Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Save Our Family Farms: Incarcerate Everyone
It's hard to get very far in a debate over immigration reform without prompting the claim "but they broke the law" -- the implication being that, hey, it's not the Mexicanness we object to, it's the violation of our infallible, divinely inspired, uniformly just immigration law. I can't take this argument seriously, but I'm wondering how the aversion to criminality squares with the continued switchover to labor from actual criminals:
Colorado started sending female inmates to harvest onions, corn, and melons this summer. Iowa is considering a similar program. In Arizona, inmates have been working for private agriculture businesses for almost 20 years. But with legislation signed this summer that would fine employers for knowingly hiring undocumented workers, more farmers are turning to the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) for help.
Although the ADC is considering innovative solutions – including satellite prisons – to fulfill companies' requests for inmate labor, prison officials agree that, in the end, the demand is too high.
I haven't heard James Sensenbrenner complain that we're condoning drug use by letting offenders harvest onions all day long. If immigrants agree to live in jail cells, can they continue to work?
|8.24.07 @ 1:53PM|#
If immigrants agree to live in jail cells, can they continue
to work?
i believe Dave W. asked this question perhaps a year ago -
something about the limits of consent, etc.
Russ 2000|8.24.07 @ 1:59PM|#
prison officials agree that, in the end, the demand is too
high.
Hey, abolitionism had its run.
|8.24.07 @ 2:03PM|#
The more sinister aspect of all this is that if companies can
use cheap prison (slave?) labor, it gives them incentive to lobby
the government to keep locking people up.
IMO, it should be federal law that no private company can profit
from the use of inmate labor.
|8.24.07 @ 2:08PM|#
watch, as dan t. says something that people would agree with if it came from anyone else.
|8.24.07 @ 2:14PM|#
why the question mark after "slave"?
To indicate that I'm not exactly sure it's the same thing as slave
labor but some might argue that it is.
|8.24.07 @ 2:16PM|#
pinches nose
Looks shiftily from side to side...to see if anyone's
around
makes slight gurgling sound, to suppress the vomit and
says...
Dan T. I agree with you 100%.
passes out
fade to black
Jennifer|8.24.07 @ 2:16PM|#
IMO, it should be federal law that no private company can
profit from the use of inmate labor.
Agreed. I don't even think convict labor should be used for doing
state work, like road clean-up or license-plate stamping.
Prosecuting and punishing criminals should be one government
program that ALWAYS runs at a financial loss, so that there's no
financial incentive to imprison people, only the incentive "This
man is such a menace to society, it's WORTH the high cost of
incarceration to keep him off the streets."
Tym|8.24.07 @ 2:21PM|#
The more sinister aspect of all this is that if companies
can use cheap prison (slave?) labor, it gives them incentive to
lobby the government to keep locking people up.
Kind of like the prison guard unions.
IMO, it should be federal law that no private company can
profit from the use of inmate labor.
I actually agree with Dan T.
|8.24.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Prison Labor! Talk about killing two birds with one stone!
...you know that old trope about how Americans aren't willing to do
the work--well why don't we just sentence them to do the
work?!
One question--if a prisoner is in the country illegally, should he
be eligible for use as forced labor?
By the way, I understand that enforcement* is making farm labor a
huge problem nation wide, and that there are many states that are
turning to prison labor. Still, prison labor doesn't come anywhere
close to making up for the shortfall, and farmers aren't making up
for it by raising salaries and hiring people away from other
jobs...
They're just cutting back on the planting.
*What happens to a farmer in debt if half his labor gets busted
halfway through the harvest?
|8.24.07 @ 2:30PM|#
This is just part of the inevitable transformation of our country from and agricultural, to and industrial, to a service and then to a prison based economy.
|8.24.07 @ 2:31PM|#
"IMO, it should be federal law that no private company can
profit from the use of inmate labor."
I would say that no one should force people to work, period.
...but maybe inmates should be able to work if they want to, and
they should get paid for what they do. Theoretically, if you're
getting paid for what you do, then the work you do must be
profitable enough that the people you work for can afford to pay
you.
My understanding is that most prisoners want a job while they're in
prison. I'm not sure you can have too many jobs without prisoners
doing something productive enough to be profitable.
|8.24.07 @ 2:31PM|#
It has an easy answer, if you don't like it obey the law. No punishment is too easy for violent predators like murders, rapists, robbers and drug users.
|8.24.07 @ 2:38PM|#
My understanding is that most prisoners want a job while
they're in prison. I'm not sure you can have too many jobs without
prisoners doing something productive enough to be
profitable.
I think we still can allow prisoners to do jobs related to the
prison itself (kitchen duty, laundry, groundskeeping, etc.) These
kinds of jobs are "profitable" in the sense that they create
productive results and maybe save the state some money but they
don't create the incentive to lock more people up (it will still
cost more to incarcerate someone than the value you'll get from
having them work in the prison).
|8.24.07 @ 2:50PM|#
If immigrants agree to live in jail cells, can they continue
to work?
No no no. The have to keep their kids out of school and stay away
from the Emergency Room.
|8.24.07 @ 2:51PM|#
Jennifer,
IIRC, you have the same stance regarding prison labor used in other
countries(ahem, China) correct?
Dan T.,
Fully agree with you on the "Prisoners working for the Prison" bit,
even so far as the old Texas State Prison method of harvesting some
(most?) of their own food from state owned vegetable patches. But I
feel you are correct that is should be illegal for a company or,
heaven forbid, the state to "make" money from prison labor.
|8.24.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Jennifer,
I am of the mind that it should never profit the state to
enforce the law. Thus everything from traffic fines to property
seizures should be prohibited.
|8.24.07 @ 2:54PM|#
I'm not expert on this, but my understanding is that there
aren't anywhere near enough of those kinds of prison service
jobs--laundries, cafeterias, janitorial--to go around. My
understanding is that having a job in most prisons is like an
uncommon privilege that a lot of prisoners don't get.
Some of the excons I've heard are actually concerned about
adjusting to life on the outside after being essentially sedentary
for three and a half to five. I think that might be a reasonable
concern.
Conceptually, I don't have any more of a problem with prisoners
picking crops than I do with prisoners working for the state,
making license plates and street signs. ...and prison
overcrowding is the issue most everywhere.
|8.24.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Y'know, I was just flipping back through "The Gulag Archipeligo"...I bet some crazed leftist documentarian could make an interesting movie out of all this.
