Obama Continues Leftist Agenda by Deporting Millionth Illegal Immigrant

Adam Serwer at Mother Jones has a post on just which alternate universe's events the conservative outrage at President Obama's immigration policies is based on, considering that the Obama administration just celebrated their one millionth deportation, while Bush's only managed 1.5 million in eight years.

Partially it's the supposed new plan to prioritize illegal immigrants who have broken other laws, giving those with strong family or community ties or other compelling reasons to stay in the U.S., the chance to (maybe) stick around. But Obama is still doing fine at booting out hard-working non-Americans.

So says Serwer:

Despite the administration's stated focus on unauthorized immigrants with criminal records, more than half of those deported had no criminal records, 54 percent to 46 percent. But that number doesn't convey what percentage of removals categorized as criminal include serious or violent offenses as opposed to minor ones.

Theoretically Obama's strict enforcement policies were supposed to lay the groundwork for comprehensive immigration reform. But being a bigger enforcement hawk than Bush not only didn't bring any Republicans to the table; it also hasn't torn them from the alternate universe in which Obama is mailing green cards to every unauthorized immigrant in the country. Give that more than half of Latino voters know someone who is undocumented, there could be substantial consequences for the president when he seeks to win the Latino vote again in 2012. There's always the possibility, though, that the GOP will rescue the president's standing among Latino voters when they seek to harness the anti-immigrant fervor of their base.

As Matt Welch pointed out near the last GOP debate, not so long ago, in the hallowed days of Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the debate was about who could be the most sensitive, nuanced, and reasonable about illegals coming into the U.S. to work.

But now the weakest (mainstream-approved) GOP candidate on illegals, Gov. Rick Perry, is making sure to court the all-important Sheriff Joe Arpaio endorsement to show he's tough on Mexico.

Marcos Breton wrote an awesomely withering condemnation of U.S. immigration policy as well. Here's a sample from The Kansas City Star's website:

Do we house criminals committing violent crimes? Or do we house immigrants who largely pose no threat to society but are prisoners of our immigration insanity?

Many of our "illegals" wouldn't be illegals if we ever crafted laws that took into account our need for cheap labor. Bring a farmworker or a hotel maid under a legal umbrella because he or she is providing a service we need and suddenly we have fewer illegals.

But we can't find the will. We don't reform our laws, and no politician in Washington, D.C., will honestly touch the issue, because DEPORT THEM ALL rules the land.


Read the whole thing here.

Reason on immigration.

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.

  • ¢||

    our need for cheap labor

    Whose?

    Some guys are on my roof, getting...let's see...minus materials and delivery and equipment depreciation...insurance and taxes are probably half the labor cost...divide by four guys...and the owner keeps almost all of that, because he's white and has a pool full of white kids...

    There's about $150 per hour per guy available to pay the hammering dudes on my roof right now.
    So—

    Whose?

  • fish||

    You've now been exposed the the "Simpleton from the Sacramento Bee", Marcos Breton.

    We need cheap labor?

    Not really cheap when you factor in tax payer services extended to those who in high percentages pay no taxes.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Except studies show that immigrants are net payees, not that I expect you'll let facts interfere with your xenophobic delusion.

  • huh?||

    We don't want to exclude all the immigrants, just the illegal immigrants. Do you have the results of any studies that consider only illegal immigrants?

  • Name||

    Go ahead and explain how illegal immigrants somehow consume more social services than legal immigrants.

    Figures would be nice, but hell, at this point I'd settle for even a logical conjecture. Can you do that?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Obama administration just celebrated their one millionth deportation

    His relatives are still here, though.

  • Federal Dog||

    Someone please deport Michelle.

  • Chupacabra||

    Sorry. The elephant tranquilizers are on back order.

  • ||

    More Bush than Bush!

  • ||

    I see on Drudge that we now have "boots on the ground" in Libya now.

    Did I miss the declaration of war?

  • ||

    What is that, something Miss Manners requires?

  • fish||

    What is that, something Miss Manners requires?

    To utter a proper declaration of war the president needs to show up in front of an impressive government building in Top Hat and Monocle, unroll a scroll upon which the declaration has been hand lettered and read said declaration in stentorian tones to the gathered press and citizenry.

    Unless it's done this way it isn't legal.

  • The Heresiarch||

    I believe that would be Congress in their top hats and monocles.

  • fish||

    Oh yeah....congress was all over the Libya declaration. Good catch.

  • AblueSilkworm||

    "in Top Hat and Monocle"

    Huh? Obama is a Libertarian Oppressor™??

  • Rich||

    ... to help the State Department lay plans for reopening the U.S. Embassy.

    See, it's just like the Corps of Engineers after Katrina.

