New at Reason
Kerry Howley explains why you can't be for free markets and against open borders.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Anti-ILLEGAL Immigration | May 31, 2007, 3:13pm | #
Um, Friedman was against open borders or something.[runs off, goes back to VDare.]
Cesar | May 31, 2007, 3:42pm | #
LoneWacko WillTell Us AboutAmnesty and the SenateBill in 5, 4, 3....NAL | May 31, 2007, 3:46pm | #
Um, Friedman was against open borders or something.Yes, Milton Friedman, in 2005 on the Charlie Rose show said, "Look, you can't have open borders when you have a welfare state!" There is no refuting that.
Unfortunately, what's going to happen is that nothing is going to happen. Millions of illegals will remain here with "silent" amnesty and they won't close the borders. This is a topic just like tax reform. No matter how much we talk about it, it's not going to change anything. There are too many powerful interests who want it to stay just the way it is.
Republicans make such an eloquent argument for school choice. Just change out the word "school" for "country" and you have the GOPs worst nightmare.
So, the next article that Ms. Howley needs to write is how you can't be for open borders and welfare at the same time. Of course, it will have to be published in the NYT and WaPo for it to really cause a stir.
Cesar | May 31, 2007, 3:51pm | #
Notice no one ever says, "You can't end the drug war with a welfare state."Pig Mannix | May 31, 2007, 3:53pm | #
Um, Friedman was against open borders or something.Yes, he was. As has been every other libertarian economist of note that I can think of. I doubt you can name me a single counter-example that isn't on the payroll of the Cato Institute. But I'll give you an example of the kind of economist that does support open immigration.
Interestingly, the difference of views has nothing to do with the economics of immigration, on which I think we all agree. Expanded immigration is likely to exert downward pressure on workers' wages in the U.S. Where we disagree is on whether the gains to the rest of the world make this still a worthwhile effort (in the context, of course, of efforts to cushion the adverse effects on U.S.). As Alex Tabarrok points out in a recent post, the differences have to do with what we think is the relevant moral community for making public policy decisions. George thinks the purely national perspective is the right one, and he figures the aggregate gains for the U.S. are small relative to the distributional costs, which makes this bad policy. For my part, I believe cosmopolitan considerations should enter our calculus when the gains abroad (or to foreign nationals) are sufficiently large, which they would be with temporary labor flows. (So I am not a strict nationalist on these matters, to revert to Tabarrok's terminology.)
In other words, this "libertarian" open immigration idea from the likes of Reason and the Cato Institute amounts to a international redistribution program at the expense of Americans who can afford it the least.
Over the next six years, a quarter of the Irish left, en masse, to legally enter more prosperous countries. Millions more left in the years after; even now the population of Ireland is only where it was 200 years ago. And, incredibly, real wages never fell through the period of adjustment after the disaster. Labor prices rose as population dropped.
Um, yeah. And obviously the reverse is true too. Labor prices will drop in the country gaining the increased labor pool. So apparently you're arguing that it's a good thing when labor prices rise, and also a good thing when labor prices drop. Which is it?
Also, if you look at the current economy of Ireland, it's apparent they aren't hurting from the depletion of their population.
To the best extent that I've been able to determine, there's no economist of any political stripe that's arguing there's a net benefit to United States citizens accommodating this kind of immigration, indeed, even the ones that advocate it acknowledge it's going to exert a downward pressure on American wages. The argument is apparently that we should accommodate immigration at the expense of Americans because it's good for foreign nationals(!).
Libertarians, eh? Being charitable at somebody else's expense?
Stop me if you think you've heard this one before....
Now, I'm not going to pretend I have any but the most rudimentary understanding of economics, but I'm smart enough to understand when economists from across the political spectrum (including libertarians) are yelling "Bullshit!" to the party line, it probably is.
Kerry Howley explains why you can't be for free markets and against open borders.
The hell she does! Trade is a proxy for immigration. The ability to move goods across borders negates the need to move the labor to produce them.
Now if you want to make the argument that opening our borders is our Humanitarian Social Responsibility to Our One Big Happy World (sound familiar - again?), go ahead and make the argument.
Just don't piss on our backs and tell us it's raining.
K.T. | May 31, 2007, 3:55pm | #
you can't be for free markets and against open borders.i would agree, but one CAN be for free markets and against opening our borders at the present time (i.e. oppose the current legislation). until we eliminate the welfare state, we do not have a free market in this country. once we implement a free market, i'm 100% for opening all the borders. until that time, we can't afford to do so. you need to have both at once, not one before the other.
Lamar | May 31, 2007, 3:56pm | #
"Trade is a proxy for immigration. The ability to move goods across borders negates the need to move the labor to produce them."You sure it doesn't have anything to do with the Mexicans' inability to buy the goods? Nothing to do with their poverty? If trade is a proxy for immigration, then the pope is a proxy for sex with donkeys.
K.T. | May 31, 2007, 3:57pm | #
The ability to move goods across borders negates the need to move the labor to produce them.Now that's plain silly...
Cesar | May 31, 2007, 3:57pm | #
Pig Mannix-Since ending farm subsidies would help foreign farmers at the expense of American farmers, do you also support massive farm subsidies?
matt | May 31, 2007, 3:59pm | #
Good article although i would like to make a point.You are correct that people who seemingly support free markets fail to realize that labor is also a market.
I believe that most conservatives who support free markets simply oppose free labor because it constitutes a change in the "face" of America. The new face is is seemingly more threatening than previous waves of Irish, Italians, and Eastern Europeans (although the rhetoric was no less vitriol) because it is a darker shade.
That doesn't mean they are racist. Many conservatives have great respect for other races, but they are concerned about change.
MikeP | May 31, 2007, 4:03pm | #
To the best extent that I've been able to determine, there's no economist of any political stripe that's arguing there's a net benefit to United States citizens accommodating this kind of immigration, indeed, even the ones that advocate it acknowledge it's going to exert a downward pressure on American wages.You are kidding, right?
Every study I have ever seen on immigration -- even on illegal immigration -- shows a gain for all wages of all American natives except the very lowest class. That lowest class sees a drop in wage of between 0% and 8%, depending on the study.
K.T. | May 31, 2007, 4:08pm | #
I believe that most conservatives who support free markets simply oppose free labor because it constitutes a change in the "face" of America.I agree (and there are many other reasons -- myself identifying as a conservative). One of my complaints about all the "pro-market" sides of this debate is that they each exclude certain markets from their analysis (with culture also being a market).
Tammy | May 31, 2007, 4:20pm | #
If congress passed a law, permitting US citizens to legally shoot and kill the invading illegal aliens beginning January 1, 2008 with a 5-year sunset clause, the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens would be gone by New Years Eve.It is perfectly acceptable and moral to kill people that are invading one's country.
