DHS Tool To Push for "Tool Sharpening"

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is bearing down on that most-terrifying threat to the American way of life: People from down Mexico way who sneak into the country in order to work long hours for relatively low wages (at least to start with).

Reports the AP via the Cincy Enquirer (which serves a region with higher-than-average unemployment and lower-than-average immigration from Latin America):

The Bush administration is planning new efforts to curb illegal immigration by raising fines and speeding up deployment of border agents after failing to push through legislation earlier this year.

The proposals would raise civil fines on employers who hire undocumented immigrants by as much as 25 percent and overhaul temporary worker programs, according to a summary of the plans obtained by The Associated Press....

[E]mployers will face possible criminal sanctions if they don't fire employees unable to clear up problems with their Social Security numbers.

The Homeland Security Department will ask states to voluntarily share their driver's license photos and records with the agency for use in an employment verification system. The sharing is meant to help employers detect fraudulent licenses, according to the summary, which was provided by a congressional aide....

Chertoff alluded to the new enforcement tactics in a speech this week in Boston, calling it "tool sharpening."

"We shouldn't have a patchwork of laws. We should be doing a comprehensive federal solution, but we haven't got that thing done," Chertoff said. "What I can tell you is we will certainly use every enforcement tool that we have, and every resource that we have available, to tackle the problem."

More here.

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.

  • ||

    The proposals would raise civil fines on employers who hire undocumented immigrants by as much as 25 percent and overhaul temporary worker programs, according to a summary of the plans obtained by The Associated Press....

    Well, it ain't jail time, but it's a start.

  • ||

    Since this is an immigration thread, I just want to say that I disagree with MikeP, Thoreau, and many others here.

  • ||

    RACIST!!!

    I just wanted to get it out there to prime the race-baiters pumps.

  • ||

    Wow! I got the first three posts on this thread (four if somebody does not post before this one comes through).

  • ||

    We all know the cause of this immigration.The utter failure of Mexico's govermental and economic system.I can't blame these folks for trying to escape it.

  • ||

    Bush is falling for the same mistake as the Daschle Democrats of 2002-2003. After taking a beating from the right wing for so long in an adverse political climate, he's hoping that appeasing the hatemongers by going along with their "security" programs will get them to stop attacking him, and work cooperatively to find a reasonable solution.

    I don't think it's going to work this time, either.

  • ||

    So the Federal Govt is arguing that they are opposed to more people coming within their borders and creating wealth?

    Wow, their war on the American people gets more brazen with each passing day.

  • ||

    Using immigration law to finally get that National ID card?

  • ||

    Oh, and Warren, people who peaceably trade with illegal aliens deserve jail time as much as you do.

    Actually, less than you - after all, you want to kidnap and rob people for trading with other people that you don't like.

  • ||

    Shit! That comment should have been aimed at wayne, not warren. Damn it!

    Sorry Warren!

  • ||

    Immigration is not RON PAUL's best issue.

  • VM||

    1) what absolute horseshit
    2) what Parannoyed said
    3) and what Warren said.

    Happy Friday?

  • ||

    tarran,

    B b b but, you didn't call me a racist. That's OK, I know the racism charges will fly soon enough.

    Kidnap and rob? Maybe you were talkin to Warren, because I have no idea what you are talking about.

  • the TODD||

    The Todd's tool is plenty sharp!

    *internet five!

  • Timothy||

    Wayne: Racist? Nah. Massive douchebag? Damn skippy.

    If you don't like fruit getting picked, well, I guess that's your business. Me? I can't object to a person trying to forge a better life for him/her self.

    WHAT ABOUT WELFARE: The problem isn't people crossing some arbitrary line without filling out some arbitrary piece of paper, the problem is with welfare. Same goes for social security.

    THEY TOOK R JARBS!: Do you pick fruit? I don't. And there's exactly zero evidence that the income effects for even low-skill American workers are very significant. I'm sure TheLoneWhAckJob will be along with some study from TheHERItageFoundation that says otherwise, but whatevz.

    Lastly, there's no reason to value the welfare of poor, low-skill persons born on this side of the arbitrary line over the welfare of poor, low-skill persons born on the other side of the arbitrary line. I bet you're from Kansas or something, eh, wayne? It's usually the folks from non-borders states who get all concerned about folks picking fruit.

