Malthusian Civil War

Friction over American immigration at the Sierra Club is discussed by Neil Hrab of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He suggests that the skirmishing between pro- and anti-immigration environmentalists is really just a civil war between Malthusians.

Comments

[Lonewacko]

"California alone will add 17 million [people] by 2025, the equivalent of another southern California"

The pro-immigration forces apparently think that's a good thing, but they also want to prevent building the infrastructure those 17 million people are going to require. The restrictionists don't want the infrastructure, and they also don't want those millions of new Californians. Their policy sounds a bit more sound, no?

This LAT article details the problems being faced by California: "If projections through 2040 by demographers in the state Department of Finance prove accurate, conditions will only get worse. Much worse. New residents continue to wash over California's borders, but the state is neither attempting to restrain growth nor building adequate infrastructure to accommodate it. And the boat continues to fill..."

The Bush/Fox Amnesty is bad for so many reasons. Some are outlined here. See also "The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers". And, see "Global HMO". Libertarians should take a glance at "Earth to WSJ". And, there's "Guest worker program offers lessons: Bush might profit by German experience".

And, it won't stop at just the serf labor that keep our elites happy. At a Cato Institute Panel on the Bush "guest worker" proposal, administration representative Margaret Spellings had this to say:

"We do envision that this would be open to any type of employee and any type of employer, such as nurses, teachers, high-tech workers, low-skilled workers. This is a concept that can apply broadly"

In other words, nearly all jobs - even those that currently pay a high wage - are at risk from Bush's proposal. Those jobs will be offered to Americans first. But, with bidding on those jobs open to millions in India and China, at what wage rate?

How much less will you make under the Bush plan?

[fyodor]

Y'know, Loneone, if I could snap my fingers and make massive immigration go away without any repercussions, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But of course, that only happens in one's immagination. In the real world, those folks are gonna come as long as there's a better life for them here, and the more we try to stop 'em, the more problems we create (and the more we tread on their rights to free movement, IMO). You're just beating up a dead strawman when you say things like, "The pro-immigration forces apparently think that's a good thing," at least if you're trying to address most of the posters here. I, for one, am not pro-immigration. I'm pro freedom.

[shane]

They need to go out and begin deporting illegals right now. Just take a few thousand and deport them outright.

Then beef up the INS border patrols and staff as a whole.

And cap seasonal immigration at a specific number.

[Lonewacko]

"massive immigration go away without any repercussions, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But of course, that only happens in one's immagination. In the real world, those folks are gonna come as long as there's a better life for them here"

Everything has repurcussions. Deporting millions of illegal aliens would cause racial demagogues to whine. Inviting millions of illegal aliens to come here causes lifestyle and financial problems for us.

The way to do it is to at least stop offering incentives. Those include: driver's licenses for illegal aliens, non-essential health care (see Rohrbacher's bill), sanctuary laws, etc. etc. etc.

And, you start investigating and prosecuting large numbers of illegal alien employers, putting them in federal prison.

The jobs for illegal aliens will dry up, and millions of them will go home. And, millions will decide that coming here as an illegal alien is not worth it.

It might cause economic disruptions, but, we won't have $5 lettuce. Labor costs are 10% of the cost of a head of lettuce. It will also encourage ag business to mechanize, creating new jobs for Americans to build those mechanical harvesters.

And, it will encourage the elites of Mexico to reform or be revolutionized away.

[Jason Ligon]

I don't want to pay 95% in payroll taxes to fund the boomers' retirements, the boomers' drugs, and no doubt the boomers' yachts they will vote themselves in the next 5 years.

We need immigrants so that someone besides my 30 year old butt is being taxed.

[Nobody Perfect]

Kevin didn't say "corporations support free markets" - and if that is what he meant, he is incorrect. Many companies do not support free markets, while others do.

No, he said "corporatists" - which I would like him to define.

[fyodor]

beef up the INS border patrols and staff as a whole

More money, that'll solve the problem!

"The jobs for illegal aliens will dry up

Yeah sure, just like the market for illegal drugs has dried up. Meanwhile, terrorists will make money off of illegal immigrant smuggling and the wetback who dented your car will run like hell for fear of being deported. And honest folks who only want to make a living where there's a living to be made get carted up and shipped off.

[dlc]

"They need to go out and begin deporting illegals right now. Just take a few thousand and deport them outright.

Then beef up the INS border patrols and staff as a whole.

And cap seasonal immigration at a specific number."

Um, Shane, are you being sarcastic or do you not know you are in a libertarian discussion board?

That's pretty much the status quo there, bub. The INS is indeed charged with deporting illegal aliens. They can't do it "right now" because all deportees are (rightly) awarded due process in immigration proceedings. The fact that they are not deporting millions either shows the job is more difficult than it seems, or that the INS is an insanely incompetent, overly-bureaucratic federal agency (what a surprise!) - actually both are probably correct. Increasing border patrols (again, the status quo) hasn't done shit except push border-crossers into more trecherous crossings.

