How Much of a Jerk Do You Have to Be to Oppose Immigration?

The YouNotSneaky blog does the math. From the lead-in:

Let's put on our annoying-economist hat and consider the question; if you consider a foreign national to be only 1/2 a human being (alright, alright, only 1/2 as "important") as a native citizen, are you justified in opposing immigration? After all, it takes a real jerk to argue that foreign people's welfare should not count at all. Suppose the foreigners are only 1/10th as important? Surely, if natives' welfare counts for ten times as much as that of foreigners, we would be justified in banning immigration since it may adversely affect the wages of the unskilled in US? Well, let's see...

It goes on from there, with some relatively heavy-lifting math for those of us out of academia for a while.

[Link via Marginal Revolution.]

Comments

Guy 1138 | May 24, 2007, 7:25pm | #

I thought they counted 3/5?

don't be silly | May 24, 2007, 7:30pm | #

You could use the same methodology and conclude that people in America value people in East Timor (say) as being some vanishgly small fraction human, because they don't follow Peter Singer's advice of tithing to people in poor countries.

There's a system of government entitlements in this nation.

Eliminate it and then let's open the borders. Not before.

Mike Laursen | May 24, 2007, 7:47pm | #

OK, say we allow Mexicans to cross the border freely as long as they are provide no free health care or social services whatsoever. Can they bring their own medicine, opt out of Medicare, Social Security, and workers compensation payments, and go to unlicensed health care professionals, all without being hassled about it?

Larry N. Martin | May 24, 2007, 7:49pm | #

They're not going to eliminate the entitlements that easily--open the borders first and that'll put pressure on them to eliminate the entitlements.

TLB | May 24, 2007, 8:06pm | #

What is this, RomperRoom? Doesn't the SPLC have some posts you could laudingly link to?

1. Even those calling for AMoratorium ("temporary pause") on immigration don't want to block immigration in general.

2. It's a smear to even joke about "1/2 a human being".

3. If you aren't willing to abide by the U.S. Constitution which creates the concept of citizenship and sovereignty and which sets up a distinction between citizens and everyone else, allow me to suggest that you leave.

4. If you want to "help" people in other countries, put on your pith helmet and go there.

5. There are "externalities" that libs usually forget to mention. For instance, if you want to be serious about this issue, you're forced to recognize that the MexicanGovernment has a great deal of PoliticalPower inside the U.S. (starting point: tinyurl.com/8u2jm) Doesn't that endanger our political system? What exactly is the lib plan to counteract such PoliticalPower?

Note: unlike Doherty and the rest, I actually follow this issue quite closely and I'm quite familiar with all the ways that the MexicanGovernment has PoliticalPower inside the U.S., via MexicanPartisans such as FabianNunez, maintaining constant contact with those behind the SenateAmnesty (Mexico said that a few days ago), having links to FarLeft organizations, having links to those who helped organize the IllegalImmigrationMarches, and on and on.

Cesar | May 24, 2007, 8:10pm | #

Jesus Christ Chris, your StrangeTyping is GettmingMore AndMore ApparentAnd ExtremelyAnnoying. CanYouTellUs WhyYouDoit?

MikeP | May 24, 2007, 8:17pm | #

Doesn't that endanger our political system?

No.

scandalrag | May 24, 2007, 8:19pm | #

TLB - the short version See I'm right, I just can't handle the math. OR grammar.

Thanks for trolling. Vanna show him his lovely parting gift.

Now on to final trolling where you take on the defending champ- everybody give a big round of applause for DanT!!

Ken | May 24, 2007, 8:33pm | #

After all, it takes a real jerk to argue that non-family member's welfare should not count at all. Suppose the non-family members are only 1/10th as important? Surely, if family members' welfare counts for ten times as much as that of non-family members, we would be justified in banning non-family members from squatting in your family's house since it may adversely affect your family? Well, let's see...

Phanatic | May 24, 2007, 8:34pm | #

As Candid points out:

The argument, which is devastating in its simplicity, rests on these three inarguable assumptions:

(1) The wisdom of certain immigration policies should be judged solely on the basis of a utilitarian social welfare function (that is, we should compute people's utilities, weight them, and add them up)
(2) The weight each person gets in this function should depends solely on whether he is a legal resident of this country or not
(3) Each person's individual utility depends solely (and in a particular, technical way) on his wages

I'm such a jerk.

MikeP | May 24, 2007, 8:56pm | #

Surely, if family members' welfare counts for ten times as much as that of non-family members, we would be justified in banning non-family members from squatting in your family's house since it may adversely affect your family?

That should be up to each individual family, now, shouldn't it.

The problem with immigration law is that 536 people in Washington make the decision and then force it upon every family in the US.

If my family wants to house or employ a person who happens to have been born somewhere else, it is my family's right to do so.

jf | May 24, 2007, 9:11pm | #

Superman must really oppose immigration, seeing how much of a dick he is.

thoreau | May 24, 2007, 9:12pm | #

I'm just going to say that when it comes to immigration threads I basically agree with MikeP. If he takes a lot of heat I may show up to again post that I agree with MikeP.

I don't see any need to go into these matters at length, because MikeP generally says all that needs to be said.

Pig Mannix | May 24, 2007, 9:18pm | #

If my family wants to house or employ a person who happens to have been born somewhere else, it is my family's right to do so.

And if my family wants to import a Bengal tiger from India for a house pet, they have a right to do so.

By the way, my family is going to be busy, so we're only going to keep the Bengal tiger at home Mon-Fri, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. The rest of the time, we're going to let it loose in the streets, where the rest of the community will be able to enjoy it, too.

Sorry guy, I'll buy the proposition you're property rights allow you to bring anything or anyone into the country you like, as long you assume responsibility for them and keep them on your property.

But as soon as you introduce something to the country that will have an impact to the public at large, then the public bloody well has the right to tell you, "Over My Dead Body!".

NoKnow | May 24, 2007, 9:34pm | #

But as soon as you introduce something to the country that will have an impact to the public at large, then the public bloody well has the right to tell you, "Over My Dead Body!".

What if that "impact to the public at large" is beneficial? Would you say "over my dead body" then? unless of course, you are saying mexicans are of no benefit.

Rick H. | May 24, 2007, 9:38pm | #

What if that "impact to the public at large" is beneficial? Would you say "over my dead body" then? unless of course, you are saying mexicans are of no benefit.

C'mon, surely you can see that Mexicans are like Bengal tigers. They do nothing but sleep, shit and prowl America's streets looking for babies to devour.

Ken | May 24, 2007, 9:38pm | #

Good point Pix Mannix.