From what I gather from some of the comments is that we should stop people from moving from New Orleans to Houston because it may cause the price of labor to move up or down. Everyone should just stay where they were born and die there.
BS Spotter | May 31, 2007, 4:30pm | #
"K.T. | May 31, 2007, 3:57pm | #The ability to move goods across borders negates the need to move the labor to produce them.
Now that's plain silly..."
Why? Because you say so? Damn you're smart! Maybe you could give me some pointers on getting my roof shingled.
carrick | May 31, 2007, 4:34pm | #
Why? Because you say so?It's hard to move a lawn to mexico to be mowed and then returned to the home owner.
Most of the "growth" in jobs is low-end service-oriented work. That means labor has to be where the service is provided
"If congress passed a law, permitting US citizens to legally shoot and kill the invading illegal aliens beginning January 1, 2008 with a 5-year sunset clause, the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens would be gone by New Years Eve."
Tammy - Please tell us you are kidding.
It is gettng really difficult to tell the snark from the serious comments on immigration threads.
Tammy - Please tell us you are kidding.
It is gettng really difficult to tell the snark from the serious comments on immigration threads.
BS Spotter | May 31, 2007, 4:39pm | #
"Most of the "growth" in jobs is low-end service-oriented work. That means labor has to be where the service is provided"You mean like meat pakers in Worthington, MN?
To claim that illegals are just up here to mow lawns is laughable.
Kurt | May 31, 2007, 4:39pm | #
Republicans make such an eloquent argument for school choice. Just change out the word "school" for "country" and you have the GOPs worst nightmare.I don't think too many school choice proponents believe that each individual school should be compelled to accomodate absolutely every single person who wants to attend.
carrick | May 31, 2007, 4:43pm | #
You mean like meat pakers in Worthington, MN?
So you suggest shipping cattle from the upper plains states to mexico to be slaughtered and processed, then the resulting products shipped back north to be sold to customers?
If so, your understanding of basic business economics is sorely lacking.
BS Spotter | May 31, 2007, 4:50pm | #
"So you suggest shipping cattle from the upper plains states to mexico to be slaughtered and processed, then the resulting products shipped back north to be sold to customers?"No. I suggest paying a living wage to meat packers in Worthington, MN who also happen to be American citizens. Granted, real earnings will deminish for the shareholders. But that's just the cost of doing business legally.
Tammy | May 31, 2007, 4:53pm | #
"Has "Juanita" just been unmasked as "Tammy"?"I had forgotten that argumentum ad hominem was a staple around here. Doesn't it ever get old? It sure dose for me.
highnumber | May 31, 2007, 4:58pm | #
1. BS Spotter's name is ironic.2. Tammy just called for legalizing murder of immigrants and she's calling me out for a supposed argumentum ad hominem.
Did I wake up in Bizarro world?
John in Nashville | May 31, 2007, 4:59pm | #
Tammy, how would you determine who is (or more importantly to your hypothetical, who is not) an illegal alien? Or do you propose open season on those of a particular skin tone?By the way, Tammy, with what Native American tribe are you affiliated? Cherokee? Chippewa? Seminole? Souix?
jimmydageek | May 31, 2007, 5:02pm | #
Tammy fails to realize, there are quite a few Mexicans, and many more Cubans (but they aren't really illegal per se, right?) who look quite similar to the way she does (i.e. light skin, blue eyes, blond hair, etc...).Fuck it, let's kill everybody...
Warren | May 31, 2007, 5:10pm | #
HEY joe!Remember THIS?
joe | January 2, 2007, 3:04pm | #
Warren,
...
Congress will pass an immigration bill authorizing at least as my immigration visas as were proposed in the bill the White House submitted, AND provide more leeway for guest workers to change jobs, during 2007, or I will refrain from commenting on pending legislation in January 2008.
:( [sad face of vindicated cynicism in need of legally available anesthesia to numb brain and accept Hobbes' assessment of life.]
Tammy | May 31, 2007, 5:15pm | #
"Tammy just called for legalizing murder of immigrants and she's calling me out for a supposed argumentum ad hominem."Are the two mutually exclusive. If so, please explain.
Tammy | May 31, 2007, 5:18pm | #
"Tammy just called for legalizing murder of immigrants"No. I said ILLEGAL immigrants. Also, defending one's country against invaders is not "murder".
Tammy | May 31, 2007, 5:19pm | #
"Tammy, how would you determine who is (or more importantly to your hypothetical, who is not)"National ID.
highnumber | May 31, 2007, 5:20pm | #
Tammy,Let's take the supposed argumentum ad hominem first. Please explain what was the argumentum ad hominem.
Thank you in response for your answer.
Cesar | May 31, 2007, 5:20pm | #
Tammy, they are only invaders if they are 1) armed, 2) part of an organized army sponsored by a foreign government.Pig Mannix, I agree. Those supporters of unchecked immigration are usually those who benefits from cheap labor costs. Give Americans the liveable wages, and they will do any job. Common you can let whole continent pour into your country even if US is the vast expanse of land dotted with little suburbs and habitats. The same supporters of unchecked immigration will change their mind if American universities, businesses, newspapers, hospitals and banks start hiring all their professors, managers, reporters , doctors and executives from India and China.
jimmydageek | May 31, 2007, 5:23pm | #
So, Tammy, let me get this straight. You propose we go up to suspected illegal aliens (skin color being the obvious suspicion), ask them for identification, and shoot them if they cannot provide it? What of forgotten wallets?You need some trolling lessons, Tammy. Come back when you're good and ready.
Scott | May 31, 2007, 5:23pm | #
Tammy,If you really believe that it is acceptable and moral to kill people that are invading your country then you must support the efforts of the Iraqi insurgency in their attempts to kill every US soldier that they can. As you pointed out, it is their duty to protect their country from the invaders with deadly force if necessary.
jimmydageek | May 31, 2007, 5:26pm | #
And, by the way, Tammy, I doubt the illegal aliens would leave when they could just as easily arm themselves and shoot back.Tammy | May 31, 2007, 5:27pm | #
"Let's take the supposed argumentum ad hominem first. Please explain what was the argumentum ad hominem.Thank you in response for your answer."
"Juanita" is a pejorative.
Tammy | May 31, 2007, 5:28pm | #
"Tammy, they are only invaders if they are 1) armed, 2) part of an organized army sponsored by a foreign government."You make that up?
jimmydageek | May 31, 2007, 5:28pm | #
"Juanita" is a pejorative.