[Rick C]

Fyodor, could you expound on the "right of free movement" people in other countries have to come into this one?

[Kevin Carson]

fyodor,

I think Bush's proposal is just like the present system, only more so. Both entirely open borders, and rigidly enforced immigration controls, would be preferable to the present system. At present, we have the worst of both worlds. There are fairly strict immigration laws on the books, but they are very haphazardly enforced. So employers who want cheap foreign labor can get illegals at sweatshop wages, with a wink and a nod from the feds. But because those "guest workers" are technically illegal, they are entirely at the mercy of their employers. The employer is their "protector" against that wicked old INS, and against the resentment of those American nativists who'd like to expel them with the shirts on their backs--but only so long as they play ball. So they lack the freedom of "legal" Americans to easily vote with their feet in negotiating for higher wages, to organize, or to act as whistle-blowers about their working conditions. Bush's proposal legalizes their status, while at the same time legally formalizing their total dependence on the employer's good will.

[Kevin Carson]

Nobody Perfect,

By "corporatists," I simply mean those business interests who seek profits in collusion with the state--by externalizing their operating costs on the taxpayer, and relying on regulation to cartelize the market and set up entry barriers. Pretty much the entire Fortune 500, IOW.

[shane]

dlc,
yeah I know.

And "making it tougher" by pushing illegals into more treacherous places is precisley my point.

Deter the influx.

And no fyodor, more money = More agents to arrest more illegals and patrol our vast border.

Lonewacko brought up Rohrabacher's better idea: remove some of the incentives from our government institutions.

[shane]

Kevin, that's a great description of rent-seeking corporations existing in the states and elsewhere.

Would you say corporatism or syndicalism is a progression of mercantilism, or are they different?

[Kevin Carson]

Oh, and BTW, fyodor,

At the risk of what this might say about my view of reality, I am extremely uneasy about "steps in the right direction."

The Romans at Cannae no doubt saw the withdrawal of the Punic center as a "step in the right direction"--and look what it got them. We cannot afford to allow the corporatist (there's that word again) class enemy define the areas in which the State will retreat, in accordance with their own strategic objectives. I'm all for gradualism--but the steps in the right direction for which we're pushing should be determined by the good guys, in accordance with their own strategic vision.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

We need immigrants so that someone besides my 30 year old butt is being taxed.

Apparently you misunderstand. The question isn't whether we need immigrants (for most people). The question is how many, of what professions, from what countries, etc.

Yeah sure, just like the market for illegal drugs has dried up

There's a major difference between drugs and illegal immigration. Namely, there are not too many consumers for illegal aliens, and there are many consumers for drugs.

So, if you wanted to go after drug consumers, you'd have to go after millions of people. However, with IAs, you only need to go after, say, 10,000 employers. Simply find the largest employers of IAs, conduct investigations, and put their executives in federal prison. Unlike drugs, putting "IA abusers" in jail won't result in just another consumer or small-time dealer springing up.

Imagine the prison experience for a crack dealer vs. that for an upper-level executive. Most executives will immediately consider alternatives to being serf-masters. [gross, schadenfreude comments self-deleted]

Increasing border patrols (again, the status quo) hasn't done shit except push border-crossers into more trecherous crossings.

The status quo is greatly reduced workplace enforcement. See my previous paragraph.

[dj of raleigh]

Love freedom & open borders, pro-immigration?

Extend the current trend of immigration to the nth degree.

Would you allow car carrier ships filled with immigrants?
Would you balk at 100 million Asians moving here?
It would mean a better life for those moving and remaining.
Same thing for all of drought ridden sub-Saharan Africa.
While Aids takes its toll, the #1 problem in Africa,
is not Aids, but population growth!
Whole villages transposed from Asia to the USA?
Nearly whole villages have already moved here.
Are you for freedom? Are you for open borders?

The SUSPS are for population control.
Of course, we could let a tenth of Asia come here,
and send half of us away, back when we came from.

[Robert Hutchinson]

I fully support deporting individual illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, and American citizens who willfully and shamelessly take my money and property and infringe on my rights.

But, of course, that's not nearly as much fun as deciding that only one of the above groups engages in such activities, exclusively and by definition.

[Kevin Carson]

The pro-immigration forces, to the extent that they represent corporate interests, are also Malthusian. They believe the "solution" for excessively high wages is to increase the supply of labor until they're driven down.

I'm pretty much an open borders guy myself. But don't kid yourself that the corporatists here at home support immigration for genuinely free market reasons, no matter how much they throw around the faux free market rhetoric.