TLB|8.24.07 @ 3:02PM|#
Kerry Howley: you seem to have ignored or be unable to figure
out that massive law-breaking is indicative of massive
GovernmentCorruption. Not only do private companies (like banks)
seek to profit from illegal activity, but so too does our
FederalReserve.
If you and all the other Reason contributors pool your intellectual
resources - and perhaps bring in some interns to help - can you
figure out just how extremely dangerous such widespread
PublicAndPrivateCorruption is?
Scroll all the way down on this list, if you need a clue:
infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html
|8.24.07 @ 3:02PM|#
Now that I think of it, I was sentenced to hard labor my
freshman year in boarding school for sneaking out at night and
trying to meet my girlfriend.
I had to dig stumps out of the ground and slit wood with a sledge
hammer and some spikes. No, that's not as bad as being in prison
and given hard labor, but it still sucked. Oh, and I couldn't talk
to any female students on campus for a month. ...cruel and unusual
punishment when you're 15.
|8.24.07 @ 3:03PM|#
To indicate that I'm not exactly sure it's the same thing as slave labor but some might argue that it is.
Well, to be sure, the Thirteenth Amendment does make an exception
for involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime.
But experience has shown that allowing private profit from prison
labor has tended to lead to the very abuses of which you speak,
Dan.
So I join in the happy group hug of agreement on this issue.
I do belive that some effort should be made to keep prisoners
occupied at something useful. As Ken Shultz points out the problem
for a lot of prisoners is the mind destroying ennui of
incarceration.
|8.24.07 @ 3:05PM|#
Ken,
A contributing factor (tied in with overcrowding) is people who are
in prison that really don't need to be. Mandatory minimums for
consensual (drug) crimes that far outstrip the sentence for 2nd
degree murder are just one example of a "justice" system that has
gone wonky.
|8.24.07 @ 3:08PM|#
Hot damn,
I finally figured out LoneWacko's EnglishProblem. He is looking to
ProfitHeavily by submitting all of his WordRunnings to the US
PatentOffice. Once that is done he will license every
CombinationWord to the AmericanPublic to fund a re-reconquista of
OldMexico.
libertreee|8.24.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Aren't the same types who obsess over illegal immigration the ones who obsess over trade with China because of their "prison slave" labor?
|8.24.07 @ 3:16PM|#
"...you seem to have ignored or be unable to figure out that
massive law-breaking is indicative of massive
GovernmentCorruption."
You seem to have ignored or been unable to figure out that turning
to prison labor is a huge red flag indicating that without
immigrant labor, a whole slew of jobs just wouldn't get done.
libertreee|8.24.07 @ 3:19PM|#
But experience has shown that allowing private profit from prison labor has tended to lead to the very abuses of which you speak, Dan.-Isaac Bartram
No one has spoken up yet about the real alternative to all
this, which is NO prisons under private law. Crimes should be
torts, and private law would force restitution to the victims, not
punishment by the state.
Not only are these prisoners exploited by the state and the
businesses, but the whole deal is paid for by the taxpayers,
including the victims.
Joshua Holmes|8.24.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Kerry Howley: you seem to have ignored or be unable to
figure out that massive law-breaking is indicative of massive
GovernmentCorruption.
Actually, it's more likely that massive lawbreaking is a result of
the state trying to legislate what it cannot control. Legend has it
that Canute the Great, King of England, drew weary of the silver
tongues of his court. He went to the sea, stood in the waves, and
ordered them to cease. Obviously, they didn't, and his court
finally quit their flattery.
Anti-Mexicans are like Canute, albeit without any sense of irony.
They stand in the Rio Grande, ordering a migration to stop, and
actually expect it to happen. Like the North Sea, the Mexicans keep
coming.
The Ghost of Dan T. Past|8.24.07 @ 3:43PM|#
If you don't like it, you're free to move to a country where felons are treated in ways more to your liking.
M|8.24.07 @ 3:47PM|#
private law would force restitution to the victims, not punishment by the state
Anyone here opposed to this?
Russ 2000|8.24.07 @ 3:59PM|#
IMO, it should be federal law that no private company can
profit from the use of inmate labor.
Whew. At least my public-private partnership is safe.
|8.24.07 @ 4:14PM|#
If movies have taught us anything surely it is that prisoners
should only be allowed to do these things:
- Spend a night in the box
- Play football against the guards
- Act as librarian while making an escape tunnel behind a poster of
Rita Hayworth
- Consort with the warden's wife and / or secretary
- Have lesbian encounters
- Resurrect dead mice with their magical powers
- Adopt birds for companionship
- Inadvertantly aid the Japanese war effort in Burma through a
twisted sense of duty
- Fling semen on Jodie Foster's face
- Help Ripley combat an Alien infestation
- Escape from Alcatraz
- Escape from Ile du Diable
- Escape from New York (but not LA)
- Participate in rodeos
- Compete in egg eating competitions
That is it. Picking onions is not allowed. Period. End of
sentence.
|8.24.07 @ 4:25PM|#
13th. Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place
subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
It is within the law to allow slavery and involutary servitude if a
person has been convicted of a crime. I guess you could say that
the bottom line is: the more criminals, the higher the potential
slave labor.
|8.24.07 @ 4:33PM|#
"the more criminals, the higher the potential slave
labor."
So pass a law making the punishment for illegal entry picking
fruits and veggies for a year, lock up all the illegal immigrants
and only let them out to pick fruits and veggies.
When their term is up, deport them.
Iz Zis Awik Dunderooo?|8.24.07 @ 4:39PM|#
harro KKKenKKK!
yay. You're hier again. How "nice" to see you.
*prizes not fabulous
Brian|8.24.07 @ 4:47PM|#
I couldn't get past:
It's hard to get very far in a debate over immigration reform
without prompting the claim "but they broke the law" -- the
implication being that, hey, it's not the Mexicanness we object to,
it's the violation of our infallible, divinely inspired, uniformly
just immigration law.
before I stopped taking this article seriously.
TLB|8.24.07 @ 4:47PM|#
Joshua Holmes: I haven't been to your universe, but in ours it
wouldn't be that difficult to greatly reduce IllegalImmigration.