Actually, it might be a step up for you...
jimmydageek | May 31, 2007, 5:29pm | #
Where's URKOBOLD when you need him / it??highnumber | May 31, 2007, 5:29pm | #
How is "Juanita" a perjorative?highnumber | May 31, 2007, 5:31pm | #
I don't think Urkobold needs to bother with this. Zod is slipping in the polls. He needs to consider hiring Tammy as a campaign strategist.Cesar | May 31, 2007, 5:31pm | #
How is "Juanita" a perjorative?Come on, highnumber, if you're a nativist, how would you feel if someone gave you a latin-sounding name?
Tammy | May 31, 2007, 5:32pm | #
"So, Tammy, let me get this straight. You propose we go up to suspected illegal aliens (skin color being the obvious suspicion), ask them for identification, and shoot them if they cannot provide it? What of forgotten wallets?"You seem quite fixated on skin color. How sad for you.
To clarify, my position is that the prospect of being shot dead at the drop of a hat (or to use your perspective "sombrero" would incent them to leave the USA. Ergo, very few would actually require shooting.
One could
smartass sob | May 31, 2007, 5:33pm | #
So you suggest shipping cattle from the upper plains states to mexico to be slaughtered and processed, then the resulting products shipped back north to be sold to customers?If so, your understanding of basic business economics is sorely lacking.
If I recall my history correctly, I believe cattle were once shipped from not only the upper plains states, but also from the southwestern states to slaughter houses in various cities hundreds if not thousands of miles away. The resulting products were then shipped back to not only from whence they came, but to other cities farther east. I think some guys in funny-looking hats had something to do with it. I think they were called horseboys or cowguys - something like that.
Tammy | May 31, 2007, 5:33pm | #
"You need some trolling lessons, Tammy. Come back when you're good and ready."Again with the personal attacts. It really is sad.
Tammy | May 31, 2007, 5:35pm | #
"And, by the way, Tammy, I doubt the illegal aliens would leave when they could just as easily arm themselves and shoot back."They would then fit Cesar's definition of invader.
Tammy | May 31, 2007, 5:36pm | #
How is "Juanita" a perjorative?Oh, I didn't realize you meant that as a compliment. I regret the error.
MikeP | May 31, 2007, 5:36pm | #
Give Americans the liveable wages, and they will do any job.What if the job is not worth what Americans think is a livable wage?
The alternative is not between an American doing the job for more money and an immigrant doing it for less. It's between an immigrant doing the job for less, an American doing the job for less, or the job not existing. Of those three options the first is clearly the best: It is better for the employee and better for the employer, providing a producer surplus to the economy, and it frees up the American to do a higher value job that is worth a livable wage.
highnumber | May 31, 2007, 5:37pm | #
It's not so much sad as it is humorous.You're a spoof, right? Give me a hint. Who are you?
MikeP | May 31, 2007, 5:38pm | #
The same supporters of unchecked immigration will change their mind if American universities, businesses, newspapers, hospitals and banks start hiring all their professors, managers, reporters , doctors and executives from India and China.Name one supporter of unchecked immigration who will change his or her mind under these conditions.
R C Dean | May 31, 2007, 5:38pm | #
you can't be for free markets and against open borders.Sure you can. It just depends on what you mean by "open borders."
If you mean anyone at all should be allowed to move into the United States on a permanent basis, no restrictions or requirements, full stop, then I would say that has nothing to do with free markets.
If you mean to say that we should not keep out people from other countries so long as they have gainful employment in the US, hell, I would probably agree. Because in that case you are actually talking about the labor market.
So you suggest shipping cattle from the upper plains states to mexico to be slaughtered and processed, then the resulting products shipped back north to be sold to customers?
If so, your understanding of basic business economics is sorely lacking.
If I recall my history correctly, I believe cattle were once shipped from not only the upper plains states, but also from the southwestern states to slaughter houses in various cities hundreds if not thousands of miles away. The resulting products were then shipped back to not only from whence they came, but to other cities farther east. I think some guys in funny-looking hats had something to do with it. I think they were called horseboys or cowguys - something like that.
Sure, why not? If it is cheaper to have US cattle shiped to Mexico for processing and import the processed products, it would make sense. Mexicans would get jobs right at their home.
If so, your understanding of basic business economics is sorely lacking.
If I recall my history correctly, I believe cattle were once shipped from not only the upper plains states, but also from the southwestern states to slaughter houses in various cities hundreds if not thousands of miles away. The resulting products were then shipped back to not only from whence they came, but to other cities farther east. I think some guys in funny-looking hats had something to do with it. I think they were called horseboys or cowguys - something like that.
Sure, why not? If it is cheaper to have US cattle shiped to Mexico for processing and import the processed products, it would make sense. Mexicans would get jobs right at their home.
jimmydageek | May 31, 2007, 5:44pm | #
Tammy | May 31, 2007, 5:32pm | #"So, Tammy, let me get this straight. You propose we go up to suspected illegal aliens (skin color being the obvious suspicion), ask them for identification, and shoot them if they cannot provide it? What of forgotten wallets?"
You seem quite fixated on skin color. How sad for you.
Tammy, your original argument was to legalize the shooting/killing of illegal aliens. It was then asked how you would determine the legality of said people. You said, "National ID Card".
So, let me get this straight. You would ask everybody you run into for identification? Regardless of skin color? If a person failed to show it to you, you would shoot them? If that's the case, my apologies for the skin color references. Silly me.
The alternative is not between an American doing the job for more money and an immigrant doing it for less. It's between an immigrant doing the job for less, an American doing the job for less, or the job not existing. Of those three options the first is clearly the best: It is better for the employee and better for the employer, providing a producer surplus to the economy, and it frees up the American to do a higher value job that is worth a livable wage
So, Mike P, you expect every Americans to be a doctor or a manager or an analyast or what ever higher wage earning personnel?
So, Mike P, you expect every Americans to be a doctor or a manager or an analyast or what ever higher wage earning personnel?
Bob Smith | May 31, 2007, 5:49pm | #
Even if there were no welfare state, I'd still be against open borders. Defending our culture and values is important. Mexicans come here and bring their dysfunctions with them. A friend of mine from Mexico, who came here legally as a child, said that after her father tried to bribe a cop after a traffic stop she was shocked when she realized that American police don't accept or demand bribes as is common (according to her) in Mexico. I feel a little tiny bit of that when New Yorkers or New Jersians relocate down here to Florida but don't give up their high tax, high regulation, big government ways when they vote.A whole lot of Mexicans are here to colonize, not to assimilate, and the Mexican government gives it semi-official sanction. Check out the publications of La Raza and Mecha if you don't believe that.