  • ||

    It's been months since I posted here, and I hear from thoreau that someone is calling himself Mr. Nice Guy around here. It reminds me of a cartoon episode where two doofuses fight over the superhero name "The Tick"

    FakeTick: Who's the JERK calling himself "The Tick"?!

    The Tick (pointing to himself): I'm THAT JERK!

    Anyway..

    "People from down Mexico way who sneak into the country in order to work long hours for relatively low wages"

    I, for a long time, hesitated to criticize people who, other than flaunt our immigration laws, simply want to find work and indeed work hard. This places them miles above able-bodied people already here who refuse to work and take entitlements for granted.

    However, what will happen when all these low-paying jobs dry up? Economies go up and down, and it will be inevitable. All of a sudden, we will have large populations of unassimilated people who can't find work. What kind of chaos will that bring? Think about Paris.

  • ||

    Well, it ain't jail time, but it's a start.



    Let's see, if I take your money by threatening to hurt you if you don't pay it, that's called theft, unless I am a government official then it is called levying a fine.

    If, on the other hand, I lock you up in a steel cage for many years against your will, it's called kidnapping, unless, of course, I am a govenrnment official using a government cage, in which case it is called jailing.

    You want others to injure people for committing a victimless "crime" by having their money confiscated and seem to want to see them spend years locked up in steel cages, thus you want to see them robbed or kidnapped.

    Kidnap and rob? Maybe you were talkin to Warren, because I have no idea what you are talking about.



    Hmm, maybe you should actually think about the consequences of your ideas... I mean that's like saying "I don't want to hurt him, just to shoot him in the face".

  • Doctor Duck||

    We shouldn't have a patchwork of laws

    Not when we can have a patchwork o' flaws.

  • ||

    Why is Bush doing this? Isn't this a bit of a policy change for this relatively pro-immigration administration? He's not running for reelection, so why suddenly pander to the asshole right?

  • ||

    Tim,

    I suspect you have not read many of my prior posts, so I will treat you with civility.

    I also have no problem with people who want to make a better living, better their lives, etc; and I agree that the problem is "ours" and not "theirs"; and I have said so many times. I actually don't have a big problem with open borders either, but only with SIGNIFICANT changes to the benefits provided to residents. As the laws currently stand though the flow of immigrants has strained our public schools, shuttered our hospital emergency rooms, and driven state budgets into the red. American citizens have neither the obligation nor the ability to support the world's poor.

    "THEY TOOK R JARBS!:" Here, Tim, you engage in ugly stereotyping implying that those who disagree with you are stupid, uneducated hicks. So unsophisticated that we can not pronounce the word "jobs" nor spell "are". this is, of course, an ad hominum attack that you hope will lead others to discredit our arguments, because "we are obviously too stupid to have a legitimate argument".

    I am from California, though those from Kansas that I have met are intelligent, well spoken and thoughtful.

    Finally, yes there is a reason to value the poor born in the US more highly than those born elsewhere. Those born in the US are US citizens, the others are not. If you want to feed the poor in other countries then just watch late night TV and you will soon see a heart breaking ad soliciting your charity.

    So, let's see. You made a dumb argument, engaged in a transparent ad hominum attack, and don't understand the full costs of immigration. And you justify that because you want cheap fruit.

    Who is the douche bag, Tim?

  • ||

    A law that I would like to see enacted and enforced is this:

    If you employ an illegal immigrant, then you pay your pro-rated share of the social costs for that immigrant. So, if you employ that immigrant for a year and he has two kids in public school, then you pay the $14,000 cost for that year's attendance. If he takes one of his kids to the emergency room, then you pick up the tab.

    Set your prices accordingly. Maybe now your strawberrys will cost $3 per quart instead of $1.50.

  • Timothy||

    Finally, yes there is a reason to value the poor born in the US more highly than those born elsewhere. Those born in the US are US citizens, the others are not.

    That's not a reason, it's completely arbitrary. Furthermore, it's a tautology, but we might as well ignore that. The fact that they're US citizens is an accident of fate, really, and at the end of the day immigrants are just other people from some other arbitrary geographical region. I'm not really in the mood to get into some deep debate about the relative merits of nationalism vs cosmopolitanism, but does it make any sense to oppose immigration between, say, Kansas and California? The economics of it are really exactly the same, it's just that we're looking at different arbitrary regions. Additionally, working for a living isn't exactly charity.

    It appears that purchasing power effects on low-skill natives are either positive* or fairly neutral**, which pretty much destroys the usual argument about immigration depressing wages for low-skilled natives. Or, at the very least, paints a much murkier picture than the usual DEMAND KURVE! explanation offered by immigration opponents.