Also:
"That should be up to each individual family, now, shouldn't it."
Geez Mike, follow the metaphor! It should be up to each individual country too. If they wanta keep people out then their are not jerks, just like the family that values its family members welfare above non-family members are not being jerks.

Pig Mannix | May 24, 2007, 9:49pm | #

What if that "impact to the public at large" is beneficial? Would you say "over my dead body" then? unless of course, you are saying mexicans are of no benefit.

I'd like to know who gets to determine whether they're beneficial or not. Are you saying your right to your property allows you to preemptively make that judgement on the public's behalf, without it's input or consent?

Guy Montag | May 24, 2007, 10:00pm | #

"Anti-Immigration" I expect from Nick, Radley and David, but certainly not you.

Is there something 'wrong' with being anti-illegal immigration, or is everybody against dissolving the visa program supposed to be some sort of 'racist'?

A great many of us are all for issuing visas to anybody who is not a serious criminal. Yes, under the Bush administration that would approach 12 million. As long as there are anough visa drones to PROPERLY issue the visas.

This "anti-immigration" terminology sounds like one of those Rosie arguments that I should not have bothered commenting on.

Guy Montag | May 24, 2007, 10:03pm | #

I'd like to know who gets to determine whether they're beneficial or not. Are you saying your right to your property allows you to preemptively make that judgement on the public's behalf, without it's input or consent?

How about setting the standard at not being a felon? No, I don't mean by whatever the standard is from the country they are fleeing, just the State that they are entering.

Articles like this | May 24, 2007, 10:11pm | #

Don't advance the debate. It's nice to make simplifying assumptions, but it is possible to simplify your argument to the point of idiocy.

jtuf | May 24, 2007, 10:16pm | #

From an international law perspective, the US is a sovern country and the right to regulate immigration. We would use that power only to keep out felons for a few reasons. First, I think letting any peaceful immigrant in is the most humane and moral thing to do (just because a sovern country has the right to be a jerk doesn't mean it should). Second, countries are built by people, not land. Accepting more people makes the pie bigger, rather than dividing a finite pie into smaller peices. Third, eliminating visas and letting all nonviolent immigrants in drys up the market for human trafficing and makes it easier to catch the handful who plan on violence.

Pig Mannix | May 24, 2007, 10:23pm | #

How about setting the standard at not being a felon? No, I don't mean by whatever the standard is from the country they are fleeing, just the State that they are entering.

I don't really give a rat's ass what standard is set. I was objecting to the proposition that a right to private property includes the right to use it in such a manner that has a very distinct public impact, excluding any input from the public at large.

Sorry, but while I'm perfectly willing to let people use their property in anyway that suits them as long as that use affects no one but themselves, when it's usage affects others, then the public has a right limit it's usage.

In other words, I don't equate the right to own a baseball bat with the right to whack other people over the head with it.

Guy Montag | May 24, 2007, 10:32pm | #

From an international law perspective, the US is a sovern country and the right to regulate immigration.

Apparently, from the Elders of Reason, this is a right that we must eliminate. I am still a bit puzzled as to why.

Isaac Bartram | May 24, 2007, 10:37pm | #

Is there something 'wrong' with being anti-illegal immigration...

Well, yes, kind of.

When you consider how capricious, arbitrary and just plain mean-spirited the current immigration laws are there is.

When the quotas for unskilled workers (for which there is a huge demand) are set at ridiculously low levels and the waiting times for even the most preferred class of immigrant (ie family members) go into months and even years I'd say that anyone who thinks our current laws are reasonable needs to do some serious rethinking.

To be as charitable as I can I suppose I would say that those who think that the current system is just are simply ignorant of its shortcomings. But anyone who has had to deal with INS or its successor ICE knows the Byzantine nature of its bureaucracy's inner workings.

jh | May 24, 2007, 10:37pm | #

The debate in Congress boils down to these two factors: Those few Republicans who believe in free enterprise want illegal immigrants because the competition with citizens lowers wages, but they don't want to allow those immigrants to become legal -- to become citizens -- because they fear those citizens will mostly vote Democratic and give the Democrats the ability to ramp up the welfare state.

This poses a potential dilemma for libertarians, who want to extend freedom to as many people as possible, but who vehemently oppose expansion of the welfare state. So do we advocate an immediate expansion of freedom if the long-term consequence could be less freedom?

miche | May 24, 2007, 10:47pm | #

Thanks for trolling. Vanna show him his lovely parting gift.

Please don't call on Vanna to do anymore work. "National Examiner" says she is pain and is wasting away.

(Ok, I'm totally jacking around and don't really read that rag, but I did buy it- and several others- today. My best friend is having an abortion tomorrow (due to a genetic defect of the fetus) and because her husband is on call, I am going with her. We are going to try to laugh tomorrow if it kills us.)

Red | May 24, 2007, 10:51pm | #

To take the argument to the logical extreme, if 160 million Chinese immigrants wanted to enter the country, would you have any problem with that? If so, then it's just a question of where you set the bar, not some matter of moral justice. If not, well, there's not much I've got for you.

thoreau | May 24, 2007, 11:00pm | #

To take the argument to the logical extreme, if 160 million Chinese immigrants wanted to enter the country, would you have any problem with that? If so, then it's just a question of where you set the bar, not some matter of moral justice. If not, well, there's not much I've got for you.

More likely, 30 million of them would think of coming here and sending remittances home to the other 130 million in that bunch. And they wouldn't show up all at once. Some of them would go ahead and try to find jobs while the rest weigh their options. If the job market was tough, fewer would come. If they started their own businesses, or if their work enabled existing businesses to expand, then they'd send back word that more employees are needed.

You scoff at my prediction, but in real life people are often reluctant to pack up and leave behind everyone and everything that they've ever known. We Americans are a special breed, descended from the ones who left their homes and came here and stayed. We aren't descended from the ones who never left, nor even from the ones who worked for a while and went back home. We're descended from the ones who came and stayed. We're a special breed, not everyone is like our ancestors, and if we drastically opened up a lot of people would still be reluctant to come here. Those who only want money would be more likely to send one relative to work, which is what a lot of immigrants do, because the money they earn goes farther in a poor country with cheap living expenses. It takes a special mindset to want to come here and stay.

Markets might not be very good at handling the "But what if some HUGE change happened TOMORROW with ZERO WARNING?" question, but that question doesn't come up in real life.

thoreau | May 24, 2007, 11:04pm | #

Didn't finish my post. In real life, change takes time, and during that time there's a flow of information.

That information is important. There's a reason why you can find Latino immigrant communities in the Midwest. They don't just randomly wander to Wisconsin on the off chance that there might be a job. If they're going to find jobs by knocking on doors they'll do it in border states. No, they go to Wisconsin because they had information on jobs.