  • GW||

    [Flame suit on]

    This is one area where I have disagreements with typical libertarian philosophy. I'm open to discussion, but I haven't seen much of a positive impact from illegals. Obviously, there are the welfare aspects, which can be corrected. But there are social aspects of well. Many illegals in our area are moving here, moving 3 or 4 families into a 1200 square foot house, and living in filth in the process. While that's their business, it spills over into the community and drags my quality of life down.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    I'm not interested in debating it (at least at the moment), and my position is clear, but honestly, plenty of libertarians lean in your direction. You might only need a mild flame suit.

  • ||

    And I suppose your ancestors didn't immigrate from Ireland or Poland and live in squalor in some nasty Chicago slum 100-150 years ago?

  • GW||

    From Ireland, yes, and they may have. But that was in a Chicago slum 150 years ago, not in a nice residential subdivision in 2011.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    You seem to miss the "principled" point here. I am not going to bother with a lengthy discourse, because these discussions are always about emotions, but I will leave you with this thought: If it is your property then what authority does the government have to dictate its use?

  • GW||

    I understand the principle just fine. But the issues I see fall outside of the principle, which is why it's hard for other people to connect with what I'm saying.

    As far as your question, I think the government has zero. That said, I have no right to dictate my neighbor's use of his property....but....what if my neighbor painting his house bright green and having 300 plastic flamingos in his yard is damaging the value of MY home? Have my property rights been violated in this case? Why or why not?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    No, and this is an ancient canard for HOAs (albeit they are "voluntary"). Your property value is NOT guranteed, never was, never will be. Your neighbor painted his house...so the fuck what! If it REALLY bothers you then you have three choices 1) do nothing and compliment him on his taste in pink and ochre. 2) move. 3) Coase. Offer to pay for it to be repainted in a color you like...perhaps adding an incentive on top as well to insure he agrees. Problem solved.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    And furthermore, this definition of "illegal" while sematically correct is a new phenomenon. Ellis island required the following: Name?(americanized for an unfortunate number), Skill?, You got TB? DONE! C'mon in, get on that boat over there, go back to Europe and die on Omaha Beach. Thanks and have a nice day.
    (there were many that literally stood on American soil for minutes before being drafted and sent to war for the US, and I would like to point out, while it was a draft they still served)

  • GW||

    One can only hope this will happen to you, and you'll be happy to take the financial hit.

    Or better yet, another characteristic of "certain persons in our society": no car insurance. No insurance + no license + cheap beer makes for a fun time when you're on the receiving end of the wreck. Fortunately, it hasn't happened to me, but it has happened to many people.

    So.....would you think you have been damaged in that case, or is that just a matter of personal liberties?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    What you are concerned with are conflicting property rights. Traditionally, we have tried planning, zoning, building codes, and other laws to resolve these conflicts. All that top down planning, and your neighbor still paints the house green and puts flamingos in the lawn? Libertarians of course would suggest other means to resolve the conflict: lawsuit. The solution is to sue your neighbor in a private court. You will have to prove (51% threshold) he owed you a duty of care, he breached that duty, he directly caused you injury, you suffered damage, and there was proximate cause. Good luck with that! And be glad you don't live next door to this house in LA!

  • GW||

    Can't argue with that, and I agree. At least I think you can see my point about someone exercising their liberties with their property affecting others.

  • ||

    Ah, it's just good ole NIMBY hypocrisy. That explains everything.

  • GW||

    No, there's no hypocrisy. I wouldn't want that for you in your back yard either.

  • ||

    and curiously, the ones from Poland and Germany and Italy and other non-English speaking countries actually learning the language because there was not an entire bureaucracy dedicated to ensuring they did not have to. Then again, liberalism needs a permanent underclass in order to survive and those who will not learn English will seldom be more than gardeners and dishwashers.

  • ||

    That's funny. Because the first generation Polish, Italian, and other immigrants didn't generally "stick with their own"? Also they obviously had a whole lot of arbitrary paperwork to fill out back then...

    I don't know if you've ever learned another language, but it isn't easy. Even if you can speak it fluently, you'll probably never be able to communicate as well or comfortably as in your native tongue.

  • ||

    Yes, I have. This one. Easy? No, but not impossible, either. I just question why govt actively discourages immigrants, particularly the ones from Latin America, from learning the language by insisting on bilingual everything.

  • pmains||

    Yes. It's too bad these immigrants and their children from your vague anecdote aren't learning English.

    What? They are? Hey, you! Get those facts out of here! We're having a debate!

  • ||

    Demand. If there's a sizable enough population (Latinos make up a near-majority in some states) and a sizable enough supply of bilingual agents, it is rational to offer bilingual processing. Immigrants lose to some degree by not learning English, but that's their own personal choice, and guarantee. Moreover, if they're in the immigration process it's likely they haven't had the opportunity for immersion necessary to get "fluent" in English in the first place. If you don't speak English or Spanish, you can still apply if you bring a translator.