    And let me be very clear, one reason to care more about immigrants is this: if you're low-skilled and native born to the US it's probably your fault to a certain extent, whereas if you're from Mexico it's likely not as much you're doing. EX: Dropping out of high school and knocking up/getting knocked up, your fault. Being born in a poor, rural town in Mexico where there aren't any schools, not your fault.

    Lastly, if we're concerned about making sure everybody fills out the right form, make the form simpler, there, problem solved.

    *http://www.princeton.edu/~ies/Fall06/PeriPaper.pdf
    **http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/FACSEMINARS/pdfs/2007_05-18_Cortes.pdf

  • ||

    Of course, if these are immigrants already going to the trouble of faking SSNs then they are in fact PAYING TAXES.

  • Timothy||

    YOUR doing, jeebus, Tim, lern 2 spel gud.

  • ||

    "THEY TOOK R JARBS!:" Here, Tim, you engage in ugly stereotyping implying that those who disagree with you are stupid, uneducated hicks.

    Or, you know, it might simply be a South Park reference that some of us find funny.

    Those born in the US are US citizens, the others are not.

    So what? Political borders are supposed to define my moral code?

  • Rhywun||

    Finally, yes there is a reason to value the poor born in the US more highly than those born elsewhere. Those born in the US are US citizens, the others are not.

    Does that include the children of illegal immigrants?

    If you want to feed the poor in other countries then just watch late night TV and you will soon see a heart breaking ad soliciting your charity.

    Yes, keep the outsiders at bay with some table scraps but don't let's dare let them inside the gates where they might better themselves.

    So, if you employ that immigrant for a year and he has two kids in public school, then you pay the $14,000 cost for that year's attendance.

    Or, you give him a $14,000 raise and let him send all three of his kids to the school of his choice. Cut out the middle-man!

  • ||

    Wait- they want to make it illegal to hire people already here and working, create a permanent underclass unable to create wealth and personal security. And this helps how? Isn't the whole argument that people come and mooch on our public services. Now if they cannot work and create businesses, what other choice would they have except welfare or crime?

  • ||

    Finally, yes there is a reason to value the poor born in the US more highly than those born elsewhere. Those born in the US are US citizens, the others are not.

    You are not a racist, you are a xenophobe. There is a difference, but not by that much.

    I suspect you have not read many of my prior posts. . .

    I read all you previous posts and responded to many of them. Your arguments are mostly irrational and you seem to have little to no interest in actually learning anything new. So why did you bother to come back and post again?

  • Dave W.||

    Of course, if these are immigrants already going to the trouble of faking SSNs then they are in fact PAYING TAXES.

    1. Still, people with fake ssn's are a lot more likely to cheat on their taxes than people with real ssn's. And that may be significant

    2. On these threads we usually see the viewpoint that immigration needs to be legalized and normalized so that people can get away from big, bad Mexico and being economically exploited in an efficient manner. For this to happen big business needs to step up to the plate. For big business to step up to the plate, big business needs to be motivated. These punitive measures seem like a healthy motivator to get big business to encourage the legislature to enact the reforms it needs, rather than cynically exploiting (largely) unenforced laws. In other words, good proposal.

    3. The Cincinnati Enquirer sure seems to come up a lot at this blog for whatever reason. Not really related, but I remember what happened last time the Cincinnati Enquirer wrote about labor issues (interesting):

    http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1998/06/29/loc_chiquita29.html

    Nice to see the paper getting its balls back.

  • ||

    The Cincinnati Enquirer sure seems to come up a lot at this blog for whatever reason.

    I think Nick lives there (or nearby).

  • Dave W.||

    I wonder if they talked about how the Enquirer decided to burn its reporter when Nick was in journalism school.

  • ||

    Dave W.

    1. I would think illegal immigrants would desperately want to avoid any attention from the government that cheating might bring.

    2. That is so fucking cynical. But I kinda see your point. hmmm...

  • libertreee||

    We shouldn't have a patchwork of laws

    Not when we can have a patchwork o' flaws.-Doctor Duck.



    Good one. My fave is :

    The United States is a nation of laws, poorly written and randomnly enforced.- Frank Zappa

  • dhex||

    "That's not a reason, it's completely arbitrary. Furthermore, it's a tautology, but we might as well ignore that."

    oh timothy you're using big words and we know who DoesThat - TheMexicanGovernment.