The sticking point is that our leaders are, in a word,
crooks.
If our leaders weren't crooks they would enforce the laws and there
would be much less of it.
|8.24.07 @ 4:57PM|#
""IMO, it should be federal law that no private company can
profit from the use of inmate labor."""
Dan T wins a thread?
I've got to play lotto this week.
|8.24.07 @ 5:00PM|#
If our leaders weren't crooks they would enforce the laws and there would be much less of it.
Umm, who is not enforcing what laws?
So tell us, what is this simple plan to greatly reduce
IllegalImmigration?
Turning the country into a police state doesn't count as an
answer.
|8.24.07 @ 5:12PM|#
Democracies don't build walls, they tear them down.
The wall built to keep them out, eventually becomes the wall to
keep you in.
|8.24.07 @ 5:23PM|#
"The wall built to keep them out, eventually becomes the wall to
keep you in."
Complete and utter BS.
But wait, maybe you can give some examples where this actually
happened?
The solution is 2000 miles of double concertina wire patrolled by
all the border troops now in Korea and Germany and Japan.
|8.24.07 @ 5:28PM|#
"The solution is 2000 miles of double concertina wire
patrolled by all the border troops now in Korea and Germany and
Japan."
And the purpose of this Fortress America edifice is to protect
American farmers from the labor they need?
Brian|8.24.07 @ 5:32PM|#
And the purpose of this Fortress America edifice is to
protect American farmers from the labor they need?
They need? Says who?
|8.24.07 @ 5:33PM|#
No, no no... I get it!
The purpose of the Fortress America edifice is to protect people in
the American prison system from people taking their jobs as crop
pickers!
|8.24.07 @ 5:47PM|#
The solution is 2000 miles of double concertina wire
patrolled by all the border troops now in Korea and Germany and
Japan.
Since nearly half of illegal immigrants enter legally but overstay
their visas, I am curious how the troops can use concertina wire to
pursue them or what alternative magical tools you would have the
troops use in the cities and streets of the country.
Minion of URKOBOLD|8.24.07 @ 5:50PM|#
KKKenKKK IS COMPLETE AND UTTER BS
AND HE HAS AN UDDER!
IT'S TRUE.
I HAVE PICTURES.
AND HE HAS A MAN-BACON BRICK HOUSE CABOOSE BADONK-A-DONK. (*which
is hawt)
Brian|8.24.07 @ 5:58PM|#
Since nearly half of illegal immigrants enter legally but
overstay their visas
Ummm...use it on the more-than-half?
|8.24.07 @ 6:00PM|#
"They need? Says who?"
Says the farmers who are being forced to beg for prison
labor.
From the Article Howley linked above:
"As states increasingly crack down on hiring undocumented
workers, western farmers are looking at inmates to harvest their
fields. Colorado started sending female inmates to harvest onions,
corn, and melons this summer. Iowa is considering a similar
program. In Arizona, inmates have been working for private
agriculture businesses for almost 20 years. But with legislation
signed this summer that would fine employers for knowingly hiring
undocumented workers, more farmers are turning to the Arizona
Department of Corrections (ADC) for help.
"We are contacted almost daily by different companies needing
labor," says Bruce Farely, manager of the business development unit
of Arizona Correctional Industries (ACI). ACI is a state labor
program that holds contracts with government and private companies.
"Maybe it was labor that was undocumented before, and they don't
want to take the risk anymore because of possible consequences, so
they are looking to inmate labor as a possible
alternative."
...
"If it weren't for a steady flow of inmates year-round, says
Jack Dixon, owner of LBJ, one of the largest watermelon farms in
the western US, he'd have sold out long ago. Even so, last year 400
acres of his watermelons rotted on the ground - a $640,000 loss -
because there weren't enough harvesters."
|8.24.07 @ 6:01PM|#
As far as I'm concerned, the anti-immigration lobby owes Jack Dixon about $640,000.
|8.24.07 @ 6:07PM|#
Ummm...use it on the more-than-half?
Okay... sorry about that. I must use a different definition of
'the' from the one you use.
|8.24.07 @ 6:14PM|#
I think they left out the words "really, really
cheap".
Or, more likely, the word "willing".
|8.24.07 @ 6:16PM|#
"I think they left out the words "really, really
cheap".
Is this a new revelation? ...that farming requires cheap
labor?
We'll leave off European history, you know why slavery was a big
deal for agriculture, right?
You know family farms used to have larger families than most of us
do now, right?
So farmers need cheap labor! ...who knew?!
Brian|8.24.07 @ 6:29PM|#
Put said fence up and don't let them in unless they come in legally so they can get said jobs.
|8.24.07 @ 6:35PM|#
IMO, it should be federal law that no private company can
profit from the use of inmate labor.
Let's try rephrasing this, Dan T.
"IMO, it should be federal law that no private company can
profit from the use of inmate labor offer
inmates a chance to volunteer to get out of their prison cells and
take their minds off being locked up by doing something productive,
thereby benefiting both sides of this voluntary contractual
relationship.
Any other "libertarians" want to agree with Dan T. on this one?
|8.24.07 @ 6:38PM|#
If you don't think coming across for reasons like getting a job should be illegal, then why do you want a fence?
TLB|8.24.07 @ 6:39PM|#
It's great to see "libertarians" arguing for MassiveSubsidies
for LyingFarmers. And, yes, most of these types of articles are
read are simply planted and you can find them stretching back for
decades.
Isaac Bartram, perhaps trying to be as dumb as a Reason
contributor, says: Umm, who is not enforcing what
laws?
Umm, MichaelChertoff? GeorgeBush? If they really wanted to reduce
IllegalImmigration, they'd make SSNVerification mandatory instead
of the voluntary system that very few use. They'd also conduct
stings and make them stick. They'd prosecute crooked employers with
the same ferocity that they've shown towards BPAgents. And, they
wouldn't have lobbied to allow CrookedBanks to accept the
MexicanIDCard that only IllegalAliens use. And, they'd stop the
FDIC from working with the MexicanConsulate to give
HomeLoansToIllegalAliens. Those are just some of the things they
could do, or could have avoided doing.
|8.24.07 @ 6:40PM|#
"Any other "libertarians" want to agree with Dan T. on this
one?"