More to the point, open borders means letting a whole lot of people into the country that don't share our values and would like to replace them. How about opening the borders to Muslims? Look at what happened in Lebanon in the last 30 years, when the Christian population went from 60% to 25% (and dropping fast as the Christians leave because the Muslims are issuing death threats). It became a hellhole fast, just like every other Islam-controlled country. It's not just a whole country, a city will do. Malmo and other Swedish cities are nearing Muslim majorities and the crime statistics, especially rape, are even less encouraging to the idea of open borders.
you can't be for free markets and against open borders.
Sure you can. It just depends on what you mean by "open borders."
If you mean anyone at all should be allowed to move into the United States on a permanent basis, no restrictions or requirements, full stop, then I would say that has nothing to do with free markets.
If you mean to say that we should not keep out people from other countries so long as they have gainful employment in the US, hell, I would probably agree. Because in that case you are actually talking about the labor market.
RC, I totally agree. People are trying to abuse the notion of free trade and free labor market for illegal and unchecked immigration.
Sure you can. It just depends on what you mean by "open borders."
If you mean anyone at all should be allowed to move into the United States on a permanent basis, no restrictions or requirements, full stop, then I would say that has nothing to do with free markets.
If you mean to say that we should not keep out people from other countries so long as they have gainful employment in the US, hell, I would probably agree. Because in that case you are actually talking about the labor market.
RC, I totally agree. People are trying to abuse the notion of free trade and free labor market for illegal and unchecked immigration.
MikeP | May 31, 2007, 6:00pm | #
So, Mike P, you expect every Americans to be a doctor or a manager or an analyast or what ever higher wage earning personnel?No. I didn't say the highest value jobs. Nor did I say a much-more-than-livable wage.
If a job can be done by -- to borrow from another thread -- someone with a third grade education who can't speak English, then surely a person with a ninth grade education who can speak English can get a higher paying job.
The fact that the unemployment rate is not affected by immigration is pretty conclusive evidence that immigrants don't disemploy great numbers of natives. The fact that immigrants -- even illegal ones -- are earning well above minimum wage should tell you that so are the natives that you imagine have been displaced by them.
Cesar | May 31, 2007, 6:01pm | #
And the Eurabia meme appears yet again....jimmydageek says: "So, Tammy, let me get this straight. You propose we go up to suspected illegal aliens (skin color being the obvious suspicion), ask them for identification, and shoot them if they cannot provide it? What of forgotten wallets?
You need some trolling lessons, Tammy. Come back when you're good and ready."
Actually, I suspect Tammy would be OK with walking up to anyone she wants dead, whether a legal citizen or not, shooting them, ditching their wallet, and then claiming, hey, as best I could tell they were illegal, so my killing was lawful.
Congratulations! You managed to make Dan T. look reasonable by comparison.
You need some trolling lessons, Tammy. Come back when you're good and ready."
Actually, I suspect Tammy would be OK with walking up to anyone she wants dead, whether a legal citizen or not, shooting them, ditching their wallet, and then claiming, hey, as best I could tell they were illegal, so my killing was lawful.
Congratulations! You managed to make Dan T. look reasonable by comparison.
Okay Mike P, tell me a job that a ninth grader can get, that a third grader can't get. Land scaping, construction, fast food jobs, aren't these the same jobs the ninth grader school dropouts and third grader immigrants compete for? I agree there still are lots of jobs and US has very low unemployment rate and can manage many more immigrants. But, for how long? Isnt that the answer we all seek. Many of our bottomline is not hurt. Yes, many people are richer now than they were before. But, the lowest tier has been put further and like I said before there wont be any debate about this if the bottom line of upper class were being hurt.
The fact that immigrants -- even illegal ones -- are earning well above minimum wage should tell you that so are the natives that you imagine have been displaced by them.
What do you mean by well above minimum wage? $5.75
What do you mean by well above minimum wage? $5.75
Mike P,
I do cater to same beliefs as yours, mostly of free market and deregulation. But, i am not a blind to not see, the state of American lower class, who used to enjoy the good paying construction jobs. Remember, the last time when minimum wage was increased? Do you know how much change in the value of income the inflation has brought? Compare price of milk from the last time the minimum wage was set and the price of milk now.
And, who keeps the wages down? Free and unlimited supply of immigrant workers who are happy to work for less, and trust me I don't hate them a bit. My only request is that immigration should be managed so as not to disturb the lives of people who are already here and deserve attention from the law makers.
I do cater to same beliefs as yours, mostly of free market and deregulation. But, i am not a blind to not see, the state of American lower class, who used to enjoy the good paying construction jobs. Remember, the last time when minimum wage was increased? Do you know how much change in the value of income the inflation has brought? Compare price of milk from the last time the minimum wage was set and the price of milk now.
And, who keeps the wages down? Free and unlimited supply of immigrant workers who are happy to work for less, and trust me I don't hate them a bit. My only request is that immigration should be managed so as not to disturb the lives of people who are already here and deserve attention from the law makers.
MikeP | May 31, 2007, 6:22pm | #
It's been a while since I've heard of immigrants earning less than minimum. I'm sure it happens in personal hiring of cleaning or childcare. Whenever there is some sob story on the radio about having trouble hiring strawberry pickers or the like, the wage is in the $8-10 dollar range.As for the ninth grade educated native, I recognize that high school dropouts will see their wages drop to some degree due to competition from immigrants. Nonetheless, they should still be higher than the entirely unskilled immigrant strawberry picker.
MikeP | May 31, 2007, 6:23pm | #
My only request is that immigration should be managed so as not to disturb the lives of people who are already here and deserve attention from the law makers.So the 90% of the populace whose lives are improved by immigration don't deserve attention from the lawmakers?
So the 90% of the populace whose lives are improved by immigration don't deserve attention from the lawmakers?
Yes, they do but not at the cost of the people who are already finding it hard to make a living. Following the thread of your argument, why not subsidize the living of thess 10% at your expense? That means we hire and train all our lawyers from India who will charge just 10% of what the lawyers now charge in US. All the costs of doing business will go down, all oue legal costs would be reduced by 90%. Most of the people will benefit. I guess the population of lawyers account for less than 1 percent. 99% would benefit.
Yes, they do but not at the cost of the people who are already finding it hard to make a living. Following the thread of your argument, why not subsidize the living of thess 10% at your expense? That means we hire and train all our lawyers from India who will charge just 10% of what the lawyers now charge in US. All the costs of doing business will go down, all oue legal costs would be reduced by 90%. Most of the people will benefit. I guess the population of lawyers account for less than 1 percent. 99% would benefit.