  • ||

    ...and guaranteed by the First Amendment that they won't be punished for not speaking English.

  • ||

    3 or 4 families into a 1200 square foot house

    Geez...reminds me of my Canadian ex-father-in-law bitching about the "Eyeties" (or "Wops", he used both terms) moving to Toronto in the Fifties and Sixties.

    Then in the Seventies, it was the "darkies" moving in from the Carribean and the "Pakis", used to describe anyone from the sub-continent.

    The horrors, people wanting a better standard of living and scrimping and saving to accomplish a better future.

  • GW||

    I'm not sure how much of a better standard of living they want. They're used to living in squalor, and seem to be ok with it here, while sending most of their money back to Mexico, but what do I know.

    I'm curious as to how many people have had to first hand deal with this sort of thing. It's one thing to be speaking of hypotheticals and ideals, it's another to have to call the city health department about the adjoining back yard to yours being used as a bathroom by several people, since 20 people living in a house with 2 bathrooms doesn't exactly compute.

    At what point does the liberty and property rights of the immigrants interfere with my liberty and property rights? Because the smell of human piss and shit over the fence tends to make potential home buyers run away.

  • ||

    The question becomes: what difference would it make if the caricatures in your example are immigrants or citizens? I guarantee you there are plenty of legal citizens who violate the property rights of their neighbors or who live in a unsightly squalor of debris and rotting cars. There are also great numbers of illegal immigrants who keep to themselves and respect the rights of others. The law should punish violations of property rights, regardless of one's residency status.

  • GW||

    Really, it makes no difference. I've just found that during my life, of spending time in numerous "diverse" environments, that speaking to a member of a minority group about something based on his actions or, as MLK said, on the content of his character, the response about 95% of the time is "You're only saying that because I'm [insert minority here]." Happens most frequently with blacks.

    I could honestly not give a fuck about your color or background, but it seems that it's the other person who always makes color the issue.

    "You're only saying that because I'm black."

    No, I'm saying that because you're an inconsiderate asshole.

    In any case, this is the backlash against "illegals". I really don't care that you're not here legally, per se, it's just that that particular group seems to have considerable disdain for the laws here, for the culture here, and for the customs here. And I think a lot of people feel the same way.

    But to your point, none of these issues are really specific to "illegals", but that's what the topic was, and the issues we have mostly concern illegals.

  • ||

    Ever thought maybe their disdain for the law was based on the law's disdain for them?

    Also, you can't stereotype entire groups of people and then complain when they complain about you stereotyping them. Well, you can, but don't drown in the cognitive dissonance.

  • GW||

    Not sure what disdain the law has for them. Seems to that in our society, they've got more going for them than against. The law is what it is. If you're not here legally, you don't really have much standing to complain about anything here.

    And I think you have your cause and effect mixed up. Me talking about a specific person's actions isn't stereotyping. They're stereotyping themselves, and for good reason. Without that action, now they have no excuse for their actions. Just like me.

    So when I choose to lump them into the category they have chosen for themselves, now I'm the bad guy. It's simply a double standard on the part of various individuals in our society. When it's advantageous, I'm a minority and a victim of society. At the same time, when it's advantageous, I'm an individual and should be judged on my merits alone. Gee, which way do you want it?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Many illegals in our area are moving here

    This always gets me. Just how much radiation do you need to be exposed to to develop the superpower to know someone's immigration status just by looking at them?

  • ||

    Many illegals brown people in our area are moving here

    Maybe he's psychic?

  • GW||

    You do realize that you assuming you're brown is really not much different than me assuming they're illegal, right?

    There are actually LOTS of brown people here, and they're pretty easy to differentiate from the ones that just crossed the border 6 months ago to milk our society for all it's worth.

  • GW||

    No radiation necessary. Just paying attention to your surroundings, and the actions of others. Is it stereotyping? Sure.

    It's no different than seeing someone make some erratic or stupid move while driving down the road, and being able to predict by the nature of the driving that it's a woman. I can do that with amazing accuracy. Does that make me an asshole? Probably. Well, that and many other things.

  • ||

    I'm with you GW.

    On most issues, Libertarians rely on logic. With immigration, they go for ideological purity and feelings.

    The plan - allow an avalanche of poor immigrants from corrupt crap-holes. They then vote for whatever statist promises them the most government goodies. Somehow this is good for freedom.

  • tarran||

    Wow, project much?

    The logical case is pretty fucking clear. It's the opponents who are rationalizing their disdain for people who are different moving in nearby.

  • ||

    "Dr Hoppe is correct, though, to fear the consequences of an open borders policy coupled with a generous welfare state."

    After the welfare has been dismantled, we can discuss opening our borders somewhat. (Although granting citizenship and voting rights to people who just arrived seems suicidal).