  • Libertreee||

    Set your prices accordingly. Maybe now your strawberrys will cost $3 per quart instead of $1.50.- Wayne



    And then maybe the urban poor non immigrants will eat fewer strawberries, and more McDonald burgers instead, and get diabetes, and now we have new posts about outlawing fast food....

    Round and round it goes...why not just end the quotas? And the welfare, including compulsory education? Or return the immigration power to the states, where it should constitutionally reside? A little thing like "natural liberty", as Adam Smith once wrote might help.

  • ||

    I realize that my position on illegal immigration is not popular here. That's OK by me.

    Carrick says I am irrational and a xenophobe (one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin). He is wrong on both points. It is quite rational to recognize that the American tax payer has no obligation, and can not in fact pay the bill to feed, cloth, medicate and educate the world's poor. I have no fear whatever of foreign born people, nor for that matter do I dislike foreigners. I like my next door neighbors, and I occasionally have them over for dinner, but I don't want them to move in to my home and be forced to feed them as if they are my responsibility. Same concept applies to illegal immigration. What Carrick is doing, really, is just name calling.

  • ||

    "So what? Political borders are supposed to define my moral code?"

    No, MP, of course not. I am sure you tithe regularly to feed the world's poor. Good for you. The world needs more humanitarians like you.

  • ||

    The fact that they're US citizens is an accident of fate, really, and at the end of the day immigrants are just other people from some other arbitrary geographical region.

    I keep hearing the word "arbitrary" in reference national boundaries.

    What human institution, pray tell, is not arbitrary? Marriages? Contracts? Property rights? The right to life and liberty? Libertarianism? Where are any of those written in stone? What makes the boundary between my property and your property any less arbitrary than the border between nations?

    Political sovereignty exists with exactly the same legitimacy as property rights, that is, custom and consensus. No more, and no less.

    As per the contention that not being born in the country you wish to be born in is "an accident of fate" - so what? My not being born a Rockefeller is equally an accident of fate. That doesn't make me entitled to use of the Rockefeller's facilities. Does an "accident of fate" entitle me to access to Buckingham Palace because I wasn't born a Windsor?

  • ||

    "Does that include the children of illegal immigrants?"

    Rhywun, as I am sure you know that is the big loophole that illegals exploit, the "anchor baby". I think it is a loophole that ought to be plugged.

  • ||

    What Carrick is doing, really, is just name calling.

    The animosity you have for illegal immigrants permeates every post you make. Since this animosity extends to an entire class of people (based on immigration status not nation of orgin) then I think that qualifies you as a xenophobe.

    During the last big round on immigration many people, including myself, provided counter-arguments (backed by links) to every argument you made. Since you continue to make the same arguments without acknlowdging, let alone refuting, the counter-arguments, I think that qualifies you as irrational as well.

    Your first four posts make it clear what you think the outcome will be of your posting again today. So I ask again, why bother?

    I will be out of touch for the rest of the day, so don't assume my silence reflects anything in particular.

  • ||

    Rhywun, as I am sure you know that is the big loophole that illegals exploit, the "anchor baby". I think it is a loophole that ought to be plugged.

    For the record, I think that citizen children of immigrants should be on the immigrants' schedule for welfare and other government services.

    Nonetheless, the key factor you use to you distinguish persons who should be free to reside and labor in the US and those who shouldn't appears not to be citizenship as you said above. Even among citizens you would draw lines.

  • ||

    I have no animosity for illegals. As I said in a prior post, I like my neighbors I just don't want to support them. The fact that you see animosity in my posts says more about your rationality than mine.

    What you and others provided as counter arguments were hand waving and assertions that in a generation or two the illegals would assimilate and become "wealth generators", etc. I would like to point out that in a generation or two you and nearly every poster here will be dead. How do we afford them in the meantime?

  • ||

    What human institution, pray tell, is not arbitrary? Marriages? Contracts? Property rights? The right to life and liberty?

    I would say that marriages, contracts, property rights, and the right to life and liberty are most decidedly not arbitrary.

    The three rights discussed descend directly from the nature of reality and of humans' place in it. Marriages and contracts, as well, are an encoding into custom and law of willfully chosen exercises of those rights. How can you possibly call these arbitrary?

    Incidentally, I would say that it is not national borders or sovereignty that is arbitrary: It is where a person is born. The nation that claims dominion over a person is an accident of birth, and preventing that person from living and working in another nation on that basis is as arbitrary as preventing it based on his hair color.