MikeP | May 31, 2007, 6:37pm | #
Sounds good, gy. If you can pull that off -- without state subsidy of course -- I'm all for it!Good luck keeping clear of Congress, though, since you are going after their occupation. You think Congress is protectionist now? Just try to free up the market for lawyers!
Whenever there is some sob story on the radio about having trouble hiring strawberry pickers or the like, the wage is in the $8-10 dollar range.
Check how much a drive through worker in your local McDonald's make? Ask your Walmart cashier how much she makes? Multiply that by 40, meaning forty hours and multiply it by 2 for two adults working in a family and multiply the result by 4 for four weeks, subtract that from the average rent for a two bed room apartment in your town-health insurance for a family of four with decent health conditions-fuel costs-grocery-average utility costs, and see where these people stand? I dont think your $8-10 range will meet their needs
Check how much a drive through worker in your local McDonald's make? Ask your Walmart cashier how much she makes? Multiply that by 40, meaning forty hours and multiply it by 2 for two adults working in a family and multiply the result by 4 for four weeks, subtract that from the average rent for a two bed room apartment in your town-health insurance for a family of four with decent health conditions-fuel costs-grocery-average utility costs, and see where these people stand? I dont think your $8-10 range will meet their needs
jimmydageek | May 31, 2007, 6:43pm | #
What happened to Tammy? Did her head explode after she realized the fallacy in her argument?highnumber | May 31, 2007, 6:46pm | #
jimmy,She disappeared after asked if she was a spoof and asked for a hint to her real identity. I think she was really Mr Steven Crane.
Just a theory.
Good luck keeping clear of Congress, though, since you are going after their occupation. You think Congress is protectionist now? Just try to free up the market for lawyers!
I dont know about the jobs of those lawmakers but they will surely come after your job one day. And that day you will be on my side. And I would be happy to have indian lawyers who charge me less rather than those who charge humongous amount and hesitate to pay his maid a decent living wage.
I dont know about the jobs of those lawmakers but they will surely come after your job one day. And that day you will be on my side. And I would be happy to have indian lawyers who charge me less rather than those who charge humongous amount and hesitate to pay his maid a decent living wage.
MikeP | May 31, 2007, 6:54pm | #
I dont think your $8-10 range will meet their needsThis is an entirely different issue from that of immigration. Whether or not immigrants enter the economy these people aren't going to be making more than that. Where do you think the wealth would come from to pay them more?
This is going way off topic, but you can say the minimum wage should be a "livable" wage. But all you are doing is saying that any job that is worth less won't get done and that anyone whose labor is worth less won't be working. That may be a trade-off that you find acceptable in order to provide some floor for some class of worker. But do realize that you are building that floor on the backs of the lower classes of workers who are no longer employable.
MikeP | May 31, 2007, 6:57pm | #
I dont know about the jobs of those lawmakers but they will surely come after your job one day.The more people doing my job, the better for me and the better for everyone. The world is not zero sum.
William R | May 31, 2007, 7:28pm | #
Folks, the Reason foundation gets huge donations from the corporate welfare elite. The idea that you can't have free markets without open borders is so dumb it is beyond belief. I suggest Ms Howely read Thomas Sowell's book on Elementary Economics. As Sowell writes Some free-market advocates argue that the same principle which justifies free international trade in commodities should justify the free movement of people as well. But this ignores the fact that people have consequences that go far beyond the consequences of commodities.Commodities are used up and vanish. People generate more people, who become a permanent and expanding part of the country's population and electorate.
It is an irreversible process -- and a potentially dangerous process, as Europeans have discovered with their "guest worker" programs that have brought in many Muslims who are fundamentally hostile to the culture and the people that welcomed them.
Unlike commodities, people in a welfare state have legal claims on other people's tax dollars and expensive services in schools and hospitals, not to mention the high cost of imprisoning many of them who commit crimes.
Brian Courts | May 31, 2007, 7:32pm | #
Wow. Just wow. Tammy suggests that someone who has been so extraordinarily fortunate, as herself, to be born on this side of an imaginary line should have the right to violently destroy another, much less fortunate, human’s existence when he seeks only the ability to live and work in the same way to which she feels entitled through nothing but her own dumb-fucking-luck. I think that may just be the vilest, most abhorrently repulsive rhetorical vomit I have ever read on H&R. Congratulations Tammy, you have set quite the standard.And what is with those of you who chose to argue with her on the practical grounds that her idea would be difficult to implement because we could not be sure who was here illegally? Huh!? Is that really the right argument to make against such a sickening proposal?? I mean, assume arguendo that you could in fact know with 100 percent certainty who was here legally and who was not. Would her idea be okay then - just another potential policy to be debated on the merits? Now, let me say clearly that I don’t think any of you who raised that objection think so, but I am a little disheartened that people chose to engage such intellectual garbage on pragmatic grounds instead of simply calling it out for its patent moral bankruptcy. I mean seriously, if someone proposed reinstating slavery I hope we wouldn’t have to argue about the logistical difficulty of rounding up millions of people and the efficiency losses from forced labor in order to come to an agreement that it was a bad idea.
Brian Courts: Such a plethora of ways to attack Tammy's murderous idea, so don't be hating on those who chose sarcasm and logic instead of unironic moral indignation. It ain't a zero-sum game -- everyone gets a swipe, mmmm-kay?
Leif | May 31, 2007, 7:50pm | #
once again i havent had time to read the whole thread yet so please forgive me if im beating deceased equines. here we go. first let me say that the amount of variables that would be effected by an opening of the border (welfare state or not) is so large that hand waving becomes rampant. that aside, when you're talking about a real-world switch from controlled immigration to open immigration, then you are obliged to talk about the short vs long term. yes, in terms of low paying, low-skilled jobs, wages will intitially drop in the recieving country (but as already mentioned, this drop is unlikely to be an apocalyptic/GOP style one). But one of the main effects of wage drop is price drop, and due to division of labor small drops in wages (labor cost) equal eveb greater drops in price. Thus as production increases within the country, prices go down and the standard of living rises for all consumers (and in the end its SOL, not price, that matters). i think this much is demonstrable.now the weirder part is this talk of 'what we owe', morally speaking, to our own citizenry against 'what we owe' to the citizens of other countries. i think its clear we can largely blame the logic of nationalism for this even being an issue. despite widespread gov't spending, most of what we depend on has little to do with anything nationalistic/governmental - its just the result of voluntary agreements with other people. i mean, this is where all the good things in life come from. so try to forget the existence of government for a second. if you lived in some arbitrary geographic location (and you aren't inherently agititative or warlike) would you prefer to have more or less people around? the answer is obvious - the more people around making and doing shit the better off you (and them) are. if you didn't have government around artificially adjusting the price of labor and redistributing people's possesions, then no (sane) person would be 'anti-immigration'. so when people start talking about the 'domain of moral consideration' they are only being coherent insofar as they recognize that posessions are being forcibly redistributed.