    There is a reason the Third World came in third.

  • tarran||

    Way to not address the point I made in the following sentences:

    But so what? Why should we expect further limits on liberty for the sole purpose of propping up a hostile political and economic regime? What loyalty do we owe the sort of state that seeks to create a permanent class of dependent, unemployed and unemployable? Should we be like the German chaplains who blessed the Wermacht soldiers as they pushed off to loot, pillage and the Ukraine, because it was politically expedient to do so? Should we sacrifice our principles because they are inconvenient?

    We see Dr Hoppe’s approach reflected in the fair weather ‘free market’ economists who are screaming for the state to intervene in an economy that was wrecked by such interventions in the past, simply because they fear the coming storm. In the end, all they do is prolong the day of reckoning by sacrificing their reputations and credibility. It is in times of trouble that we must stick to our principles. They are our compass. We don’t need a compass on days when the weather is fair, the visibility unlimited, and the seas are calm. We need our compass most when the rain pounds down, the waves tower over our masts, for that is when the way forward is the most unclear, and errors of judgment have the most dire consequences.

    Fiat justitia ruat caelum – Let justice be done, even though the heavens may fall.
  • ||

    Like I said - Ideological purity, not logic.

  • Rich||

    Despite the administration's stated focus on unauthorized immigrants with criminal records, more than half of those deported had no criminal records, 54 percent to 46 percent.

    So, any data on percentage of *non*-deported unauthorized immigrants with criminal records?

  • ||

    My politically apathetic Japanese wife has finally made the jump to libertarianism thanks to her awful, continuing experience with USCIS.

    Just today we were supposed to have her interview and after waiting twho hours, some bureaucrat with intellect rivalling garden tools turned us away because her x-ray from her TB shot was "almost a year old" and it supposedly has to be "within 5 months", even though the TB vaccine lasts a year and we would have had no way of knowing this without any warning in advance of the interview. Now she gets to get all her vaccines and x-rays again - for a third time in less than three years, at about $500 a pop. It's just some more arbitrary crap we get to put up with. We've already been married for two years and thanks to a combination over of government and lawyer incompetence we don't even have a legal status yet.

    My anecdote might not be worth anything to people who grouse at illegal immigrants, but frankly I can't blame those with less means, education, language skills, etc. than us from doing what they have to do. We've done everything possible, followed all the guidelines, and when the legal system is so incompetent and unaffordable that we continue to be punished for their own shortcomings, it makes me lose all respect for the "rule of law."

  • Janet Napolitano||

    Read and noted.

  • fish||

    You know who else was "allied" with Japan?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Dude, I lived the hell myself. My wife is foreign born. I was lucky though, she started with an H1B and we moved to the advanced GC process through marriage. Seems to be a little easier, and by that I mean only 1/2 as painful as having your nuts repeatedly smashed in a garlic press.

  • ||

    She came as a student, then had an OPT, tried to get work sponsorship but that fell through, we got married, our first lawyer screwed up our first two marriage applications, our new lawyer is unimaginably great but we're still putting up with the arbitrary government crap...it doesn't end. I'd hoped today was the light at the end of the tunnel. Alas...

  • Cliché Bandit||

    In all honesty my heart goes out to you man. I have been there and hell is its name.

  • MWG||

    Sucks that you had to get a lawyer. I usually tell people that it isn't necessary.

    Have you looked at visajourney.com? It offered all the help I need (Which was considerable).

  • ||

    Visa Journey's good - in fact, we used it last night to prep for the interview that didn't happen.

    Although I originally wanted to do it myself, we got a lawyer primarily because her legal status had expired already by the time we got married. We probably could have had it done a long time ago had we not... We're going to probably file a formal complaint with the bar about how truly awful our original lawyer was and how badly he screwed us. After that, we got another lawyer who's as good of a lawyer as I could have imagined - we wanted to get it done as quickly as possible, to know what we could salvage from previous applications, how to approach the Bar complaint, etc.

  • Gojira||

    I feel you. My wife was from Hong Kong originally, though thankfully she moved here in the late 90s, and already had a lot of this groundwork stuff done by the time we were married.

    It was still a year into our marriage though before she got her citizenship.

    There was a video of G.W. welcoming everyone in, and he said something to the effect of, "You're now all my equals as citizens, with the exact same rights as myself", and I thought, "except the right to run for president!"

  • MWG||

    "Although I originally wanted to do it myself, we got a lawyer primarily because her legal status had expired already by the time we got married."

    Ah yes... an exception to the rule. You definitely should have a lawyer.

    OTOH, for those going through the basic immigration process (Fiancé, Spouse, etc...) the process is pretty 'straight forward' (I use that term loosely. The process is hellish for sure), but because of the horror stories, massive amounts of paperwork, etc. many lawyers have made a pretty decent career simply telling people how to fill out forms.