Bottom line: Immigrants have information, they respond to it, the flow of information will prevent all of them from showing up at once, and the stampede will be slowed even more by the fact that it takes a special kind to leave everything behind and start a new life.

Honestly, I think we should embrace those who have the guts to leave it all behind and start over. They're no different from our ancestors, and our ancestors built the richest, most innovative, and most powerful country on earth.

Brian24 | May 24, 2007, 11:05pm | #

Markets might not be very good at handling the "But what if some HUGE change happened TOMORROW with ZERO WARNING?" question, but that question doesn't come up in real life.

It's a lot like answering the question of whether you believe in torturing prisoners with "what if you KNEW there was an imminent attack somewhere in the United States and you had a prisoner you KNEW had information about this attack, wouldn't you torture him?" An interesting thought exercise, but it never happens in real life. It's a smokescreen that has no relevance to the real question.

TLB | May 24, 2007, 11:27pm | #

If you allowed anyone to come here who didn't have a felony conviction, and Osama's radical brother didn't have any such convictions and wanted to come here, would Nick Gillespie et al let him in?

What if we said no, and he came in anyway and didn't commit any crimes? What would Nick et al do in that case? Just let him stay here? If not, how would find out he was here, find him, and make him leave?

Grotius | May 24, 2007, 11:39pm | #

Well, a significant enough natural disaster could send millions across our border* and on an occassion like that it might be appropriate to regulate that sort of influx. So dramatic change isn't completely out of the question.

*This sort of thing happens from time to time in other areas of the world.

Grotius | May 24, 2007, 11:41pm | #

thoreau,

"But what if some HUGE change happened TOMORROW with ZERO WARNING?" question, but that question doesn't come up in real life.

In other words, that question does come up in real life from time to time, as those familiar with the famines and wars of the 20th century realize.

Grotius | May 24, 2007, 11:44pm | #

...the US is a sovern country and the right to regulate immigration.

Governments have powers, not rights. Individuals have rights. I find it to be a useful distinction.

Pig Mannix | May 24, 2007, 11:46pm | #

If you allowed anyone to come here who didn't have a felony conviction, and Osama's radical brother didn't have any such convictions and wanted to come here, would Nick Gillespie et al let him in?

That would obviously be an exceptional circumstance, not a usual and expected circumstance. The debate should center on whether immigration in the aggregate is a good thing or not, not on exceptional circumstances, which may or may not ever occur. Good laws are made to accommodate normal and expected situations; there's no way to make laws that will accommodate every possible outlier circumstance.

Hard cases make bad law.

Grotius | May 24, 2007, 11:48pm | #

Oh, and I'm basically for open borders, though I would be wary of our ability to absorb a large influx over a short period of time due to a war or natural disaster. Indeed, because the travel might kill a lot of them (people tend to drop like flies when leaving the scenes of disasters, etc.) it might be more apropriate to aid them in their home countries. Of course now I've brought up the bugbear of foreign aid.

Grotius | May 24, 2007, 11:49pm | #

The debate should center on whether immigration in the aggregate is a good thing or not...

I say that is the best comment I've seen written on this issue in a while.

J. Goard | May 24, 2007, 11:52pm | #

I'm all for increased legal immigration, but the "no felony" standard is ridiculously low. This is, as it has been, our chance to screen out people who have sworn allegiance to evil ideologies. There should be approximately the same number of "communists" or "wahabists" becoming U.S. citizens as there are "neo-Nazis". (Ditto for "Scientologists", except we're the country breeding the buggers, ain't we?)

wes | May 25, 2007, 12:22am | #

israel is an artifact from wwii that has bankrupted american ideals and money - it is time to think about maybe moving beyond wwii.

Pregnant lesbian sex | May 25, 2007, 12:35am | #

israel is an artifact from wwii that has bankrupted american ideals and money - it is time to think about maybe moving beyond wwii.

I believe wes has hit the nail on the crooked-nose head. The Jews must have something to do with this!

Pregnant lesbian sex | May 25, 2007, 12:37am | #

TLB:
4. If you want to "help" people in other countries, put on your pith helmet and go there.

Now that was funny.

Goodbye America | May 25, 2007, 12:43am | #

and good riddens!

The Wine Commonsewer | May 25, 2007, 1:24am | #

If so, then it's just a question of where you set the bar, not some matter of moral justice

...just hagglin' over price, ma'am.

The Wine Commonsewer | May 25, 2007, 1:25am | #

It should be up to each individual country too. If they wanta keep people out then their are not jerks, just like the family that values its family members welfare above non-family members are not being jerks.

Except that, countries aren't families and that's why the popular email analogy equating crossing a border with breaking into your house doesn't fly.

The Wine Commonsewer | May 25, 2007, 1:25am | #

Well, Groat, it doesn't have to be foreign aid, maybe it comes from the private sector.

MikeP | May 25, 2007, 2:00am | #

Pig Mannix,

By the way, my family is going to be busy, so we're only going to keep the Bengal tiger at home Mon-Fri, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. The rest of the time, we're going to let it loose in the streets, where the rest of the community will be able to enjoy it, too.

Just so I understand what you are saying with your example... Are you implying that if I kept an American born tiger on my property and let it roam the streets, that would be fine?

Sorry, but while I'm perfectly willing to let people use their property in anyway that suits them as long as that use affects no one but themselves, when it's usage affects others, then the public has a right limit it's usage.

Okay. Let's say that rather than employing or housing an immigrant, I ran a Chinese import business, taking away good American factory jobs. Or say I administered an Indian outsourcing company, shipping good American jobs overseas. Does the public have a "right" to limit my property's usage on these bases too?

Just how much say do you think the public should have over private property?

Pig Mannix | May 25, 2007, 2:03am | #

Except that, countries aren't families and that's why the popular email analogy equating crossing a border with breaking into your house doesn't fly.

It does work. Both countries and families are communities that demand obligations from their members. Specifically, the obligation not to damage the interests of other members. While your obligations to your family may have a higher moral priority than your obligations to your country, or your employer, or your religion, that doesn't make those obligations nonexistent. Your obligations to other members of those communities are still greater than your obligations to non-members. If not, why should those communities be obliged to accept you as a member?

MikeP | May 25, 2007, 2:17am | #

If not, why should those communities be obliged to accept you as a member?

I fear your notion of government.

MikeP | May 25, 2007, 2:24am | #

thoreau,

Now I must defer to you. I have argued the natural limitations of immigration by discussing the marginal immigrant.

But your approach here is much the better and much more accessible.