in fact this is the actual reason why nationalism (and racism or any other groupism) is irrational. it has nothing to do with 'universal rights' or equality or egalitarianism or any of that bullshit. the more one buys into that stuff (i.e. nationalism) the more he constrains the potential field of indivduals that he can enter into beneficial relationships with. this is all fairly obvious shit, but for some reason it continues to elude the vast majority of people.
finally im gonna go out on a limb here and say that, even with a welfare state, the borders should be opened or at least relaxed. truth is our welfare system isnt that comprehensive and if you forgo becoming a citizen and getting a ss # then there is a limit to how much you can really get away with. this might sound naive but i get the feeling that very few people come over the border so they can live in a shitty apartment and just consume foodstamps and unemployment until they die (although in countries like norway i can see this being more of a legit concern). universal healthcare would certainly be bad news in this respect though. in the end the simple fact is that what gets taxed is far less than what gets produced. i bet you all that if you made welfare prgograms available only to, say, 3rd or more generation americans, then you would still have essentially the same amount of people trying to come over the border.
ILAH DUNLAP LITTLE | May 31, 2007, 8:57pm | #
So, when did Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity crawl up Neal Boortz's butt? Neal used to be more of a free market advocate; now all he wants to talk about is the evils of Islam and illegals.*yawn*
Oh well, Neal was fun for a while. Thank goodness for podcasts.
Henryk A. Kowalczyk | May 31, 2007, 9:36pm | #
Regarding Milton Freidman's position on immigration. On October 16, 2006, I received an email from Milton Friedman supporting my position on immigration as defined at http://www.henrykkowalczyk.com/immigration.htm .highnumber | May 31, 2007, 9:37pm | #
Brian Courts,You need to relax. I'm sure it was a spoof. Besides that, when someone talks that crazy, one's mind begins to reel.
TJIT | May 31, 2007, 9:41pm | #
Looks like corporate welfare to me. Companies get the cheap labor they want, the US taxpayer get to pay for it.Executive Summary: The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer
Welfare is only a modest part of the overall system of financial redistribution operated by the government. Current government policies provide extensive free or heavily subsidized aid to low-skill families (both immigrant and non-immigrant) through welfare, Social Security, Medicare, public education, and many other services.... it is fiscally unsustainable to apply this system of lavish income redistribution to an inflow of millions of poorly educated immigrants.
TJIT | May 31, 2007, 9:46pm | #
More corporate welfare.I estimate that if all the current adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. were granted amnesty the net retirement costs to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion.
Granting amnesty or conditional amnesty to illegal immigrants would, overtime, increase their use of means-tested welfare, Social Security and Medicare. Fiscal costs would go up significantly in the short term but would go up dramatically after the amnesty recipient reached retirement
Henryk A. Kowalczyk | May 31, 2007, 9:48pm | #
As someone raised under the socialistic system in Poland, than the part of the Soviet Bloc, I am frightened by the socialistic views of people placing comments here. I experienced socialism first hand and had my share of fighting with it. I never thought that I will need to continue this in America.The Freedom of Migration Act is the only solution to our immigration problem that makes sense.
Read about it at http://www.henrykkowalczyk.com/immigration.htm .
See it at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i8xbHNCxoU
Tell me, what is wrong in the Freedom of Migration Act?
TJIT | May 31, 2007, 9:58pm | #
Heres a good idea.Lets kick all of the people who followed the rules and are trying to enter the US legally right square in the balls. Lets give those who illegally entered the US better residency faster.
Hard kick right square in the balls
Derb—Here's a quick comparison of the provisions that matter to me:H1-B visa is what people who legally move to the US get. Z visa is the proposed amnesty visa
1.
H1-B: 6 years max, with option for green card (several year wait).
Z-visa: can remain in U.S. indefinitely, just have to renew every 4 years; also path to citizenship.
2.
H1-B: tied to one employer, must obtain new visa if change jobs.
Z-visa: fully transferable (essentially, a renewable green card).
3.
H1-B: Must pay taxes (I've paid six figures in two years).
Z-visa: Tax amnesty for all unpaid taxes.
Which status would you rather have?
smartass sob | May 31, 2007, 10:23pm | #
Z-visa: Tax amnesty for all unpaid taxes.A tax amnesty for illegal immigrants? What kind of shit is that?! How about a tax amnesty for friggin citizens? Goddamn the sons of bitches in Washington! That really chaps my ass.
rhywun | May 31, 2007, 10:52pm | #
a potentially dangerous process, as Europeans have discovered with their "guest worker" programs that have brought in many Muslims who are fundamentally hostile to the culture and the people that welcomed themHorseshit. The reason they are "hostile to the culture" is because the culture is hostile to them. Notice that America has lots of Muslims and they by and large fit it rather nicely? Shame on Sowell; he's not usually this lazy.
What really bothers me about this whole argument is that so many people seem to be forgetting that immigrants aren't entering a static, unchanging economy. They buy stuff and demand services, too. Many of them perform jobs that wouldn't exist without their presence. And the immigrant who makes some dough in the US and sends it back to Mexico is no different from the small-town hick who makes a mint in the big city and sends it back home to Kansas. Whatever unfortunate results of illegal immigration that exist are entirely the result of its illegal status. (This argument should sound familiar from the many drug-war threads.)
Pig Mannix | May 31, 2007, 11:08pm | #
@LamarYou sure it doesn't have anything to do with the Mexicans' inability to buy the goods? Nothing to do with their poverty? If trade is a proxy for immigration, then the pope is a proxy for sex with donkeys.
WTF are you talking about?
@Cesar
Since ending farm subsidies would help foreign farmers at the expense of American farmers, do you also support massive farm subsidies?
No, I don't. On the other hand, I don't support subsidizing their foreign competitors, either. Which is essentially what you're proposing.
Every study I have ever seen on immigration -- even on illegal immigration -- shows a gain for all wages of all American natives except the very lowest class. That lowest class sees a drop in wage of between 0% and 8%, depending on the study.
I suggest reading studies from sources other than the Cato Institute and the WSJ. The most generous thing that could be said of the data concerning the economic impacts of immigration is that it's ambiguous. The source I quoted and linked to was one of the same ones Ms. Howley cited in her article (Dani Rodrik).
What - he's credible when he's shilling for immigration, and not credible when he's being honest about the costs?
I notice as of late, even Reason has abandoned the "it's good for the economy!" argument.
So the 90% of the populace whose lives are improved by immigration don't deserve attention from the lawmakers?