  • tarran||

    My brother is a lawyer who specializes in unraveling complex financial and scientific fraud. He has an incredible ability deal with complexity, obfuscation and turgid prose.

    He had to hire a lawyer to help him with the paperwork for his Mexican-born wife residency. He did this because the forms were written ambiguously with terrible penalties should the applicant guess wrong about the ambiguities.

  • ||

    Dude, that sucks. I dealt with USCIS myself and it was a harrowing experience. I would be camped out in their waiting room during one of the interminable waits thinking: how the hell are people with limited English and lack of experience with US/western-style bureaucracy supposed to navigate this stuff when it is difficult and nightmarish for me as a college-educated Canadian?

  • MWG||

    I used to think the DMV was bad...

  • MWG||

    Your experience is not too different than my own (My wife is foreign born). I've shared the details here on numerous occasions so I won't go into details again. Like you, my experience with 'legal immigration' was a major reason for my 'conversion' to libertarianism.

  • ||

    Whether we should control our borders and immigration is a different issue than how well USCIS functions.

    I believe we do need control of our borders and limits on who immigrates into the U.S.

    If a department of a private company functioned that poorly, the management would be removed immediately and a swarm of consultants would redesign the processes and software until they worked.

    I don't know if it is purposeful inefficiency or plain government incompetence that makes USCIS so bad but it should be fixed.

  • ||

    How's that drug war working out for you? Or health care regulation for that matter?

    When governments fight free markets, governments usually look bad doing so. It is not something that can be fixed organizationally.

    The only fix is for governments to work for freedom rather than against it.

  • ||

    How does an extra 20 million Mexicans voting in American elections enhance my freedom again? I forget.

  • ||

    Immigration is not citizenship. Government can respect individual rights without granting citizen entitlements.

  • tarran||

    I dunno, how do 20 million Democrats or Republicans giving birth to future Democrats and Republicans enhance your freedom?

    Second question, you going to start tackling that problem too? If not, why not?

  • ||

    I'm commenting here as hard as I can!

  • ||

    So, the entire premise of your argument is that all these dirty poor brown Mexican would move to America and vote themselves nice big fat goodies?

    Ugh, so fucking what? The baby-boomers are doing that right now. I am fucked either way. So, if I am going to be poor, and I am, I much rather live with Mexicans than self absorbed baby boomers cocksuckers, any day.

  • ||

    Well then just haul your sorry butt to mexico and take about 50 brown turds with you.Then we can all be happy. Adious shithead.

  • ||

    It's not really a different issue though. If the USCIS makes it completely impossible for an unskilled worker in poverty to immigrate here and this worker is naturally doing what they can to act in their own best interest (for instance, escaping the drug violence and poverty), you can't be surprised when that person finds the sanctity of our borders less important than their families' safety and future.

  • ||

    Leaving the propriety of deporting people aside, how can anyone be surprised that a President who is utterly and totally dependent on unions for money and political support is a hard ass about the border?

    Seriously, how stupid do you have to be not to figure that out? Did people think just because he was black and cool, he must support open borders?

  • tarran||

    John,

    We are talking about a group of people who claim to be opposed to institutional racism and Jim Crow laws while simultaneously opposing the repeal of the Davis-Bacon act.

    They're the salt of the earth... You know, morons.

  • ||

    Many of our "illegals" wouldn't be illegals if we ever crafted laws that took into account our need for cheap labor

    Who is this fucking "we" kimosabe?

    I understand the belief that every person who can place themselves inside our borders must have their rights defended (but only AFTER they place themselves inside our border) but is there also a requirement that they are all "cheap" labor or is that just a lucky coincidence?

    "We MUST import more immigrants or I will have to pay more to have heavy stuff moved or my lawn mowed?"

  • MWG||

    I'm gonna to have to agree with you on this one. Collectivist arguments for open borders are just as shitty as collectivist arguments against open borders.

  • ||

    We MUST import more ban and deport immigrants or I will have to pay more to have heavy stuff moved or my lawn mowed.

    Yup. Sounds like good policy to me.

  • ||

    I understand that as a lawyer you like the idea of millions of uneducated gardeners and maids living really nearby but that doesn't necessarily make it good policy for the majority of the country who are not looters attorneys.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    The ability for some to completely forget their economic principles in light of a specific percieved ill never ceases to amaze me.

    If there are no jobs for "uneducated gardeners and maids" then there wont be any "uneducated gardeners and maids". ECON 0100, how does it work?

  • ||

    ECON 0100, how does it work?

    Science H. Logic, you really don't know, do you?

    Obviously, if you have an unlimited supply of "cheap" labor, labor costs will remain low. This is wonderful for those who are not in competition with the millions of cheap laborers, not so good for those in competition with them.