  • ||

    "Nonetheless, the key factor you use to you distinguish persons who should be free to reside and labor in the US and those who shouldn't appears not to be citizenship as you said above. Even among citizens you would draw lines."

    Sorry MikeP, I do not understand your point.

  • libertreee||

    What human institution, pray tell, is not arbitrary? Marriages? Contracts? Property rights? The right to life and liberty? Libertarianism? Where are any of those written in stone? What makes the boundary between my property and your property any less arbitrary than the border between nations?-Pig Mannix



    You are right, sir, in a certain sense. All citizenship is based on the idea of "accidents of birth", including the dreaded anchor baby type.

    To use the word "arbitrary" with regard to migration between states as opposed to immigration over what are indeed always arbitrary (no matter how long the custom and practice) borders is a rhetorical device that attempts to broaden the mind of the reader to ask, well, what is the difference between a worker coming from Michigan to Tennessee and from Guadalahara to Michigan?

    In the end, it comes down to restrictions on trade and commerce that libertarians are usually opposed to. Just as a federal minimum wage sets an arbitrary floor on wages that some employees will not be able to overcome and be hired, so to does a quota on immigration set an arbitrary limit on the supply of labor that some employers will be hard pressed to overcome. And since libertarians believe that free enterprise is essentially consumer driven , both these interventions hurt consumers first, as they would raise prices or lessen productivity (pretty much the same thing).

    As for comparing the social contracts of nations with the more specific private contracts of individuals and firms, that would take another post, but I think the comparison does not fit.

  • ||

    wayne,

    As the law currently stands, the US-born children of immigrants are US citizens. You seem to want to assign them a lower class of citizenship. Would you rather "anchor babies" were not US citizens?

    If so, you are deciding their moral stature based on something other than citizenship as you said above...

    Finally, yes there is a reason to value the poor born in the US more highly than those born elsewhere. Those born in the US are US citizens, the others are not.

    If you do not distinguish between citizens born of citizens and citizens born of illegal residents, sorry about the confusion.

    Incidentally, I do distinguish between them -- specifically with respect to welfare eligibility. But then I don't recognize US citizen as a moral classification.

  • ||

    "Now if they cannot work and create businesses, what other choice would they have except welfare or crime?"

    How about they leave and return from where they came?

  • ||

    "As the law currently stands, the US-born children of immigrants are US citizens. You seem to want to assign them a lower class of citizenship. Would you rather "anchor babies" were not US citizens?"

    Yes, I would like to see the law changed such that the children of illegals are not US citizens. I do not want to assign "different classes of citizenship".

    I see no connection between citizenship and "moral classification". In fact, I do not know what you mean by moral classification. Citizenship has no connection to morals in my opinion.

  • ||

    Would you rather "anchor babies" were not US citizens?

    Yes, absolutely.

    If the mother is not a legal resident then the baby should not automatically be a citizen. It's extremely generous of the USA and not common in the world for birth alone to confer citizenship.

    Maybe you should have to join the Federal Service to become a citizen?

    "All right, let's sum up. This year in history, we talked about the failure of democracy. How the social scientists of the 21st Century brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since. We talked about the rights and privileges between those who served in the armed forces and those who haven't, therefore called citizens and civilians."

  • ||

    I see no connection between citizenship and "moral classification". In fact, I do not know what you mean by moral classification. Citizenship has no connection to morals in my opinion.

    It means exactly this...

    Finally, yes there is a reason to value the poor born in the US more highly than those born elsewhere. Those born in the US are US citizens, the others are not.

    Moral classification is how you value a class of people relative to another class of people.

    And you may not want to assign different classes of citizenship, but in your moral calculus you already do. Otherwise how could you make the normative argument that the children of illegals should not be US citizens?

  • Minion of URKOBOLD||

    HARRO KENNY!

    PEEK A BOO!!!!!

  • ||

    And you may not want to assign different classes of citizenship, but in your moral calculus you already do. Otherwise how could you make the normative argument that the children of illegals should not be US citizens?

    It's a simple matter of law. I recognize that anchor babies are citizens, that is the law. I would like to see the law changed because it is clearly defective in that it encourages the impoverished to come to the US and pop out a baby thereby gaining "status". Just to head off the arument: I am not suggesting that current anchor-baby citizens be stripped of citizenship; we fucked up on that one and we just have to live with it.