Who gets to decide if their lives are "improved", and what trade-offs they should be prepared to make to realize that "improvement"?
I doubt you'll ever find me a poll that says 90% of the country believes immigration is improving their lives.
It's a good thing libertarians aren't elitists who think they know better than you do how to live your life!
@Leif
now the weirder part is this talk of 'what we owe', morally speaking, to our own citizenry against 'what we owe' to the citizens of other countries. i think its clear we can largely blame the logic of nationalism for this even being an issue.
Now that's what we need! People running the country who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the concept of country! That's what we're paying taxes for - so the government can protect the interests of our competitors!
the answer is obvious - the more people around making and doing shit the better off you (and them) are.
Damn! Now that you mention it, that's so obvious! Just look at the regal lifestyle enjoyed by the residents of large, heavily populated countries like India and China as compared to the miserable life residents of small, lightly populated countries such as Luxembourg, Ireland and Norway are forced to endure.....
oh, wait....
NEXT!!
William R | June 1, 2007, 12:16am | #
rhywun | May 31, 2007, 10:52pm | #Horseshit. The reason they are "hostile to the culture" is because the culture is hostile to them. Notice that America has lots of Muslims and they by and large fit it rather nicely? Shame on Sowell; he's not usually this lazy.
Ohhh please. You're so naive it's almost comical. Perhaps this might be a good reason why Muslims just aren't a good fit in classical liberal Western Civilization Malaysia is supposed to be the model tolerant Muslim majority country. An example of what Islam can really be like. Hilarious. Some of the utopianoids that call themselves liberarians are truely out to lunch. As for our Muslims, 26 percent of muslim men under the age of 30 think suicide bombing is justified. Sounds like they're really fitting in alright. LOL
Leif | June 1, 2007, 2:12am | #
mannix.the concept of country [i]is[/i] largely illegitamate. india and china are overly regulated. and not everyone here (i know i dont) consider foreign workers as "competition" any more than they consider fellow americans as competition. the point is that valuing the jobs of faceless domestic workers over faceless foreign workers is logically unjustifiable. that gut feeling you get when you hear about mexicans taking "our" jobs is not a legit basis for an argument. [i]there is no such thing as being entitled to a job[/i]
MikeP | June 1, 2007, 2:26am | #
Pig Mannix,I suggest reading studies from sources other than the Cato Institute and the WSJ. The most generous thing that could be said of the data concerning the economic impacts of immigration is that it's ambiguous.
From an Open Letter on Immigration...
...as economists and other social scientists we are concerned that some of the fundamental economics of immigration are too often obscured by misguided commentary.Not all of the 500 economists who signed this letter are on Cato or WSJ payrolls. And I don't think any of the five Nobel Laureates are.
Overall, immigration has been a net gain for American citizens, though a modest one in proportion to the size of our 13 trillion-dollar economy.
Immigrants do not take American jobs. The American economy can create as many jobs as there are workers willing to work so long as labor markets remain free, flexible and open to all workers on an equal basis.
In recent decades, immigration of low-skilled workers may have lowered the wages of domestic low-skilled workers, but the effect is likely to have been small, with estimates of wage reductions for high-school dropouts ranging from eight percent to as little as zero percent.
While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices. As with trade in goods and services, the gains from immigration outweigh the losses. The effect of all immigration on low-skilled workers is very likely positive as many immigrants bring skills, capital and entrepreneurship to the American economy.
MikeP | June 1, 2007, 2:32am | #
I doubt you'll ever find me a poll that says 90% of the country believes immigration is improving their lives.You can say much the same about trade with China or outsourcing to India.
It's a good thing libertarians aren't elitists who think they know better than you do how to live your life!
Interestingly, only one side of this debate advocates the use of force to prevent the migration and labor of people and the employment of those people by American citizens.
Who is telling who how to live their life? Libertarians are only asking that people be left alone.
Genghis Kahn | June 1, 2007, 3:07am | #
Wow man. [smiling ear to ear]. I never thought I'd see a day like today. For once I'm not the lone voice in the wilderness around here. There actually are people out there who aren't ready to just throw the borders open to all comers -- whether we ever do anything to reduce the welfare state or not.btw, virtually all of our '08 presidential candidates are promising to expand the welfare state, to varying degrees. But I don't expect that Reason will ever publish this one.
So, the next article that Ms. Howley needs to write is how you can't be for open borders and welfare at the same time.
They won't write it, because in fact they don't mean it.
Genghis Kahn | June 1, 2007, 3:09am | #
MikeP,Interestingly, only one side of this debate advocates the use of force to prevent the migration and labor of people and the employment of those people by American citizens.
Interestingly, are you also unable to grasp the difference between armed robbery and fraud? I believe that there is in fact a difference, one of them involving violence and the other not. But I forget now just which one is which.
There are a vast number of "non-violent" methods of doing immense damage. If you don't understand this then I suggest you go read that great "non-violent" Indian guy, Ghandi. He was really good at stabbing people in the back non-violently.
Genghis Kahn | June 1, 2007, 3:18am | #
The one good point made in this entire article:Most disturbingly, the bill includes the Electronic Employment Verification System, which would require that every single worker, American or otherwise, seek the Department of Homeland Security’s permission to work legally.
This is BS, plain pure and simple.
I am not in favor of this bill, but I am also not in favor of opening the borders to all comers.
Does anyone here even pretend to know how many immigrants we can take in -- at what rate and over what period of time -- before it has a substantial impact on our culture? I'm sure the answer is no.
Many here have told me I'm nuts for thinking that we could possibly ever get that many immigrants. But I just came back from spending three weeks in Asia, talking to the locals.
There are LOTS of them over there, who are not here only because they can't get it. Anybody who tries telling me that opening our borders wide wouldn't bring on a tidal wave of immigrants is full of shit.
I for one think that what the US represents is something worth preserving. I also do not see that the US owes anything to anybody else on the planet. There is nothing stopping any other country from adopting free market policies and private ownership.
So if you want to bitch about what people in Mexico don't have, stop asking me to let millions of Mexicans (or whoever else) come here -- and start writing letters to the Mexican government (or change to government of your choice).
I don't owe Mexico a thing, any more than I owe the beggar who comes up to me at the gas station asking me for "spare change".
MikeP | June 1, 2007, 3:29am | #
Genghis Kahn,If you're saying that the US doesn't actually use actual force on the million or so people per year who don't immigrate because it's not legal or even on the vast majority of the half a million who do immigrate even though it's not legal, then I guess I agree.
If, on the other hand, you are implying that people's beneficial and voluntary associations somehow cause nonviolent damage to third parties that overwhelms the benefits of the primary associations, I would in general disagree.