    Promote an immigration plan that imports millions to compete with YOUR job and then get back to me about ECON 101.

    "I support the importation of millions of people who will not be competing for MY job, but who will be competing with those I employ!". Isn't exactly what one could call a "principled" position.

  • pmains||

    An unlimited supply? Non-scarce goods are free.

    Also, I am fine with immigrants competing for my job. You're imagining a scenario in which most of my co-workers are from the United States. That's not accurate.

  • ||

    @pmains
    Exactly. I'm an IT guy. My company could, to some degree, outsource my job to India whenever they wanted to. Does it make a difference to me whether my losing the job is caused by them finding a more qualified/lower cost resident immigrant, or because they outsourced overseas? Not really.

    Actually, I'd rather more educated immigrants come and stay here and create even more jobs domestically in the long term. Moreover, if we're talking about wage competiton "to the bottom" as anti-immigrant activists like to do, at least we'd be competing with comparable costs of living so they can't realistically survive on pennies per hour to do the same work.

    "Dey tuk urr jerbs!!!"

  • GW||

    That depends on how you consider cost of living. If you're talking about an Indian IT guy living in an average home with his average family, like you do, then you're correct. If you're talking about an Indian guy who's willing to work for 1/3 of what you make because he'll move into your "average size home" with 3 other families, then you have a problem.

    Your comparison is based on the fact that your competition seeks to live a somewhat equivalent lifestyle to you. Based on my observations, that's not the case. See my comments farther up in the thread for an example.

    The argument about immigrants taking jobs often isn't because they'll work for less, it's because they'll often work for wages so low that many Americans would have to DRASTICALLY drop their standard of living to compete.

  • ||

    I don't have a problem unless I believe I have the right to a "job" over people who live more efficiently and are thus willing to make less than I. In fact, I respect them for their ambition and responsibility.

    But if an equally qualified Indian living in the same society knows he can make 7/8ths of my salary to do the same work (because that's the market value of the work), why would he take 1/3rd the money? Why would he want to live in a house with 3 other families when he doesn't have to? Why would wages suddenly be uncompetitive?

    Moreover, do not those new immigrants create more jobs by increasing consumption? Usually such extra-frugal arrangements are temporary until they can make enough money to be self-supportive.

    And often immigrants tend to be more entrepreneurial than average citizens, at least from my experience. Most of the international students at my college were business majors, and just about every immigrant I know is comparatively entrepreneurial in some way. Anecdotal evidence, but poverty often breeds creativity. Unfortunately the government is usually the thing that stamps it out.

  • GW||

    Ask the people who used to work construction that no longer have jobs or have been forced to move on to something else because of mexican immigrants who would work for considerably less.

    There are many reasons an immigrant might want to work for considerably less. The biggest one is that with cultural differences and language barriers being in place, employers don't see a small percentage savings as being worth the hassle.

  • ||

    Ah, you mean the Mexicans who are able to work for less than minimum wage because they are under the table anyway, thanks to both bad labor laws and our closed system for unskilled workers? If they were legitimate, they would make more competitive wages, pay into Social Security, and would not be taken advantage of by their employers like they largely are today. That's as a result of the labor supply being artificially restricted and the black market for labor finding workarounds. Basic libertarian economics, dude.

  • ||

    Yes, the economy is obviously a zero sum game. New immigrants won't create more jobs, they'll just steal jobs from existing residents. The enormous expansion of American wealth during the Industrial Revolution was hampered by those awful immigrants, who added no value to the economy.

    None of that was sarcasm, including this sentence.

  • GW||

    That's a beautiful strawman. You're forgetting the other side of the equation: demand for unskilled labor. In the industrial revolution, we had demand in spades. Now, not so much. If you disagree, go visit a home depot in the southwest and tell me who you see standing around looking for work.

    An excess influx of unskilled labor does nothing to increase employment, it only drives down wages. No new value is created.

    But to your point, where is this enormous expansion of wealth we should be getting from thousands of illegals crossing the border every month? I'm sure as hell not seeing it in my community.

    The only immigrants that can come here and create jobs are the ones stuck in the gawdam ridiculous queue to come here legally.

  • ||

    Hmm, I'm from Texas where jobs are relatively more plentiful than states where the percentage of the population made up of recent immigrants (legal or illegal) is far lower. I think we're doing comparatively ok, wealth-wise, considering the economy and the influx of unskilled labor. Moreover, though the welfare state is unquestionably a problem, the converse is that Social Security and Medicaid will screw everyone even worse than it already will without an influx of younger immigrant labor.

    Also if you agree that the legal immigration process is hampering job creation, why not support opening up the legal process for those who just want to work, instead of whining about how stinky illegal immigrants are? Some poorer, unskilled immigrants may still become entrepreneurs if given the opportunity.