    Our own impoverished citizens are citizens, so they are our problem. Impoverished citizens of other countries are somebody else's problem.

  • ||

    Something this board needs is an "ignore" feature.

  • ||

    All of a sudden, we will have large populations of unassimilated people who can't find work. What kind of chaos will that bring?



    Actually, traditionally Mexicans returned to Mexico when the work dried up.

    They also usually returned after a few years of work and savings. The money they had earned in the US went a lot further in Mexico.

    Making the border harder to cross made for more problems, not fewer.

  • ||

    @MikeP

    I would say that marriages, contracts, property rights, and the right to life and liberty are most decidedly not arbitrary.

    They most certainly are! Show me a society that doesn't have a mechanism for annulling any of the above under circumstances it's laws and customs deem appropriate.

    And yes, "society" is the operative qualifier here. You may possess your life and property on a desert island, but your rights aren't going to protect them against tigers and tsunamis. Your rights are contingent on a community of peers recognizing them.

    Incidentally, I would say that it is not national borders or sovereignty that is arbitrary: It is where a person is born. The nation that claims dominion over a person is an accident of birth, and preventing that person from living and working in another nation on that basis is as arbitrary as preventing it based on his hair color.

    I agree, if you don't like the nation you live in, you have a legitimate right to exit.

    However, a right of exit does not create an obligation of any other nation to recognize a right of entry.

    @libertreee

    To use the word "arbitrary" with regard to migration between states as opposed to immigration over what are indeed always arbitrary (no matter how long the custom and practice) borders is a rhetorical device that attempts to broaden the mind of the reader to ask, well, what is the difference between a worker coming from Michigan to Tennessee and from Guadalahara to Michigan?

    What's the difference between permitting migration between states and permitting it between countries? Let me give you a cultural quiz:

    Stoning a woman to death who's committed adultery is a practice of some religious sects in:

    A.) New Hampshire
    B.) California
    C.) Afghanistan
    D.) Hawaii
    E.) Arkansas

    How did you do?

    The point here being that the United States, with all it's cultural diversity, is still more or less a single cultural and political entity, variances notwithstanding. And that is the distinction between open borders between states and open border between countries. Not all cultures are necessarily compatible. That I've chosen an extreme example does not negate the point.

    As for comparing the social contracts of nations with the more specific private contracts of individuals and firms, that would take another post, but I think the comparison does not fit.

    I'd be interested in seeing that post!

    @wayne

    Something this board needs is an "ignore" feature.

    Bleh. If you're not interested in other people's views, why frequent a debate forum? You can always ignore the forum altogether.

  • ||

    Nate | August 10, 2007, 10:29am | #

    Why is Bush doing this? Isn't this a bit of a policy change for this relatively pro-immigration administration? He's not running for reelection, so why suddenly pander to the asshole right?


    Because he thinks that if he makes nice with them and gives them a little of they want, they will make nice with him and give him a little of what he wants. Bush actually does want a comphrehensive immigration bill, and thinks he can get some right-wingers on board if he meets them halfway.

    Like I said, I don't think it's going to work out for him.

  • ||

    The point here being that the United States, with all it's cultural diversity, is still more or less a single cultural and political entity, variances notwithstanding.

    Yes, despite having massive immigration over the last two decades, and large Muslim communities in many areas, we remain a more-or-less single cultural and political entity, variances not withstanding.

    Stoning women for adultery isn't a practice in Dearborn, Michigan, or anywhere else in America, no matter how much of a majority Muslims and immigrants are in various American communities. I think there's a lesson in there somewhere.

  • ||

    "HARRO"

    Hey, is that you StrongBad?

  • ||

    They most certainly are! Show me a society that doesn't have a mechanism for annulling any of the above under circumstances it's laws and customs deem appropriate.

    The fact that there are rules and customs for annulling marriages and contracts, and even for withdrawing the protections of rights, e.g., for felons, in no way makes them arbitrary. Indeed, that it requires rules and customs to overrule them makes them anything but arbitrary!

    Your rights are contingent on a community of peers recognizing them.

    It is so telling that anti-immigration types are almost universally relativists with respect to rights...

  • ||

    "Bleh. If you're not interested in other people's views, why frequent a debate forum? You can always ignore the forum altogether."

    Actually, I am interested in other's views. Posts like:

    "HARRO KENNY!

    PEEK A BOO!!!!!"

    don't interest me much.