And I'd feel a lot better about Bush's program if a guest-worker's "legal" status wasn't employment-based, and therefore dependent on the goodwill of his employer. That's pretty close to the kind of peonage that blacks had after reconstruction, when the penalty for unemployment (or going AWOL from the plantation you sharecropped) was forced prison labor.

[fyodor]

I have this leftist friend whose biggest insult to me is to accuse me of "sounding like a Republican," yet he jokingly admits he's "to the right of Tancredo" on immigration. Basically because he sees population growth as the agent for "environmental collapse." Oh, and he doesn't like traffic. When I accuse him of NIMBYism, he springs this crackpot theory that the more Mexicans who immigrate here, the more people in Mexico will procreate because there'll be so much more room there! At least they haven't ruined his imagination....

[fyodor]

So Kevin,

Would Bush's plan be worse than the status quo? If so, why?

One thing I've learned to accept is that someone else's motives don't have to be the same as mine for me to agree on an issue with them. Of course corporations aren't interested in issues of personal liberty, they want immigration to boost their profits. But making profit is what business is all about, and there's nothing inherently nefarious about it or about a policy that helps bring that about. Although I'm still fuzzy on what happens to the "guest-workers" after their three years are up and I wonder if anyone will sign up for this if it targets them for deportation after that time, I'm tentatively in favor of the plan as a step, albeit small, in the right direction.

[dhex]

i dunno...scapgoating politicians seems both fair and entertaining.

[Nobody's Perfect]

I see Kevin. So we blame the company instead of the State, the company instead of our idiot lawmakers.

So who at the companies exactly? Just the evil Capitalists (i.e. 401K holders) or the millions of janitors unfairly profiting by cleaning the johns at Enron?

Keep fighing for your surplus value, comrade! your theory was smelly and over-aged in 1932.

[dhex]

why can't you blame both?

campaign donations don't show up on asteroids.

lobbies aren't created in test tubes.

etc.

though i don't know where politicians are created. perhaps a recycling factory? or more likely, one of those fat rendering plants.

[fyodor]

Rick C,

Thank you for asking.

It's the same basic right anyone has to do any damn thing they please that doesn't infringe on someone else's rights. Stepping onto your property against your wishes violates your rights. Crossing a national border doesn't. Simple as that.

[Kevin Carson]

Nobody Perfect,

Are you denying that politically connected companies *use* the state to profit at taxpayer expense? Or just that they're morally culpable for it? When you're held up, do you blame the gun instead of the mugger?

The very reason we have such a large and powerful state, is its expansion under pressure from corporate interests. Exploitation is only possible through the state--but that doesn't mean the state isn't in the hands of a ruling class.

[fyodor]

The Romans at Cannae no doubt saw the withdrawal of the Punic center

Kevin, this is a little like Jean Bart posting in French. 🙂 I truly believe I'm more knowledgable than most folks, but I have no idea what you're talking about here. If you'd care to elaborate or point me somewhere, I might have a fighting chance of understanding you.

[Nobody's Perfect]

Kevin:
Welfare moms and senators also profit at taxpayer expense. The fact is, some companies do, some companies don't - usually based on their PECEPTION of self-interest. I like to try to show them that using the state isn't really in their self interest. You seem to want to rant about "enemy classes" and what-not (never mind that logically the "ruling class" is us middle-cass kulaks with our 401ks and employement at state-using firms). And we all know where these rants can sometimes lead to (the same fate as the Kulaks).

The mugging remark and "only the state exploits" is just more mindless libertarian talking points. The fact is that I buy products and stock of companies that get hand-outs, as well as use the State's roads, post office etc. I don't shoot tax-collectors and I don't send a bill for my military defense. Plus we also have a democratic republic where we can also influence others (or also buy votes) to REDUCE the state and promote voluntary relationships.

So whatever mess we are in I have to take some responsibilty, which means it is pointless to assign blame. And unless you are a hermit a la the Unabomber, YOUR HANDS ARE AS DIRTY AS MINE. Look, we all have dirty hands. I think we should each look at ourselves first and what we can do individually instead of scapegoating whole groups of people.

What is interesting is what first attracted me to Reason magazine and libertarian thought in general was that it seemed orignal, individualist and non-dogmatic, free from propagnda and platitudes of collectivism.

Since then I have been sorely dissapointed. Most of the libertarianism here appears to be just as collectivistic.

[joe]

Lonewacko seems to assume that jobs are a zero sum game. If immigrants take the low income jobs, Americans will be unemployed. In fact, this is not the case.

Most of the jobs held by low-income immigrants would go begging without them. A farmer isn't going to pay an American $8.00/hour to pick lettuce if he can only turn a profit by paying less than $6.00/hour. And if there were Americans willing to pick lettuce for that price, they'd be out there doing it, and the farmer wouldn't be risking legal action by hiring illegals. He'll just stop growing lettuce. Putting grocers, truckers, etc out of business as well.