I agreed with you on this. There were some libertarians who didn't,
and they look like they had some pretty good libertarian
reasons.
Read the thread, dude.
|8.24.07 @ 6:41PM|#
I think Brian is confused. He seems to think that there are scads of legal immigrants and just sitting around waiting for a job picking watermelons. I hate to break it to you, but the overwhelming majority of legal immigrants and native born people are employed. The few that are not (4-6%) are not for various reasons, most of which are not due to a lack of jobs available to them. So, the options are a) force these unemployed people to work at gunpoint or b)locate another source of employees. Since the US has an immigration quota that discourages "unskilled" and migrant workers where do you suggest Americans find said labor?
|8.24.07 @ 6:42PM|#
jh,
As long as the employment is at market wages, the prisoner gets the
entire wage to the degree he would outside prison, and the prison
does not profit monetarily in any way, I would be happy to see
prisoners employed privately.
|8.24.07 @ 6:43PM|#
"It's great to see "libertarians" arguing for
MassiveSubsidies for LyingFarmers."
How do you know farmers are lying? What are they lying about?
...and since when is letting Americans hire the employees of their
choice a subsidy?
|8.24.07 @ 6:43PM|#
Any other "libertarians" want to agree with Dan T. on this one?
A-yup. I suggest you review the definition of "imprisonment" before
you start talking about "voluntary contractual relationships".
Brian|8.24.07 @ 6:44PM|#
Ken, you're putting words in my mouth and being so illogical I
can no longer continue with you.
jh and TLB both have great posts though.
Brian|8.24.07 @ 6:47PM|#
I suggest you review the definition of "imprisonment" before
you start talking about "voluntary contractual
relationships"
Between the prison and private company, it probably is voluntarily
contractual.
|8.24.07 @ 6:51PM|#
How did I put words in your mouth?
I asked questions!
What, you don't really want a fence? You said you did. Do you or
don't you think it should be illegal to come here and look for a
job?
I can understand why you'd want a fence if you thought that coming
here to look for a job should be illegal, but I don't understand
why you'd want a fence if you don't think coming here to look for a
job should be illegal--so I asked!
Go ahead. I really would like to understand why you want a fence. I
can see good libertarian reasons to want a fence--what's
yours?
|8.24.07 @ 6:55PM|#
As a libertarian, I can behind a fence and guard posts every mile ala Hadrian's Wall provided that everyone who showed up on the Mexican side looking for a job that passed a basic criminal background check was allowed into the US to work, and free to pass back to Mexico when the job was over.
Brian|8.24.07 @ 7:00PM|#
I think Brian is confused. He seems to think that there are
scads of legal immigrants and just sitting around waiting for a job
picking watermelons.
No, I'm not confused by any means. I was actually being
tongue-in-cheek, but if the government wasn't so lax on illegal
immigration, there would be a lot more legal immigrants to hire.
It's either the way "undocumented workers" came here or letting
their visas running out that made them "illegal" - not the reasons
they came here.
|8.24.07 @ 7:07PM|#
if the government wasn't so lax on illegal immigration,
there would be a lot more legal immigrants to hire.
Quoted for befuddlement...
|8.24.07 @ 7:08PM|#
I can get behind a fence, especially with Al Qaeda out there, to
make sure people aren't coming across a heavily traveled border
with some kind of weaponized something or other to use against us.
I think people should have to have some kind of identification
showing that they don't have a criminal record too, and I don't
think it's a bad idea to see that they don't have any communicable
diseases.
Otherwise, I think letting people back and forth across the border
at will will likely make it so that the only people trudging
through the desert are smugglers and criminals and bad dudes.
...and I think clearing those deserts of illegal aliens--surely
they'll prefer a line to a coyote--will make it so much easier for
the Border Patrol to find and thwart the bad guys in the
desert.
So a fence can help keep out the bad guys, especially if the people
who just come here looking for a job are using border crossings and
going through Immigration and Customs.
I can see that. I see good arguments against a fence too. ...with
the suggestion that it might be largely ineffective against the bad
guys way up at the top.
Jennifer|8.24.07 @ 7:11PM|#
Jennifer, IIRC, you have the same stance regarding prison
labor used in other countries(ahem, China) correct?
Yes.
I am of the mind that it should never profit the state to
enforce the law. Thus everything from traffic fines to property
seizures should be prohibited.
Agree with this too.
|8.24.07 @ 7:11PM|#
Between the prison and private company, it probably is voluntarily contractual.
Hrrm, I don't seem to recall the prison being part of your
contract. Let's see:
IMO, it should be federal law that no private company can offer inmates a chance to volunteer to get out of their prison cells and take their minds off being locked up by doing something productive, thereby benefiting both sides of this voluntary contractual relationship.
Yes, your "voluntary contractual relationship" involved only the
prisoner and a private company not the Prison but even then, the
prisoner is not exactly in a "volunteer" position now is he?
Let's change the wording a tad shall we:
IMO, it should be federal law that no private company can offer negros a chance to volunteer to get out of being whipped and take their minds off being enslaved by doing something productive, thereby benefiting both sides of this voluntary contractual relationship
Who, exactly in that sentence is involved in a "voluntary"
contract? Does that make it a bit more clear?
How you feel about the use of slave labor aside, allowing the
government (prisons in this case) to 'profit' by using force on its
own people leads to corruption and overt use of that force.
For a more clear cut example, look at asset forfeiture and "wrong
door" drug busts or busts on low level users. Police perform these
busts because a)it's safe and b)they get to "profit" from the
property of the suspect, in many cases without the suspect ever
being charged or convicted of a crime. This leads to rampant abuses
and accusations of "drug crime" even when no such crime could be
proven in a court of law.
|8.24.07 @ 7:14PM|#
... but if the government wasn't so lax on illegal immigration, there would be a lot more legal immigrants to hire. It's either the way "undocumented workers" came here or letting their visas running out that made them "illegal"
So, your solution to having hard working "illegals" is not to offer
them a way to become "legal" in the eyes of the law but rather to
deport them and keep them out. Very interesting proposition. Tell
me more.
|8.24.07 @ 7:26PM|#
"It's either the way "undocumented workers" came here or
letting their visas running out that made them "illegal" - not the
reasons they came here."