  • ||

    Stoning women for adultery isn't a practice in Dearborn, Michigan, or anywhere else in America, no matter how much of a majority Muslims and immigrants are in various American communities. I think there's a lesson in there somewhere.

    In the first place, stoning is not universally a Muslim practice. There are some sects (and not necessarily Muslims - it was practiced by some Christian sects in the colonial days in America, remember) that do practice it, however. So I don't see having a Muslim population, by itself, as germane to the point.

    And I'd point out, one of the reasons we remain a single political and cultural entity is because we do manage our immigration. That might be the lesson you're looking for here.

  • ||

    In the first place, stoning is not universally a Muslim practice.

    I wonder how we were so incredibly lucky as to end up with a large Muslim population that doesn't include anyone from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan...Oh, wait, we didn't. The people who came here from those countries abandoned the practice.

    And I'd point out, one of the reasons we remain a single political and cultural entity is because we do manage our immigration.

    You heard it here first, folks. Pig Mannix believes the existing immigration regime - the one Lou Dobbs complains about every freaking night, the one the immigration activists tell us we need to overhaul, the one set up by the Reagan/Kenney Bill from the mid-80s - adequately manages immigration, and we need not change a thing to avoid the scary cultural influences he was warning about. I feel so much better.

  • ||

    You heard it here first, folks. Pig Mannix believes the existing immigration regime - the one Lou Dobbs complains about every freaking night, the one the immigration activists tell us we need to overhaul, the one set up by the Reagan/Kenney Bill from the mid-80s - adequately manages immigration, and we need not change a thing to avoid the scary cultural influences he was warning about. I feel so much better.

    Um, to the best of my recollection, what I've argued against was open borders, not managed immigration. I don't necessarily buy the proposition that taking a swim in the pool is consent to be drowned in the ocean.

    As for Lou Dobbs, I've never watched his show, and I wouldn't know him if he dropped dead in front of me.

  • thoreau||

    Sorry I'm late to the show, folks. I just want to say that I agree with MikeP.

  • ||

    The fact that there are rules and customs for annulling marriages and contracts, and even for withdrawing the protections of rights, e.g., for felons, in no way makes them arbitrary. Indeed, that it requires rules and customs to overrule them makes them anything but arbitrary.

    You seem to forget that it takes rules and customs to make them operative in the first place.

    It is so telling that anti-immigration types are almost universally relativists with respect to rights...

    *smirk* Ok, then. You tell me - where do the legitimate claims of society end, and the claims of the individual begin? Do property rights convey unlimited political sovereignty? Does ownership of property give you the right to declare serial killing and child molesting legal on your premises? And if not, by what authority does society at large have to restrict those practices?

  • ||

    You seem to forget that it takes rules and customs to make them operative in the first place.

    But there is little about the rules and customs that is arbitrary. They have reasons, some long forgotten. But the important rules and customs are grounded in the nature of man and his nature and his world. They are not arbitrary.

    You tell me - where do the legitimate claims of society end, and the claims of the individual begin?

    In my view the legitimate claims of society are bounded by the actual (not pretended) public goods problems it can solve. Everything else is the dominion of the individual.

    Does ownership of property give you the right to declare serial killing and child molesting legal on your premises?

    Of course not. The victims' rights to their persons precede and exceed your right to do what you want to them on your property.

  • ||

    Pig Mannix,

    Well. Er. All right then. I may have misunderstood what you were saying.

  • ||

    Here's an innocent question.

    If immigrants simply do jobs Americans won't do, how do these jobs get done in other rich nations that have much less liberal immigration policies?

  • ||

    If immigrants simply do jobs Americans won't do, how do these jobs get done in other rich nations that have much less liberal immigration policies?

    Offhand I would say it's due to extensive protectionist policies in those industries that permit high wages. The US is bad about subsidizing agricultural production, but they're pikers compared to Europe or Japan.

    Of course protectionist policies' enabling wages higher than those a job is worth are bad enough for taxpayer and consumer. But by retaining workers at a higher wage doing lower valued labor, the economy is preventing that worker from using higher skills to do something higher valued for the economy.

    Much of the means to wealth for an individual or for an economy is to increase skills so labor can move up to higher valued efforts. By intentionally preventing new entrants at the bottom rungs of the ladder, you prevent some from moving up who could have moved up if, say, an immigrant did the lower valued work.

  • ||

    Of course protectionist policies' enabling wages higher than those a job is worth are bad enough for taxpayer and consumer. But by retaining workers at a higher wage doing lower valued labor, the economy is preventing that worker from using higher skills to do something higher valued for the economy.