Genghis Kahn | June 1, 2007, 3:35am | #
You understand the idea of private property, right? A nation is a type of property.The fact that somebody wants to come onto my property does not give them the right to do so. If they come onto it anyway, against my clearly expressed desire to the contrary, then who's right and who's wrong?
The only possible way anybody is going to convince me that opening the borders wide up, is smart, is if they can convince me that it's in my best interests as an American.
I have yet to see that argument made in a convincing enough manner. The "open the borders" crowd ignores entirely too many things in their canned rhetoric.
MikeP | June 1, 2007, 3:38am | #
You understand the idea of private property, right? A nation is a type of property.No. It isn't.
Genghis Kahn | June 1, 2007, 3:39am | #
And the first thing they ignore is the fact that nobody is ever going to kill the welfare state.Tokyo Trader | June 1, 2007, 4:58am | #
Gengis Kahn,I for one think that what the US represents is something worth preserving
Sure. How about?.. "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free..."
The only possible way anybody is going to convince me that opening the borders wide up, is smart, is if they can convince me that it's in my best interests as an American.
I am strongly in favour of open borders, dreaming of the day I may set light to my passport. I do have moral reasons but I see it also as very much in my own interests. I don't know about your specific situation but surely you can imagine benefits to allowing more cheap labour into the country? Don't you imagine there would be more varied and cheaper goods and services available to you? Nothing like that?
To give one example from my personal case, I employ a Philippina maid and I would feel a definite loss if her visa was not extended and she could no longer work here.
passing thru | June 1, 2007, 5:22am | #
You understand the idea of private property, right? A nation is a type of property.Property isn't the germane concept here, sovereignty is. Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise political authority within a geographic region, and is not contingent on ownership. It is not a property right, per se, but could be construed as a meta-property right prior to property rights. In the United States, the sovereign is the people, with the federal government acting as their regent.
And yes, sovereignty very much implies the authority to enforce borders and deny or grant access to the territories over which it has dominion.
rhywun | June 1, 2007, 8:49am | #
Malaysia is supposed to be the model tolerant Muslim majority country.Who cares what happens in Malaysia? All I care about is how folks behave when they come here. And you might have noticed that 1) we don't have Sharia and 2) we have a little thing called the Bill of Rights. And I wouldn't put much stock in the beliefs of any cohort under the age of 30, either.
in general, I'm for maximizing freedom, but I tend to agree with Pig Mannex's arguements. The issue for me is legality. Which than raises the real issue: Do people here believe that there should be free, unrestricted immigration? That is, if 200 million from India, and 500 from Asia want to come, would that be acceptable?
William R | June 1, 2007, 9:19am | #
We don't have Sharia yet because as a percentage of the population Muslims are still only a very small part of the country. But our neighbors to the north Canada, Muslims there are demanding Sharia family courts. Just as they are in Great Britain. To all the utopian dreamers at Reason, all civilizations and cultures aren't equal. Or like the fools at the WSJ Editorial Page who think America is just an idea. Not a historic culture. That the American people could be replaced by a Muslim majority population and nothing would change. History History History.Chad | June 1, 2007, 9:26am | #
Ghengis Khan is right. America is in some ways our "property", and in some ways like a club. The open-borders types clearly forget this. Do they honestly believe any immigrant should be able to move to their own personal property and claim a share, or join their favorite club without the consent of the club members?I currently own a 1/300,000,000 share of Yellowstone National Park (among many other things). When an immigrant legally moves here, that drops to 1/300,000,001. I am harmed, because I receive nothing in return. I do not gain his or her share of all the national parks in Mexico, for example. This problem can be eliminated in two ways. The first is to get rid of nation states entirely, in which case my one in six billion share of Yellowstone is not diminished when someone moves. The second is a "flat world", where immigration between any two countries is fairly bi-directional, and the net change is small. For example, we could have open borders with western Europe or Japan with no problem. Until one of these scenarios hold true, however, immigrants necessarally affect our per capita wealth as a nation.
If we truly enacted open borders to the world at large, hundreds of millions would desire to come here. How would the open borders crowd address this? The few tens of millions that are already here are breaking many systems as it is.
Open borders are a hypothetical ideal, and a goal we should be striving for. But they do not work in the very non-ideal world that we live in.
TJIT | June 1, 2007, 10:55am | #
When the countries of origin of the illegal immigrants to the US give US citizens the same rights and benefits the proposed amnesty gives illegal immigrants, then we will have the mythical "open border" people are talking about.Until then what we have is a one way corporate welfare program.
TJIT | June 1, 2007, 11:03am | #
I have seen a lot of arm waving and slogan chucking regarding the economic benefits of illegal immigration.This has been combined with a studied effort to ignore the actual negative economic impact of illegal immigration as outlined below.
I estimate that if all the current adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. were granted amnesty the net retirement costs to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion.
Granting amnesty or conditional amnesty to illegal immigrants would, overtime, increase their use of means-tested welfare, Social Security and Medicare. Fiscal costs would go up significantly in the short term but would go up dramatically after the amnesty recipient reached retirementExecutive Summary: The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer
Welfare is only a modest part of the overall system of financial redistribution operated by the government. Current government policies provide extensive free or heavily subsidized aid to low-skill families (both immigrant and non-immigrant) through welfare, Social Security, Medicare, public education, and many other services.... it is fiscally unsustainable to apply this system of lavish income redistribution to an inflow of millions of poorly educated immigrants.
TJIT | June 1, 2007, 11:08am | #
The US immigration system gives us the worst of both worlds. It harasses the daylights out of those who are trying to enter the country legally and do high value work.It tends to wink at those who illegally enter the US to do low value work.
If the comment made by Mark Steyn is accurate it neatly illustrates this problem.
Kick them in the balls again
Larry makes a good point about high-skilled workers being tied to individual employers. As I understand this new bill, a low-skilled illegal immigrant will have more employment mobility than a high-skilled legal immigrant - and his Z-1 visa will last a year longer the E2 Investor visa for foreigners who come here, start a US business and employ American citizens.
Hmm.
MikeP | June 1, 2007, 11:19am | #
This has been combined with a studied effort to ignore the actual negative economic impact of illegal immigration as outlined below.That is not "actual negative economic impact". That is actual government budget impact, a wildly different thing to all but the most strident statist.
I'm sorry, but these findings are just not that interesting. The great majority of Americans are in "net fiscal deficit" by the standards of this approach. After all, it is the goal of most of government to take money from the haves and give it to the have nots. Highlighting that point while ignoring all other economic effects of immigration is patently silly and proves little.
And, need I say it again, the problem that approach highlights is welfare, not immigration.