Getting a visa isn't like getting a driver's license. They only
give out so many, and the demand is much greater than the supply.
...and unless you're a refugee, I don't think they really care
about why you're here.
In terms of people coming here and letting their visas expire, I
don't know if it's still this way, but it used to be that it took
so long for the government to process paper work, that for many
people, even if they filed for various types of visas the day they
got here, the government couldn't process the application before
their time ran out. I don't blame the immigrants for that.
Requiring people to return to their home country while their
application is processed complicates matters too. Some of the
demands seem unreasonable. This may be technically illegal, but
some of it seems inline to me with going 60 mph in a 55 zone or
jaywalking.
If the government demands that somebody move back to Veracruz for a
year while they process what amounts to a jaywalking ticket, I'm
not going to support throwing them in prison if for whatever reason
they don't go. Working a job or paying rent or breathing air or
just being here--none of that stuff by itself should be against the
law.
Rhywun|8.24.07 @ 7:33PM|#
Anyone who thinks building a fence is going to solve anything should sit down and watch the episode of Bullsh!t that deals with this very issue before they embarrass themselves any further.
Brian|8.24.07 @ 7:34PM|#
Quoted for befuddlement...
What's befuddling? The government set a precedent by not enforcing
the immigration laws and now there's some 10 million "undocumented
workers." Almost half of them have expired visas. The other half,
we pretty much have no clue about - but a lot of people just want
to keep the flood gates open.
Surly Surrealstein|8.24.07 @ 7:36PM|#
I say we imprison the farmers and let the immigrants run the
prisons, using slave labor to build a fence along the Canadian
border.
Then we dig up H.L. Mencken, do some klaatu verata nichtu voodoo to
bring him back to life and let him skull fuck the farmers while he
points at Democrats saying "you're next." Then we bring back Thomas
Paine and let him do whatever he wants to Republicans, just to be
fair.
And we open the borders. Fuck borders.
Signed,
Surly Surrealstein
|8.24.07 @ 7:42PM|#
"The government set a precedent by not enforcing the
immigration laws and now there's some 10 million "undocumented
workers." Almost half of them have expired visas. The other half,
we pretty much have no clue about - but a lot of people just want
to keep the flood gates open."
Much of what you write sounds like your problem is that we don't
know who these people are and we don't know whether some of them
may be dangerous criminals, etc. and if they are, we don't know
where they are, etc. ...and I think you're going to find many of us
in this thread are on board with much of that.
...but then you write, "...but a lot of people just want to
keep the flood gates open." and it sounds like your problem
isn't with the quality of people, but the quantity. ...and when I
hear someone complain about the numbers of a certain type of people
like that, it's hard not to associate what you're saying with what
I usually hear people say. ...uh, about that.
|8.24.07 @ 7:46PM|#
If we insisted that everyone who came across our border was in some kind of reliable identification system that addressed the concerns I mentioned above, then I don't see any reason why we should limit the number of people who can come here from Canada or Mexico.
|8.24.07 @ 7:47PM|#
What's befuddling?
if the government wasn't so lax on illegal immigration, there
would be a lot more legal immigrants to hire.
Two things are befuddling...
First, what is this magical source of legal immigrants? All quotas
of people who would do the work illegal immigrants usually do are
way overdrawn. Where would the legal immigrants you speak of come
from?
Second, what is the mechanism by which illegal immigrants or lax
enforcement of immigration law decreases the number of legal
immigrants available to hire?
Brian|8.24.07 @ 7:48PM|#
but then you write, "...but a lot of people just want to
keep the flood gates open." and it sounds like your problem isn't
with the quality of people, but the quantity
I don't have a problem with how many immigrants come here from
anywhere. All I'm saying is that laws still aren't being enforced
and there's a lot of people unaccounted for still coming in. I know
visas aren't easy to get, I'm all for a guest worker program of
some sort.
|8.24.07 @ 7:52PM|#
I'm all for a guest worker program of some sort.
How about a program of the sort: "If you want to work, be our
guest."
Brian|8.24.07 @ 7:54PM|#
How about a program of the sort: "If you want to work, be
our guest."
Sure, with a background check and whatnot.
|8.24.07 @ 7:55PM|#
"All I'm saying is that laws still aren't being enforced and
there's a lot of people unaccounted for still coming in. I know
visas aren't easy to get, I'm all for a guest worker program of
some sort."
Then I think we're more or less on the same page, at least on this
issue.
Call it a guest worker program or whatever, the fact is that all of
them need to be identified in some way, if they're going to be
here. ...and they are going to be here.
Asharak|8.24.07 @ 7:55PM|#
It's great to see "libertarians" arguing for
MassiveSubsidies for LyingFarmers. And, yes, most of these types of
articles are read are simply planted and you can find them
stretching back for decades.
It's great to see you question the libertarianism of libertarians
while Michelle Malkin is a fan of your blog. Care to explain what
exactly is libertarian about supporting internment camps, TLB?
|8.24.07 @ 7:56PM|#
I suggest you review the definition of "imprisonment" before
you start talking about "voluntary contractual
relationships"
I'm not talking about forcing anyone to work for the private
companies. I'm talking about prisoners choosing to work, and being
under no compulsion to do so, because it's less boring than sitting
in their cell. Is it libertarian to say "Let's deny the prisoners
the chance to do jobs they want to do, and that by their own
standards makes them better off, because we object to enterprising
people earning money?"
And yeah, I did read the comments upthread, and some perceptive and
valid points were made, but I've also read that prisoners compete
for these jobs, especially the jobs that allow them to get outside
the prison walls, because their alternative uses of their time
suck. If you can cite some reliable sources showing these jobs were
generally done under subtle (or blatant) coercion, I'd change my
mind about this.
Brian|8.24.07 @ 7:56PM|#
then they would technically be immigrants here legally, and the
new precedent would be set.
but I still wouldn't mind digging up H.L. Mencken, do some klaatu
verata nichtu voodoo to bring him back to life and let him skull
fuck the farmers.
|8.24.07 @ 7:57PM|#
Pulling them out of the underground economy is in everybody's interest too. It's harder to exploit someone here legally. You take away some hazy cover for the black market. I think it's a win/win.