  • GW||

    Our immigration policy doesn't need to be based on what immigrants want; it needs to be based on what's best for our society. If we need unskilled labor, then we allow those individuals to come here.

    The fact that many people want to come here and work is irrelevant. I'm for streamlining the process, but that doesn't mean that in this day and age we should have an open border policy. Even if we could get rid of the entire welfare state, the conditions here would still be better than in much of Mexico.

    I think much of this is hard to understand unless you live in a community that has seen tons of immigration, much of it by illegals. Saying you're from "Texas" doesn't qualify.

  • ||

    You should have added "...and the government can determine what the market needs better than the market can." Because that's essentially what you're saying.

    I don't advocate pure open borders either - there still needs to be a realistic process to keep out violent criminals, but it should be extremely easy for all who aren't violent criminals to get work visas.

    I work at the edge of one of Dallas's worst barrios. Driving through, you might as well be in Mexico. Go there for lunch all the time - still relatively safe compared to a lot of other neighborhoods populated predominantly by citizens. I have yet to personally experience any real negative effects, and authentic Mexican food is one of my favorites. El Paso has notably been named the safest major city in the country.

    I'm always happy when more individuals have the opportunity to "realize the American dream." I'm not a believer in the idea I'm entitled to prosperity because I was born here, and I don't believe new people inherently chip away at my likelihood of the American dream as you seem to.

  • Gojira||

    I work at the edge of one of Dallas's worst barrios.

    Where at? I work in Garland. Certainly not a "barrio", but I get the same benefit you were talking about: completely fresh-off-the-boat Viet and Malay food, every day for lunch. Couldn't be happier.

  • ||

    Near Bachmann Lake out in Northwest Dallas. Too many good Latin food choices out here. I do wish there were more Vietnamese restaurants nearby but I'm also not too far from Koreatown.

  • Gojira||

    Ah, I'm not too familiar with that area (grew up in Plano). Any good recomendations on Latin places to eat? Always looking for great food.

  • ||

    Lately I'm big on gas station tacos (Fuel City, El Tacaso, etc.) Zuzu's probably my favorite Mexican restaurant in Dallas, although there are many places that are arguably better depending on what you're looking for.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Point missed. Well done obtuse one.

  • pmains||

    So, the labor market effect [is] not nearly as clear as people think. Reasonable range of estimates -- actually very plausible work [are] finding a positive effect on American wages; the harshest critics come up with a very mild negative effect [on the wages of high school dropouts].

    The podcast, summary and related links are here.

    Basically, there is no evidence that immigrants drive down the wages of those already here. So, perhaps you are talking about something other than the wages of non-lawyers.

  • ||

    Absolute bullshit. 20 million illegal immigrants didn't create their own jobs.

    The supply of jobs has increased by millions. How has the demand for them increased? Lots of white collar workers want to employ them on the cheap?

    Right now, in the real world, we aren't talking about the immigration of 20 million IT guys, or attorneys, or professional writers, and you know it. You know good and well that there won't be millions of IT guys coming into the country and competing with you because "open borders" will never happen but "amnesty" might. Until that is going to happen in some real universe, your protestations are nothing more than what I have described. "Fuck those who are here, I want to pay less"

    Tell me how you work in the industries dominated by illegal immigrants and then make your claim of principle.

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nterview/3

  • ||

    IT guys like me already have to compete with labor in countries with far lower costs of living regardless of the immigration system. In theory, we're even more disadvantaged than your average domestic roofer or construction worker competing with unskilled labor who get paid under the table thanks to the government-created black market for labor but still have to live under the same basic cost of living. Not to mention, most of us paid heftily for higher education to get our jobs that we're competing against people who would gladly work for a dollar an hour overseas. We still survive alright.

    If illegal immigrants don't create jobs, why when illegal immigration was far more rampant prior to the recession did we maintain about a 4% unemployment rate the whole time?

  • MWG||

    You may not have used the term 'we', but you're argument is essentially a collectivist one in which you (and those who agree with you) get to decide who I can and cannot associate with.

    You criticize Steigerwald's use of a collectivist argument and within literally 30 mins you engage in the same collectivist thinking yourself.

    Who is this fucking "we"? indeed.

  • Good Ol' 'Mercan Ingenuity||

    took into account our need for cheap labor

    Precisely why I'm moving out so smartly on household robots.

  • GW||

    Our public schools are producing more unskilled, uneducated laborers than we can possibly use. We really don't need to import more.

  • cynical||

    Wait, I thought we were better than the left-right dichotomy? It fits pretty well if you think of Obama (insofar as he has a personal ideology) as communitarian rather than "left".