Pig Mannix | May 25, 2007, 2:32am | #

Just so I understand what you are saying with your example... Are you implying that if I kept an American born tiger on my property and let it roam the streets, that would be fine?

The origin of the tiger is irrelevant. The point is, you're introducing an element with impacts to the community on the grounds that you have a right to do what you like with your property, while abdicating responsibility for the public impacts.

Okay. Let's say that rather than employing or housing an immigrant, I ran a Chinese import business, taking away good American factory jobs. Or say I administered an Indian outsourcing company, shipping good American jobs overseas. Does the public have a "right" to limit my property's usage on these bases too?

Yes. Arguably doing so would be bad economics, but every country has a right to decide what will and will not be imported inside of it's borders. And to some extent, every country on earth does exactly that.

Just how much say do you think the public should have over private property?

That would depend on how much of an impact your use of that property had on the public at large.

Would you agree with the proposition that you're entitled to construct an apparatus on your property that would emit deadly radiation for a 100 mile radius? If not, why not? Your entitled to use your property as you see fit, aren't you?

El Macho | May 25, 2007, 2:38am | #

OK, so there seems to be a desire not to deal with the hypothetical. Has anyone been to an emergency room in the southwest US? Has anyone gone to a second grade classroom in the southwest? Has anyone visited a jail recently in the southwest? I'm sure you'd leave each of these with a smile on your face as you realized you were being extorted.

MikeP | May 25, 2007, 2:40am | #

From an international law perspective, the US is a sovern country and the right to regulate immigration.

Apparently, from the Elders of Reason, this is a right that we must eliminate. I am still a bit puzzled as to why.

Guy Montag,

I am a bit puzzled as to your impression that those at Reason don't believe in reasonable "for cause" restrictions on immigration. I haven't seen an attitude that immigrants should get no more than a smile and a wave at the border.

I don't know anyone who would say that "open borders" means "absolutely no restrictions". It simply means no restrictions based on quota, duration, or irrelevant characteristics of birth -- no restrictions that play into worries about economics, population, culture, language, or the like.

Certainly the government has the legitimate authority to restrict felons, terrorists, foreign subversives, carriers of contagion, or other threat to the public. But everyone else who shows up at the border should be allowed in.

If you really believe that the only reason to reject an immigrant is that he is a felon, I think you're in the open immigration club.

MikeP | May 25, 2007, 2:50am | #

The point is, you're introducing an element with impacts to the community on the grounds that you have a right to do what you like with your property, while abdicating responsibility for the public impacts.

You know, it's hard to argue with this mentality. There is nothing that the government can't do to those individuals subject to its sway that can't be justified with this argument.

Would you agree with the proposition that you're entitled to construct an apparatus on your property that would emit deadly radiation for a 100 mile radius?

Of course not. That would constitute an assault on persons and property within the radius.

But free association is not assault, no matter how much you dislike your neighbor or your neighbor's guest.

Simon Cranshaw | May 25, 2007, 2:50am | #

I've always found the utilitarian argument persuasive and I'm curious how those who oppose more open borders argue against it. Even if you feel the logic is taken a little far in the linked article, the basic points seem valid. If you're talking about the moral validity of a policy it's not enough to only consider one set of the people involved.

Can someone opposed to more open borders explain? Using the US and Mexico example, presumably you feel that border controls have a net benefit for the US. What do you feel is the net effect for Mexico, negative or positive? If negative what do you believe is the total effect for total group, negative or positive?

Also can I turn the question round on the personal level? Do those who would restrict the rights of others to work where they want also feel it fair that the same right be denied to them? Or do they, as I do, feel that they themselves should be allowed to live and work where they please?

Pig Mannix | May 25, 2007, 3:02am | #

You know, it's hard to argue with this mentality. There is nothing that the government can't do to those individuals subject to its sway that can't be justified with this argument.

Indeed. In fact, the government can even kill people who impact the public interest in a sufficiently negative way. Ask Tim McVeigh.

The potential for abuse does not negate the use.

But free association is not assault, no matter how much you dislike your neighbor or your neighbor's guest.

If you are in a country that has expressed it's disinterest in associating with you by prohibiting your entry through it's representative government, that is not free association, that's usurping the lawful citizen's right of free association.

vanya | May 25, 2007, 3:15am | #

Honestly, I think we should embrace those who have the guts to leave it all behind and start over. They're no different from our ancestors, and our ancestors built the richest, most innovative, and most powerful country on earth.

It's a myth that our ancestors were particularly courageous. Quite a few of us have ancestors who were forced to come here, whether as black slaves or white indentured servants. Many of our ancestors, particularly if they were Irish or Jewish, were forced by desperation to leave Europe, not by some go-git'em entrepreneurial spirit. Others were criminals. Many more were tricked into coming through false promises. And if you think Mexico is sending us the cream of its population, think again. People need to stop viewing immigration through the sepia tinted haze of a Ken Burns documentary.

MikeP | May 25, 2007, 3:29am | #

If you are in a country that has expressed it's disinterest in associating with you by prohibiting your entry through it's representative government, that is not free association, that's usurping the lawful citizen's right of free association.

And if a country through its representative government decided to put various sorts of "undesirables" in camps without cause, then refusing to report to the camp is not liberty and free association; it's usurping the lawful citizen's right to liberty and free association?

MikeP | May 25, 2007, 3:45am | #

The immigration debate is a slippery slope. Or, more to the point, it is two slippery slopes.

On one side is freedom and liberty. The person on this side believes that people should not have different rights due merely to an accident of birth such as race, religion, or birthplace. It is awful hard once you have that attitude -- using the lingo of the anchor article, you value foreigners' utilities roughly equally to citizens' -- not to slide down to the bottom. Immigration should be utterly free, restricted only for reasonable cause in specific cases of public threat. The fact that economic theory, empiricism, and history argue that this attitude builds the wealth of society only confirms the thinking.

On the other side is raw statism. When you start on the side that says the government has the right to take away freedoms to protect a pretended public interest, you pretty much give government the power to do anything to anyone at anytime. The bottom of that slope is reached with probability 1 on a long enough discussion thread.

Or you can balance on the tippy top if you like, feeling that there are good pragmatic reasons to restrict immigration. If only these pragmatic reasons didn't exist, you would be all for open borders; but, sorry, you can't be for them today. Very well. But you must recognize that your pragmatic concerns are abrogating the rights of people -- people whose only material characteristic under your pragmatic regime is being born on the other side of a line on a map.

wayne | May 25, 2007, 4:34am | #

Your home should be open to your neighbors and other residents in your town, county, state, etc. Your neighbors, after all, are human and worthy of humane treatment, however fractional you consider them. What food you have in your refrigerator and cupboards should be available to those neighbors who are hungry; they are human and in need after all. When your cupboards are bare, you should restock them because you have an obligation to feed these fractionalized humans. Your neighbor children should be clothed, and schooled, and medicated. Your doors should (actually, must) remain unlocked so that your hungry neighbors can access your largesse at their convenience.