Brian|8.24.07 @ 8:01PM|#
Yeah jh, but then we get prisoners LIKING prison and WILLINGLY
arrested...serious abuse of power. Then they're like, man I like
the job I had at the prison so I think I'll get arrested again
because I can't get a good job here on the outside. Know what I
mean?
But seriously, I agree with what you're saying. I've never been to
prison but I've read Education of a Felon and it sounds like having
jobs keeps some people from going off in prison.
Asharak|8.24.07 @ 8:05PM|#
then they would technically be immigrants here legally, and
the new precedent would be set.
but I still wouldn't mind digging up H.L. Mencken, do some klaatu
verata nichtu voodoo to bring him back to life and let him skull
fuck the farmers.
A reanimated Mencken would likely skull fuck the Tancredo
supporters right along with the farmers and the Beltway
open-borders Libertarians, Brian.
|8.24.07 @ 8:05PM|#
How you feel about the use of slave labor aside, allowing
the government (prisons in this case) to 'profit' by using force on
its own people leads to corruption and overt use of that
force.
I don't agree with slave labor, and that is not what I'm talking
about. I agree with MikeP that the state or prison system shouldn't
get a cut of the proceeds, since that obviously invites coercion.
But I disagree with MikeP about letting the government interfere
with the negotiations between the prospective employer and the
prospective employee about the work and the compensation.
Goldthwait|8.24.07 @ 8:09PM|#
"I can't take this argument seriously"
Then why the fuck should anyone even bother trying to "debate" you?
Christ, talk about a signpost to a weak intellect.
|8.24.07 @ 8:15PM|#
But I disagree with MikeP about letting the government
interfere with the negotiations between the prospective employer
and the prospective employee about the work and the
compensation.
I'm sorry if you took what I said as implying that. I didn't mean
to.
When I said market rates, I meant market rates. When I said the
prisoner gets the wage, he gets the paycheck. He is the employee of
the private firm. There is no middleman. The workers are not farmed
out by the prison. The prison acts as employment counselors and
guards and nothing else.
Goldthwait|8.24.07 @ 8:18PM|#
"It's hard to get very far in a debate over immigration reform
without prompting the claim "but they broke the law" -- the
implication being that, hey, it's not the Mexicanness we object to,
it's the violation of our infallible, divinely inspired, uniformly
just immigration law. I can't take this argument
seriously..."
Ah, how refreshing. It is never too late in the debate to smear
opponents of illegal immigration as bigots. Bravo.
|8.24.07 @ 8:32PM|#
MikeP -- Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your 8:15
post. The prison's role should be limited to vetoing work
arrangements that increase the chance of escapes or put the safety
of other prisoners at risk -- say, an offer to let prisoners grind
and sharpen knives for a cutlery company.
In response to kwix's snarky post about negroes -- I've had three
jobs in a row where I was significantly underemployed on the job. I
enjoyed the few hours each day where I had productive work to do,
but having to sit around doing nothing, waiting for quitting time
to roll around, drove me more than a little crazy. And that was
with pleasant bosses, access to Reason.com and other websites to
while away the time, and the ability to quit at any time. I can
only imagine what it would be like to be incarcerated with not a
damn thing to do all day long, surly guards, no computer access,
and no prospect of leaving. I'd go nuts.
Not everyone hates working. Some people hate being idle.
|8.24.07 @ 8:35PM|#
"Anyone who thinks building a fence is going to solve anything
should sit down and watch the episode of Bullsh!t that deals with
this very issue before they embarrass themselves any
further."
Yeah, it's hard to build a fence that can't be defeated. That's why
I propose concertina wire and border troops on patrol. Add a bunch
of those robots with tazers maybe? Heck, I'd think that there's
more than enough people willing to run one of those robots via the
internet - a first person shooter with live targets - I love
it.
PS. IZ THAD YOU STRONG BAD? HARRO?
Akira MacKenzie|8.24.07 @ 8:45PM|#
Care to explain what exactly is libertarian about supporting
internment camps, TLB?
I'm sure TLB will give us an answer about the same time he tell us
all what he has against basic English grammar (e.g. proper use of
capitalization and spacing.)
Goldthwait|8.24.07 @ 8:47PM|#
"but I'm wondering how the aversion to criminality squares with
the continued switchover to labor from actual criminals: "
Let me see if I can explain this to you. See, these "actual
criminals" are doing this work as part of an actual sentence in
conjunction with time in an actual prison to which they were sent
after being tried by an actual prosecutor before an actual judge
and an actual jury.
It would seem this strange aversion to criminals comes about when
other criminals break certain laws, let us use, oh, I don't know,
immigration laws as example, yet for some odd reason, not only are
they not punished, they are actually shielded by some individuals
and communities even rewarded in some cases with certain benefits.
For some fucked-up reason, certain insane people actually object to
this. Fuck, a true intellectual, and not a lazy one who doesn't
want to defend her argument against opposing viewpoints, would just
automatically dismiss such objections as naked racism.
Goldthwait|8.24.07 @ 8:50PM|#
"Care to explain what exactly is libertarian about supporting
internment camps, TLB?"
Yeah, these are the exact same as interment camps, except this work
is being done by "actual criminals" and not the non-criminals that
were actually put in internment camps. Because, evidently,
committing a crime and having to work while in prison as part of
your punishment is the exact same as incarcerating the
innocent.
Jennifer|8.24.07 @ 9:19PM|#
Because, evidently, committing a crime and having to work
while in prison as part of your punishment is the exact same as
incarcerating the innocent.
Actually, if you read what people actually wrote here, you'd see
that those of us who oppose the use of prison labor are not
concerned so much with the idea of prisoners having to work, as
with the idea of the state having financial incentives to take away
people's freedom.
thoreau|8.24.07 @ 10:36PM|#
You know, I think I addressed this some time
ago:
thoreau | May 17, 2006, 11:05pm | #
Hey, I've got a great idea: If we're going to crack down on illegals and arrest them, we shouldn't just send them to some prison cell and let them live off the taxpayers. We should make them earn their keep: Have them do construction work, pick crops, wash dishes, and so forth.
Oh, wait...
|8.25.07 @ 12:36AM|#
So it seems to boil down to a concern that the people who run
the penal system might strike a deal with profiteers and that that
might grow into some kind of direct relationship between the amount
of money profiteers can make and the number of incarcerated
people...