  • Llama Face||

    I posted the following to AttackWatch.com, which has a record-straightening blurb refuting claims that Obama is soft on immigration:

    "Just following up on your post about the immigration lie. I've seen a lot of articles and stuff that say Obama is soft on immigration, and wants to give America away to undocumented immigrants. This is so obviously false- especially since the Obama administration just deported it's 1 millionth undocumented immigrant today, only three years into his presidency. It took the conservative super-hero George Bush EIGHT WHOLE YEARS to deport 1.5 million immigrants. Seriously, I wish these conservative wing-nuts would stop maligning the president and show some respect. Obviously, President Obama is WAY more committed to deporting immigrants than any conservative, especially Rick Perry, who wants to let them go to college here. We need to get the word out on this, and set the record straight."

    Messin' with Sasquatch...

  • ||

    When did we lose our common sense? Our Government, has allowed the invasion of 30 million criminals in direct violation of Article IV, Section IV of our Constitution. they force American tax payers to pay Billions to provide Welfare, Prison cells, Educate the invaders children, free medical care,massive document fraud, & are destroying our schools, hospitals, communities, culture while Robbing, Raping, Killing & Assaulting American Citizens WE ARE BEING INVADED! WAKE UP PEOPLE!
    An education is a good thing.

    step #1 http://bit.ly/oBuTUd
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

    Every Non-representative including obama and holder are not upholding the oath of office! they swore to defend the Constitution! If these clowns were to do their job, this would all be a Moot point!
    Anchors and their criminal parents go, period, you knew you were breaking the law when you crossed the border.

    Next shut down any business hiring illegal labor. Oh and owners go to jail.
    Got a better idea? Lets hear it!

  • ||

    Got a better idea? Lets hear it!

    Freedom?

  • tarran||

    MikeP, there you go with your America-hating Commie-enabling notions about turning this into a free country.

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    I like you, MikeP.

  • Gojira||

    I desperately hope this is a troll. Even our closed-borders, "I wish the gov't would step in and keep out people who I'm afraid might out-compete me so that I can keep a higher wage just like any other union thug but I'll mask my desire for market manipulation by talking about the need to preserve culture and society" regulars make better arguments than that nonsensical rant.

  • MDL||

    Around ten percent (likely less) is doing fine? Yes, let us only enforce existing laws ten percent of the time and call that doing well.

  • Brittanicus||

    LAST CHANCE TO HALT THE ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS.

    This diminutive assembly of the TEA PARTY NATION members, in no-way represents the millions of individual groups across the country. Michelle Bachmann, chairperson and coordinator for these small organized groups, comprises of 50 to 100 average Americans, wanting our immigration laws strictly enforced according to the original 1986 “Immigration Control and Reform Act”, also celebrated as the Simpson/Mazzoli bill. The TEA PARTY masses of Constitutional Conservatives are by far in greater number, than anybody can imagine and spreading rapidly to every community every day. The Democrats, the main body of the Republicans and lesser political parties are using rhetoric and propaganda, to try and derail the most powerful deterrent since 1986, to eradicate the illegal immigrant occupation.

    Only Democrats who expect to collect thousands of extra voters in 2012--illegal or legal--so there must be official oversight of the renamed ACORN groups, who used fraudulent registrations in the last midterm election. ACORN will in a reorganized organization try to alter the course of the—“Citizens only”—vote. The GOP hierarchy sees only dollar figures for their business campaign contributors, with giant profits using discount labor and undermining the 24 million American workers, which remain jobless. Only two Presidential candidates of Bachmann and Cain are strong in their resolve, to stop this invasion from abroad and across the limited miles of the border fence. E-Verify has the capability to send the millions of illegal aliens packing--when unable to be hired.

    Those Americans and residents that are flagged can resolve irregularities by going to a Social Security office, which the Liberal press keeps silent about. U.S. citizens, naturalized or permanent residents should not be deceived by ruling parties, open border entities or radical ethnic groups, as they see mandated E-Verify crushing their agenda’s. Don’t listen to the activist Liberal press, deceiving the population that the TEA PARTY is falling apart. Learn the facts of the revised E-Verify, that is propagating in status amongst honest business concerns.

    You just have to look who is against this massive 20 million plus illegal alien occupation? The Communist founded ACLU; Causa, (Oregon’s Immigrants Rights Coalition); The Southwest Farm press, these are mega-Agricultural Industry along with Farmers; (Farmers and these Multi-Nationals pay nothing towards the alien worker or his families Health treatments or the children’s kindergarten to K-12 education. The IRS pilfers your payroll check for this.

    Please call your Rep. If he/she is a Member of the House Judiciary Committee and urge clean passage of the “Legal Workforce Act” identified as Verify bill H.R.2885. The Capitol Switchboard number is 202-224-3121. More answers can be found at NumbersUSA, American Patrol and Judicial Watch. Join a TEA PARTY near you and change America’s future

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