Perhaps you believe that you and your family will have to tighten your belts a bit, and perhaps your kids will have to forego some amenities like music lessons, or summer camp, but those are just the price you have to pay to meet your OBLIGATION to care for your neighbors.

Your perceived well-being is secondary to the needs of your neighbors. Whether you agree is irrelevant because we libertarians have decided that the free flow of neighbors through your home is their right, and besides it will enrich you; you just have to believe.

wayne | May 25, 2007, 6:23am | #

"It simply means no restrictions based on quota, duration, or irrelevant characteristics of birth -- no restrictions that play into worries about economics, population, culture, language, or the like."

Why not allow restrictions that play into "worries" about "economics, population, culture, language, or the like"? Your statement begs the question, are these somehow illegitimate concerns?

wayne | May 25, 2007, 6:26am | #

"OK, so there seems to be a desire not to deal with the hypothetical. Has anyone been to an emergency room in the southwest US? Has anyone gone to a second grade classroom in the southwest? Has anyone visited a jail recently in the southwest? I'm sure you'd leave each of these with a smile on your face as you realized you were being extorted."

Yes on all questions except jail, and yes, American taxpayers are being extorted.

wayne | May 25, 2007, 6:38am | #

"But you must recognize that your pragmatic concerns are abrogating the rights of people -- people whose only material characteristic under your pragmatic regime is being born on the other side of a line on a map."

I am puzzled. What "right" is being abrogated?

Grotius | May 25, 2007, 6:53am | #

The Wine Commonsewer,

Sure. Sure.


MikeP,

But you must recognize that your pragmatic concerns are abrogating the rights of people...

Whatever the merits of your arguments one need not recognize this if one doesn't recognize the particular set of rights you appear to claim exists.

Grotius | May 25, 2007, 7:01am | #

MikeP,

Immigration should be utterly free, restricted only for reasonable cause in specific cases of public threat.

I generally agree with this statement. However...

The fact that ...* and history argue that this attitude builds the wealth of society only confirms the thinking.

History (on a global scale) is a mixed-bag when it comes to immigration. Sometimes it is harmful and sometimes it isn't. It depends on the context. In other words, there is no universal, historical stamp of approval for immigration.

*I would suspect that some economic theory likely argues that in at least some instances immigration can be harmful.

jtuf | May 25, 2007, 7:37am | #

wayne,

The right to private property is an extention of the right to decide on your actions, since private property is created by those actions. So, if I build a house, my labor is in the house and I have the right to exclude people from it. If I sell that house, the new owner also buys the right to exclude people from it. That's libertarian 101.

The way I see it, the authority to regulate imigration is connected to the federal government's authority to repel armies. In terms of international law, each country should be able to decide for itself who is a threat. However, the US has a moral obligation to only keep out people who actually are threats. Restricting immigration based on economic arguments is an abuse of the power to regulate immigration. We should let all peaceful immigrants in.

MikeP | May 25, 2007, 7:40am | #

Whatever the merits of your arguments one need not recognize this if one doesn't recognize the particular set of rights you appear to claim exists.

Fair enough. That I find it difficult to see grays here does not translate to an existential truth. We can take wayne as a case in point.

It is also the case that collective action in the present-day US -- e.g., "comprehensive immigration reform" -- is likely to rest on the tippy top in any event simply due to pragmatic compromise.

MikeP | May 25, 2007, 7:43am | #

Why not allow restrictions that play into "worries" about "economics, population, culture, language, or the like"? Your statement begs the question, are these somehow illegitimate concerns?

wayne,

I was simply offering a definition of open immmigration, not a proof that open immigration is preferable. Yes, it does beg the question. jtuf addresses the question nicely.

One more try... | May 25, 2007, 7:43am | #

By the logic of this article, immigrants from poorer nations should receive precedence over immigrants from richer nations, because apparently the only rubric for determining who makes a good immigrant is wage-increase. So maybe we should design our immigrant policy such that it excludes the rich. Moreso.

scurvy patch | May 25, 2007, 8:11am | #

"Is there something 'wrong' with being anti-illegal immigration"

Is there something wrong with being anti-illegal drugs?

In other words, you are equating the legal with the good or moral. It's good that whiskey is legal because the politicians declared it so. It's good that marijuana is illegal for the same reason. Ditto for immigration law.

"The debate should center on whether immigration in the aggregate is a good thing or not..."

'I say that is the best comment I've seen written on this issue in a while.'

Sure, if you're part of the aggregate that got in first and/or benefitted from the arbitrariness of how immigration law is applied.

ed, average American | May 25, 2007, 8:26am | #

I just want cheap produce. But I want Americans to pick it. But they won't do it. So I'll settle for Mexicans. But I don't want them here. This is all very confusing. Thank God for Bill O'Reilly. He'll show me the way.

Apparent Real Jerk | May 25, 2007, 8:55am | #

Count me a "real jerk", but isn't it the job of the foreign national's foreign nation to promote the general welfare of its own nationals?

thoreau | May 25, 2007, 9:07am | #

Arguably doing so would be bad economics, but every country has a right to decide what will and will not be imported inside of it's borders. And to some extent, every country on earth does exactly that.

We all agree that legally the US government has the _right_ to restrict immigration. What we're arguing about is whether it makes any sense to exercise that right for any case other than criminal backgrounds, terrorist ties, communicable diseases, and perhaps a few other categories where harm to others can be shown.

Likewise, I think we'd all agree that I have the _right_ to stand on the street corner and read aloud from anti-Semitic tracts as well as various accounts of UFO abduction. But I think we'd all agree that it would be a really bad idea to exercise my free speech rights in that manner.

damon | May 25, 2007, 9:37am | #

So when did it become jerkish to oppose illegal immigration?

I really would like to fix things here before we have to deal with waves of people who aren't exactly libertarian leaning.

wayne | May 25, 2007, 9:38am | #

"We all agree that legally the US government has the _right_ to restrict immigration. What we're arguing about is whether it makes any sense to exercise that right for any case other than criminal backgrounds, terrorist ties, communicable diseases, and perhaps a few other categories where harm to others can be shown."