I'm sensitive to that, and I tend to make points by analogy. I
guess it's just the way I think, and that's gotten me in trouble
around here in just the past 24 hours, but here goes:
It's like parental notification in regards to abortion in a way.
One of the arguments I've heard against parental notification is
the fear that some parents, when they hear their daughter got
pregnant or had it taken care of, might abuse their children.
Well there's a law against that. When we find parents who've abused
their children, we should punish them harshly. To me, that doesn't
mean the government should effectively cut all parents out of the
loop.
Another example might be subprime loans--as I've said before, yeah,
the existence of easy credit means some people will take on more
debt than they can handle and maybe hurt themselves badly. ...but
to me, that doesn't mean easy credit shouldn't be available to
those who can handle it.
The War on Drugs comes to mind this way. I have little doubt but
that if marijuana was legal, that that would bring some people
harm. ...but that doesn't mean the government should make decisions
for everybody. The second amendment comest to mind too.
It's an interesting dividing line. On one side, there's the concern
that profiteers will hurt the little guy. On the other, there's the
concern that the little guy won't get opportunities that he might
have otherwise. ...there's an assumption that people should be
allowed the opportunity to accept such risks on an individual
basis.
I just don't want the government to protect me from risks I choose
to take on myself. ...where some of you, in the spirit of the idea
that the government's only legitimate purpose is to protect
people's rights, I'm sure, seem to want the government to protect
these prisoners from profiteers. Maybe it's just a personality
thing?
I can't think of a situation in which I'd want the government to
make decisions about what's best for me--I always want to make
those decisions for myself. I imagine myself as a prisoner, and I
think I'd be even more adamant about making decisions for myself.
...like I said, maybe it's just a personality thing.
|8.25.07 @ 4:25AM|#
One question--if a prisoner is in the country illegally,
should he be eligible for use as forced labor?
First, I will admit that I did not read the whole thread, so this
comment might be redundant. The "forced labor' part of the quote
seems to reflect the thinking here.
I doubt these prisoners are forced to work in the
fields. I would bet that it is entirely voluntary, i.e. you can get
out of your cell for 8 or 10 hours per day and work in the fields,
or you can sit in your cell.
|8.25.07 @ 4:30AM|#
I am of the mind that it should never profit the state to
enforce the law. Thus everything from traffic fines to property
seizures should be prohibited.
Warren,
I sort of agree, with a minor change. I think fines are OK. After
all, where is the deterrent effect with no punishment. But, I think
that all fines paid, and property seized should be rebated to the
tax payers. That way, you still have the deterrent effect and you
don't turn the police forces into criminal enterprises.
Jennifer|8.25.07 @ 5:49AM|#
I think that all fines paid, and property seized should be
rebated to the tax payers. That way, you still have the deterrent
effect and you don't turn the police forces into criminal
enterprises.
That instead led to the infamous $3,000 traffic fines in Virginia.
Traffic tickets are more about revenue than public safety.
|8.25.07 @ 5:50AM|#
It's hard to get very far in a debate over immigration
reform without prompting the claim "but they broke the law" -- the
implication being that, hey, it's not the Mexicanness we
object to, it's the violation of our infallible, divinely
inspired, uniformly just immigration law.
Kerry, in essence you are calling all who object to illegal
immigration, racists. Many commenters on H&R do the same thing.
When you frame the debate from the opening statement in such an
uncivil way, it is very difficult to have a rational discussion.
There are many reasons to object to a massive flow of poor
immigrants, none related to race. To me this shows a robot-like
response on your part; almost like a parrot in a cage that croaks
out filthy language because its neurons are programmed to form
those sounds, not realizing that those listening cringe at the
inappropriate sounds, however ignorant the source.
|8.25.07 @ 5:59AM|#
"That instead led to the infamous $3,000 traffic fines in
Virginia. Traffic tickets are more about revenue than public
safety."
Were those fines to be rebated to the taxpayers of Virginia?
|8.25.07 @ 10:04AM|#
I don't think there's anything wrong with denouncing
anti-immigrant racists. I read it the way she wrote it, and I
think, hey, if the shoe fits, wear it.
If she'd written, "- hey, it's not the free market aspects we
object to...", I wouldn't fault her for not mentioning the
racists.
Why should she have to call out every anti-immigrant bias on the
list by name?
|8.25.07 @ 10:12AM|#
Ken,
I don't know if I understand your point.
"I read it the way she wrote it, and I think, hey, if the shoe
fits, wear it."
Are you saying that those who object to illegal immigration are
racists?
|8.25.07 @ 10:29AM|#
No, I'm saying the racists who object to illegal immigration are
racists.
...and she can speak for herself, but the way I read it, that's
what she's saying too.
|8.25.07 @ 10:41AM|#
The way I read it, she's just giving an example--insert whatever
reason you like.
-- the implication being that, hey, it's not the [loss of jobs] we
object to, it's the violation of our infallible, divinely inspired,
uniformly just immigration law.
-- the implication being that, hey, it's not the [tax payer funded
benefits] we object to, it's the violation of our infallible,
divinely inspired, uniformly just immigration law.
-- the implication being that, hey, it's not the [school
overcrowding] we object to, it's the violation of our infallible,
divinely inspired, uniformly just immigration law.
Take your pick. She just picked one example.
For all I know, Howley thinks that every single person who's
against illegal immigration is a racist--but we can't tell that
from what she wrote here. If you see people calling you a racist
everywhere you go for being against illegal immigration, then that
probably says more about society at large or you personally than it
does about anything Howley wrote here.
...and no, I'm not calling you a racist.
|8.25.07 @ 10:54AM|#
"No, I'm saying the racists who object to illegal immigration
are racists."
I don't see how anybody can read her statement and come away
thinking what she meant was anything other than a blanket
implication that everybody who is against illegal immigration is a
racist. It is name calling, pure and simple. It poisons the debate.
Anybody who objects to illegal immigration just rolls their eyes
and wonders, why bother talking to these idiots?