    Much of the means to wealth for an individual or for an economy is to increase skills so labor can move up to higher valued efforts. By intentionally preventing new entrants at the bottom rungs of the ladder, you prevent some from moving up who could have moved up if, say, an immigrant did the lower valued work.


    MikeP, you seem to think that the illegals will do the dirty work and "Americans will be freed to do the brain work, the clean work". I see two problems with this.

    1. The illegals will maximize their earnings so they will move away from picking fruit to factory jobs, and traditional blue-collar jobs such as auto repair, carpentry, etc. In fact, this has already happened. In California, the light construction industry (homebuilders) is probably mostly illegals. Are these (carpentry, electrician, plumber, etc) simply more jobs that "Americans won't do"?
    2. You presume that all Americans are capable or desirous of doing the "clean" work. They are not. The American population is a normal distribution of people, i.e. most of them are equipped and suited to standard blue-collar level of work. When these ordinary Americans are displaced by a group that is willing to work for third world wages, they will join the third world standard of living. I think it is bad for American society to push poverty upon a large segment of the population.

  • ||

    Subject: Bird feeder

    I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. Within a week there were hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.

    But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue.

    Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table...everywhere.

    Then some of the birds turned mean: they would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.

    And others birds were boisterous and loud: They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.

    After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore.

    I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone.

    I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.

    Soon, the back yard was like it used to be...... quiet, serene and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.

    And now, the plot shift you've been expecting...

    Now lets see... our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, free education and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.

    Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands.

    Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; your child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English; Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to press "one" to hear my bank talk to me in English; people waving flags other than "Old Glory" are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.

    Maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.

    John

  • VM||

    Maybe it's time for the group home monitor to take away "John's" internet access.

  • ||

    VM,

    Why didn't you call John a racist. After all he did make all those "bilingual" remarks. Oh, and xenophobe too, the "other than Old Glory" remark certainly qualifies.

    Disconnecting his internet access will silence his opposition, but the name calling is so persuasive.

  • ||

    Here's where John's argument fails:

    Now lets see... our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, free education and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.

    Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands.


    Nope, they were coming by the tens of thousands before the modern welfare state existed.

    The part where the presence of immigrants in the United States is comparable to being attacked and splattered with animal waste, though - why? Because they have accents? Their food smells different?

  • ||

    Yeah, it the accent , yeah, that's the ticket.


    Lots of folks are asking about the accused killer in the Newark execution-style murders of four young students. Yes, he's here illegally according to media and law enforcement officials and he just pleaded not guilty this morning. More: "Carranza, who spoke through an interpreter, admitted he was not a U.S. citizen and was staying in the country illegally." And, yes, he has an extensive rap sheet:

    Carranza had at least three prior arrests and was facing an aggravated assault charge in a separate case at the time of the killings, Booker said. According to court records obtained by The Star-Ledger of Newark, Carranza was indicted twice this year - in April on aggravated assault and weapons charges; and in July on 31 counts including aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than 13. He was free on bail on the indictments.

    La Shawn Barber has more on Hispanic gang violence targeting blacks and writes: "Celebrate diversity!"

    http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/10/the-new-bush-immigration-enforcement-plan-color-me-underwhelmed/

  • ||

    If immigrants simply do jobs Americans won't do, how do these jobs get done in other rich nations that have much less liberal immigration policies?



    Ummm, actually, in fact, they don't. Or at least they don't get done as much

    Toilets don't get cleaned as often. Lawns don't get mowed as often. Gardens don't get weeded as often. Waste baskets don't get emptied as often.

    Travel to somewhere else in the world young Chalupa and you will find out something about this grand globe upon which we live. Until then I suggest you keep your ignorance to yourself. You won't look quite so stupid.

  • ||

    D'ohhh

  • ||

    Nope, they were coming by the tens of thousands before the modern welfare state existed.

    You are right, Joe. There has been a steady, movement of people across the border for many decades. In the last twenty years though, it has become a torrent. Clearly, the social amenities provided by the US tax payer are a powerful magnet. Deguass the magnet and the flow will once again become manageable and beneficial.

  • ||

    "Toilets don't get cleaned as often. Lawns don't get mowed as often. Gardens don't get weeded as often. Waste baskets don't get emptied as often."

    Then only the rich are affected - let them pay more, to legal residents, for these sevices.

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