How about protecting the standard of living of blue collar type citizens, tradesmen whose wages spiral down to those paid in Nicaraugua, for example? How about the incompatibiity of large social costs with open borders? How about reciprocity with the "donor" countries; try emigrating to Mexico, for example.

carrick | May 25, 2007, 9:47am | #

How about protecting the standard of living of blue collar type citizens, tradesmen whose wages spiral down to those paid in Nicaraugua, for example?

The government has no _right_ to intervene to protect the standard of living of any demographic group. Individuals have the responsibility to protect themselves.

How about the incompatibiity of large social costs with open borders?

How about the large social costs of legalizing recreational drugs? Ooh, Ooh, I know. Maybe the aggregate costs to society will go down when we stop criminalizing things that shouldn't be crimes.

More seriously though, the welfare state needs to be rolled back for many reasons. Open immigration is just one.

How about reciprocity with the "donor" countries; try emigrating to Mexico, for example.

Irrelevant.

wayne | May 25, 2007, 9:48am | #

" Restricting immigration based on economic arguments is an abuse of the power to regulate immigration."

How so?

jimmydageek | May 25, 2007, 9:54am | #

Guy Montag | May 24, 2007, 10:00pm | #

...Is there something 'wrong' with being anti-illegal immigration, or is everybody against dissolving the visa program supposed to be some sort of 'racist'?

No, but it certainly won't help you get laid. Stick with "global warming..."

wayne | May 25, 2007, 10:03am | #

"The government has no _right_ to intervene to protect the standard of living of any demographic group. Individuals have the responsibility to protect themselves."

Maybe so, but the government should not actively participate in driving a segment of its own population into poverty. A substantial portion of America's population make their living in blue-collar type occupations. They are the ones impacted first by large numbers of illegals who work cheap. Displacing large numbers of citizens and driving them into poverty is a tragedy, and it is a recipe for social chaos. In my mind, this issue promises to be the most difficult. Civil wars and revolutions happen because of issues like this.

You say that reciprocity is irrelevant, but the government of Mexico has made it relevant with their own meddling in US politics, and with their arrogant pronouncements of US immigration as racist, etc. It is largely Mexican poor who are dashing across the border, so the Mexican government is exporting their problem to us, and intentionally. It is relevant and fair to ask them to pay their own way.

wayne | May 25, 2007, 10:08am | #

"How about the large social costs of legalizing recreational drugs?"

Any social costs associated with legalized drugs (frankly, I doubt there would be any) would be paid for 100 times over with savings from avoided WoD costs. There are no comparable savings to be had from throwing open the borders.

carrick | May 25, 2007, 10:12am | #

Maybe so, but the government should not actively participate in driving a segment of its own population into poverty.

Opening up immigration is not equivalent to activitely driving a segment of the US population into poverty anymore than dropping tarrifs against imported sugar would be actively driving a segment of the US population into poverty.

You say that reciprocity is irrelevant, but the government of Mexico Great Britain has made it relevant with their own meddling in US politics, and with their arrogant pronouncements of US immigration as racist, etc. It is largely Mexican Irish poor who are dashing across the border coming across the ocean, so the Mexican British government is exporting their problem to us, and intentionally. It is relevant and fair to ask them to pay their own way.

carrick | May 25, 2007, 10:13am | #

There are no comparable savings to be had from throwing open the borders.

Prove it.

Grotius | May 25, 2007, 10:28am | #

thoreau,

Likewise, I think we'd all agree that I have the _right_ to stand on the street corner and read aloud from anti-Semitic tracts as well as various accounts of UFO abduction.

Don't you think that you could have come up with a better analogy than this?

thoreau | May 25, 2007, 10:36am | #

jimmydageek wins the thread.

wayne | May 25, 2007, 10:39am | #

You are making claims of large savings by changing immigration law. it is up to you to "prove" your claims.

Here is a hypothetical example that stikes me as very conservative. Let's say that a family immigrates to the US (California) from Nicaragua. A mother, father, and two adorable daughters. The two adorable daughters will each cost about $7,000 for public education. The family will have one medical crisis per year for which they will use the local emergency room. Total cost for that family will be about $18,000 per year. The parents will each get jobs paying $10 per hour from which they will pay about $2,000 total in federal taxes, and $500 in CA state taxes. Net cost in this scenario: $15,500 per year.

wayne | May 25, 2007, 10:42am | #

"The government has no _right_ to intervene to protect the standard of living of any demographic group. Individuals have the responsibility to protect themselves."

How would you suggest these blue collar Americans protect themselves?

carrick | May 25, 2007, 10:49am | #

There are no comparable savings to be had from throwing open the borders

This is a very simple declarative statement. You should be able to back it up . . or not make it.

Hypothesis: Tighter border controls drive up the demand on the social welfare system.

Background: Before tighter border controls, the typical "illegal" immigrant was a mexican male looking for work. He would send part of his pay home to support his family and would return home when he had met some finanicial goals from his excursion into the US. He would repeat this process many times before returning to mexico and settling down.

Since the tightening of the border, it has become far too risky to make many border crossings. So now, the mexican male worker comes to the US, then has his family brought over when he has some nest-egg established.

So instead of having migratory workers moving back and forth across the border, we now have a one-way flow of families. Families that cannot be supported by the illegal worker who has no chance of ever growing into a decent job with benefits.

Therefore, tighter border controls produces a permanent new underclass that requires continuous support from the welfare state.

Proposal: Open the border to workers, restrict immigration on families to those workers that can show financial independence.

Time for peer review -- discuss.

carrick | May 25, 2007, 10:53am | #

How would you suggest these blue collar Americans protect themselves?

Perhaps education.

25 years ago I was a printer with a young family. Realizing this was a declining industry with no future, both my wife and I worked our way through college. We lived in near poverty with two children for more than three years. It then took more than a decade to pay off all the student loans.

I am now an engineer who pays more in federal taxes every year than I borrowed to get my degree.

I don't have much sympathy for anyone that expects the government to protect their job.

John | May 25, 2007, 10:53am | #

If you had truly open borders with the world, people are going to immigrate into the United States until wages and living conditions are equal between the United States and the immigrants' home country. Now, there is little or no chance that places like Mexico and El Salvador are ever going to reach the U.S. present standard of living. That means that the U.S. standard of living and wages are going to fall while, Mexico and El Salvador's standard of living and wages will rise some because of the resulting labor shortage until the two equal out. Now that may be great if you are an El Salvadoran or if you an economist measuring the total wealth of the world, but it sucks if you are an American.