This is not to say that there are no racists amongst the
anti-immigrant types, certainly there are. Of course there are
plenty of racists amongst the pro-immigrant types as well.
thoreau|8.25.07 @ 11:04AM|#
Ken-
I don't really have anything against giving inmates a chance to be
productive. In fact, I'm in favor of it. My concern is that a
profitable relationship between prisons and companies friendly to
the state will increase the institutional incentives to keep the
prison population large.
Of course, we also have a public sector version of that, via the
large and powerful prison guard unions.
I realize that there might not be enough work inside prison to keep
everybody there busy, but part of that could be remedied by
reducing the prison population via drug reform.
In the end, I think the biggest problem here is the size of the
prison population due to the drug war. Solve that, and we'll
probably have a clearer view of how to solve the remaining
issues.
|8.25.07 @ 12:03PM|#
"My concern is that a profitable relationship between
prisons and companies friendly to the state will increase the
institutional incentives to keep the prison population
large."
How is this different from, say, the argument that the profit
motive makes guns less expensive and hence more readily
available?
Maybe somebody can show me some statistics that suggest that the
availability of guns doesn't necessarily increase the rate of
violent crime--but that isn't the point. The point is that even if
it does, an individual's liberty to do as he or she sees fit is
more important to me than the negative consequences of
protecting the people at large from their own choices.
...and that's pretty much a universal for me.
I'm under the impression that you don't think the government should
make decisions for people about handguns. If I were a prisoner, I
wouldn't want the government making the decision about who I could
work for--I'd want to make that decision myself. ...even if it
meant that other people might be harmed by illegal employer/law
enforcement collusion.
In other words, the possibility that someone might commit a crime
isn't enough in my book to restrict someone's freedom of choice,
generally speaking. (No, I'm not sure that you should be able to
pick up a surface to air missle at Wal*Mart.)
|8.25.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Kerry, in essence you are calling all who object to illegal
immigration, racists.
This is extremely silly. The bogus argument about criminality is
supposed to posit a relevant difference between illegal immigrants
and other people seeking work: One set of people is defined as
criminal. This is meant to distance the debate from the most
obvious set of differences: One set of people does not hold
American passports. Almost no one believes that all laws
are worth following just by virtue of being laws, and I take the
objection to be question-begging; the issue is whether the law is
just, not whether it has been ignored.
So yes, I think the criminality argument is generally made in bad
faith. That in no way implies that I think the people making this
argument are racists. Many, if not most, people consider the right
to provide economic services on American soil exclusive to those
lucky enough to be born on American soil. I don't think this is
just. But I certainly don't think it's racist, and no one here has
come close to implying that it is.
wss|8.25.07 @ 1:03PM|#
I think since "but they broke the law!" is such a lame reason
for being anti-illegal immigrant that people assume it isn't the
real reason, or the whole reason, and it leaves people to speculate
about the real reason, and racism is a good possibility.
For instance, you can be against any immigration, legal or
otherwise, if it brings in a large group of people from a radically
incompatible political culture (South American style
Marxist-Bolivarian revolutionary
types or radical Muslims are good examples) and you might get a
respectful hearing, but this post is specifically about those who
say that their main problem with illegal immigrants is that they
are *illegal*. If they really believe that, then they must also
regard all other laws as being equally worthy of respect and
complete obedience, whether it's a law against buying alcohol on a
Sunday (in Georgia) or a law against murder. No distinctions, they
are all *laws*. Most libertarian-leaning people would regard that
as a highly suspect way of thinking.
|8.25.07 @ 1:20PM|#
"So yes, I think the criminality argument is generally made in
bad faith. That in no way implies that I think the people making
this argument are racists."
I tend to agree with your interpretation of the "criminality
argument", although the immigrants who followed the rules must feel
like chumps as they watch these amnesty proposals batted around in
the congress for the 10 to 20 million who did not follow the
rules.
Why did you toss out the "Mexicanness" remark? Surely, an
intelligent woman who makes her living as a journalist would not
say something like that without realizing the obvious
implication.
|8.25.07 @ 2:01PM|#
I am of the mind that it should never profit the state to
enforce the law. Thus everything from traffic fines to property
seizures should be prohibited.
If you don't have traffic fines, how are you going to enforce
traffic laws short of imprisoning people for even the slightest
offense?
In a more libertarian society, traffic fines would, like any other
service provided by the government, be used to pay for an actual
service provided, i.e., paying for someone to enforce traffic laws
designed to reduce the risk of one person harming another by
driving at an unsafe speed, driving drunk, etc. And, those services
would be open to private competition, which would quickly drive the
government out of business in most instances and replace them with
private entities operating private toll roads patrolled by rule
enforcement agents who don't dare p**s off customers by stopping
and fining them unless those customers are behaving in such a way
as to cause other customers to switch to a competitor with better
protection against obnoxious and dangerous drivers.
|8.25.07 @ 2:07PM|#
(No, I'm not sure that you should be able to pick up a
surface to air missle at Wal*Mart.)
I agree that you shouldn't pick up a surface to air misslle from
WalMart. The ones from Costco would be much better quality and less
likely to explode upon launch and kill you. ;)
Kevin Copple|8.26.07 @ 4:31AM|#
"So yes, I think the criminality argument is generally made in
bad faith. That in no way implies that I think the people making
this argument are racists."
I make this argument frequently, and in extremely good faith. The
U.S. should have much more legal immigration, and zero illegal
immigration, for a wide variety of reasons. Baffling why anyone
would disagree, for any reason.
|8.26.07 @ 10:19AM|#
I don't see that companies could influence the state to keep
prison populations abnormally large if the law itself was
streamlined and written in such a way that only violent offenders
would be given jail time - the rest could work through restitution
schemes. It would strike me as absurd that companies would seek to
collude with the state to advance more murderers and rapists.
Secondly, I don't get why the idea of prisoners working
productively is so offensive to so many here. It's better that than
being total drains on the economy.
|8.26.07 @ 2:07PM|#
"I make this argument frequently, and in extremely good
faith. The U.S. should have much more legal immigration, and zero
illegal immigration, for a wide variety of reasons. Baffling why
anyone would disagree, for any reason."
I think the issue's become so charged that people have a hard time
talking about it--kinda like the abortion issue.
I was guilty of that a few posts ago--I thought that because
somebody wanted to build a fence that he must think everyone who
comes here looking for a job should be turned away. ...but he
didn't think that at all--I think I was wrong about that.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245