 11:04AM|#

So let's play chicken with our nation under those odds..

No protectionism, nationalism, or nativism in the US today! Let's shut the borders to make sure none gets in.

|6.29.07 @ 11:38AM|#

Newsflash: the liberal welfare state isn't going away. People love Social Security. They love having a public school system. They want the sick to get medical care, the hungry to have food, and the toothless to get William F. Buckley's Free False Teeth. Those of you who don't want these things are a small minority.

Hence, the idea that we're only going to need a prohibitionist immigration policy and a police state to enforce it for a little while, until the Withering Away of the Welfare State, is a bogus argument.

|6.30.07 @ 3:31PM|#

Joe is right. Open borders is a fantasy that will never materialize because the US taxpayer can not afford to feed, clothe, medicate and placate our impoverished southern neighbors.