Essentially, the elitist assholes of America want to stick to the average person so that they can get slave labor to raise their kids, mow their lawns. When I am at my most cynical, I think that the reason why our political elites want so much immigration, especially from Latin America, is because they envy the elites of Latin America. America is a really messy place for the rich. New rich are constantly coming up. Average people are constantly doing things like voting and flying first class and staying in nice hotels. In Latin America none of that happens. If you are an elite, you live completely separate from the average rabble. The elite have complete control over society and is accountable to no one. I really think sometimes that is why so many of our politicians and captains of industry love immigration so much. They want a Latin American type of society here so they could be on top. As for libertarians, Lenin I believe said something about selling ropes?

John | May 25, 2007, 10:55am | #

"Perhaps education."

Do you realize how elitist that is. Some people are not as smart as others. Some people are not cut out to be engineers. Rather than try to provide a decent life for them, you attitude is too fucking bad man, I need my lawn mowed and there are millions of Mexicans willing to do it on the cheap. I guess that means you are just screwed. But, hey I have the money to buy into that gated community they are building outside of town. Hope you have fun living in the bario.

carrick | May 25, 2007, 10:58am | #

Some people are not as smart as others.

And you prove that on a nearly daily basis John.

wayne | May 25, 2007, 11:05am | #

Carrick,

You can't possibly be as much of an ass in person as you are online, and live.

thoreau | May 25, 2007, 11:05am | #

There are lots of ways to learn a skill besides attending a 4 year college for a bachelor's degree.

A commissioned salesman with a good personality and drive but no college degree can make a good living.

I know people making decent money in IT who didn't get computer science degrees.

In the domain of manual labor, a lot of manual labor requires skill. The guy who remodels your bathroom or does the new cabinets in your kitchen is almost certainly making a pretty good living.

Bottom line: There are lots of ways to improve your standard of living.

John | May 25, 2007, 11:05am | #

Yeah Carrick don't respond to the argument just throw out an insult. That is the ticket.

Guy Montag | May 25, 2007, 11:06am | #

I am a bit puzzled as to your impression that those at Reason don't believe in reasonable "for cause" restrictions on immigration.

Your explaination certainly did not ring true with what Nick said on that PBS show a week or so ago.

It does sound similar to what I have been saying here and anywhere else where this comes up. Secure borders and the only limit on imigration is processing capacity of the federal government.

How this is in the "open borders" camp puzzles, because eliminating quotas soes not equal an open border. How about you guys come up with a better name for your position, that is actually descriptive, if this is what you truly mean.

John | May 25, 2007, 11:07am | #

From the WSJ today.

American men in their 30s today are worse off than their fathers' generation, a reversal from just a decade ago, when sons generally were better off than their fathers, a new study finds.

The study, the first in a series on economic mobility undertaken by several prominent think tanks, also says the typical American family's income has lagged far behind productivity growth since 2000, a departure from most of the post-World War II period.


The findings suggest "the up escalator that has historically ensured that each generation would do better than the last may not be working very well," says the study, which is scheduled for release today. The study was written principally by John Morton of the Pew Charitable Trusts, which is leading the series, called the Economic Mobility Project, and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution. Other participating think tanks are the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and the Urban Institute. (See the study.)

In 2004, the median income for a man in his 30s, a good predictor of his lifetime earnings, was $35,010, the study says, 12% less than for men in their 30s in 1974 -- their fathers' generation -- adjusted for inflation. A decade ago, median income for men in their 30s was $32,901, 5% higher than 30 years earlier. Ms. Sawhill said she isn't sure why men's wages have stagnated. "It seems there's been some slowdown in economic growth, it's possible that the movement of women into the labor force has affected male earnings, and it's possible that men are not working as hard as they used to."

The study suggests that absolute mobility -- the rate at which an entire generation's lot improves relative to previous generations -- has declined. But within a particular generation, individuals can still get ahead if relative mobility, the rate at which the rich and poor trade places, remains high. Poor fathers may have rich sons, and vice versa.

MORE


• Full text of the mobility report (PDF)

• Juggle Blog: Better off than your parents?

The report also found that between 1947 and 1974, productivity, or output per hour, and median family income, adjusted for inflation, both roughly doubled. Between 1974 and 2000, productivity rose 56% while income rose 29%. Between 2000 and 2005, productivity rose 16% while median income fell 2%, challenging "the notion that a rising tide will lift all boats," the report says.

Ms. Sawhill said several factors could explain the divergence: a growing share of income going to the highest-paid workers, or to profits; an increased share of labor compensation going toward benefits such as health care; or a decline in the number of wage earners in the typical family.

Write to Greg Ip at [e-mail]


Why are people worse off today than they were 30 years ago, despite nearly doubling productivity during that time? The answer is that the influx of labor from overseas has worked to keep wages behind productivity. Immigration is fabulous for the rich. It is terrible for the average person.

Guy Montag | May 25, 2007, 11:09am | #

Do you realize how elitist that is. Some people are not as smart as others. Some people are not cut out to be engineers.

Don't forget the academics and the chattering classes. Those are the jobs that Americans will do and, to them, most of the jobs serving them for low wages are the ones 'Americans won't do'.

wayne | May 25, 2007, 11:10am | #

"Bottom line: There are lots of ways to improve your standard of living."

Nothing is ever hopeless, I agree, but importing many millions of people who will work cheap is going to drive wages down. That is undeniable.

John | May 25, 2007, 11:11am | #

It is not the entire story, but the decline of real wages among high school educated people is in part due to immigration. I think that we owe our own people something. From a personal level immigration is great for me. What do I care? I get cheap labor and cheap products thanks to it. But there something deeply disturbing going on in our economy. I don't think we can have a society where large numbers of people go absolutely nowhere and have no hope of going anywhere and small numbers of people are fabulously wealthy. That is not a good recipe.

carrick | May 25, 2007, 11:11am | #

Yeah Carrick don't respond to the argument just throw out an insult. That is the ticket.

Yesterday, you said I hated Americans and was a bigot. Today, I am an elitist.

So go fuck yourself.

John | May 25, 2007, 11:14am | #

I was being sarcastic Carrick. In a post above, someone had said I hated Mexicans becuase I was concerned about the effect of imigration on the welfare of Americans. I am not sure if you said that or not. But I did not mean to imply you hated Americans. I was simply being sarcastic to point out that just because I am concerned about American welfare doesn't mean I hate Mexicans.

thoreau | May 25, 2007, 11:15am | #

I don't think we can have a society where large numbers of people go absolutely nowhere and have no hope of going anywhere and small numbers of people are fabulously wealthy. That is not a good recipe.

I agree. The only way to forestall such a scenario is a dynamic free market economy.

Are you guys aware that immigrants who are able to work legally have a high propensity for starting their own businesses? People who have already left everything behind to take a risk in an unknown place are less intimidated by the risks involved in starting a business.

carrick | May 25, 2007, 11:16am | #

but importing many millions of people who will work cheap is going to drive wages down. That is undeniable

You assume that a 25 year old mexican that dig ditches today will always dig ditches.

If he is illegal, then he probably has no other future.

But if he is legal, some percentage will work up to the middle class and some of them will start businesses and become highly successful.

carrick | May 25, 2007, 11:17am | #

I was being sarcastic Carrick.

Then you need to work on your delivery or you'll never make it to Broadway ;-)

wayne | May 25, 2007, 11:20am | #

Ditto to John's 11:11 post.

carrick | May 25, 2007, 11:21am | #

It is not the entire story, but the decline of real wages among high school educated people is in part due to immigration.

I would say the decline is caused more by globalization -- work flowing to the lowest wage that can be found at an equivalent skill level.

In some cases, that work goes overseas. In other cases, the labor comes here. Opening or closing the border is not going to stop this dynamic.

The only protection that a worker has in this environment is to constantly increase the quality or quantity of his/her skills.

Not everyone can or should become an engineer. But no one can or should expect to stay static and survive.

carrick | May 25, 2007, 11:25am | #

So no one wants to discuss whether or not the huge increase in demand on the welfare system was caused, at least in part, by the tighter immigration policies.

I'm not totally convinced myself, but I thought it was worth discussing.

carrick | May 25, 2007, 11:35am | #

Carrick,

You can't possibly be as much of an ass in person as you are online . . .

I've told a lot of software engineers that they have no right to bitch about their jobs going offshore.

If that makes me an ass, then so be it.

I mean, I'm the kind of guy to tell that out-of-work construction guy to be grateful he didn't blow $40K on a software degree only to wind up unemployed because of Indian engineers.

Single Issue Voter | May 25, 2007, 11:36am | #

"The only protection that a worker has in this environment is to constantly increase the quality or quantity of his/her skills."

Don't forget the protections of a policy restricting the immigration of more educated, skilled labor.As well as credentialism, professional licensure, unionism, public employment, rent seeking etc.

Isaac Bartram | May 25, 2007, 11:37am | #

How about reciprocity with the "donor" countries; try emigrating to Mexico, for example.

In every immigration thread someone makes some kind of statement about how tough some other country's immigration laws are. None ever actually furnishes any evidence for this assertion.

You know, like some country's immigration website. Or maybe a quotation from the laws.

thoreau | May 25, 2007, 11:40am | #

How about reciprocity with the "donor" countries; try emigrating to Mexico, for example.

Wayne, if you're that eager to leave the country I'm sure we could take up a collection to help pay for the voluminous immigration paperwork in a country of your choice.

Same goes for Guy Montag. Not because of this thread, just on general principles.

Grotius | May 25, 2007, 11:52am | #

Isaac Bertram,

Well, if I recall correctly it takes five years to get "Idefinite Leave To Remain" status in the U.K. Before that one is on some sort of visa status.

Guy Montag | May 25, 2007, 11:54am | #

Same goes for Guy Montag. Not because of this thread, just on general principles.

Great policy: agree with thoreau or leave.

Grotius | May 25, 2007, 11:58am | #

Guy Montag,

This isn't the first time that thoreau has used something a kin to agree with me or leave the country remark.

Loundry | May 25, 2007, 11:59am | #

How much of a jerk do you have to be to oppose demographic conquest?

What's that, you say? Most liberals are only aware of demographic conquest through the term "settlements", and that was when it was used to describe what Israelis were doing in Gaza prior to Israel's pullout. (How's Gaza doing nowadays?)

To answer my own question, I completely oppose demographic conquest when the USA is the victim. When the USA is the perpetrator, then I'm more ambivalent.

GILMORE | May 25, 2007, 12:00pm | #

TLB | May 24, 2007, 8:06pm | #

...Note: unlike Doherty and the rest, I actually follow this issue quite closely ...

Now - traveling all the way backwards in time to: 4 hours earlier...

TLB | May 24, 2007, 4:31pm | #

Note: unlike Weigel, MikeP, and the rest, I actually follow this issue quite closely and I'm quite familiar with all the ways...

Some other echo chamber effects =

TLB | May 24, 2007, 8:06pm | #
For instance, if you want to be serious about this issue, you're forced to recognize that the MexicanGovernment has a great deal of PoliticalPower inside the U.S

and
TLB | May 24, 2007, 4:31pm | #
that gives the MexicanGovernment even more PoliticalPower inside the U.S. - so much power that they have effective co-dominion over parts of our territory ...

Buddy, the "RealTruth" here is that you are INDEED a LoneWacko, totally obsessed about a single issue, and can only think about it in silly, absolutist terms, so much so that you invent whole linguistic structures to make your fantasy world seem credible to people.

Have you asked yourself at any point why no one gives you the time of day? Is it that the MexicanGovernment has pulled the wool over our eyes?

Go to Sailer's blog. You will feel happier, really.

StupendousMan | May 25, 2007, 12:03pm | #

"...Immigrants have information, they respond to it, the flow of information will prevent all of them from showing up at once, and the stampede will be slowed even more by the fact that it takes a special kind to leave everything behind and start a new life."

I think it important to state how quickly the information flows. Since the argument has been made that we are not going to be swamped by immigrants in a short period of time it follows that once the economy goes into a serious down turn that the immigrants won't leave immediately either. Would they even have the resources to leave if there were no jobs?

Aybe Sea | May 25, 2007, 12:08pm | #

Pitching immigration as a national issue is errant. It is a regional thing. Texas, Arizona, or California have almost nothing in common on the issue with Minnesota, North Dakota, or Montana. This regional disparity makes it nigh on impossible to craft a federal policy that has a prayer of being acceptable, much less successful.

thoreau | May 25, 2007, 12:08pm | #

Since the argument has been made that we are not going to be swamped by immigrants in a short period of time it follows that once the economy goes into a serious down turn that the immigrants won't leave immediately either. Would they even have the resources to leave if there were no jobs?

The Canadians will hire them to build a wall to keep out unemployed Americans seeking health care.

jtuf | May 25, 2007, 12:30pm | #

carrick,

Your theory has merit. Legalizing immigration would make it easier for immigrants to start their own businesses or climb the career ladder.

For that matter, maybe we shouldn't expect nanny statists to lift quotas any time soon. People who can pull themselves up tend not to vote for a nanny state. An even more cinical fear, constant low quotas combined with giving amnestry once every few years turns citizenship into another prize to dole out. Under that system, there's a large pool of soon to be voters need a politician's help to become legal. If we lift the quotas, citizenship can't be used as political patronage.