Cavanaugh on the Radio at 4:10 ET

Reason web editor Tim Cavanaugh will be on the Paul Harris show on KMOX in St. Louis at 4:10, discussing his open-the-borders proposal. There's a live player on the station's site, and a podcast will be available later (probably not after this weekend.)

Comments

[VM]

4:10 local?

the cool thing with KMOX is that you east coast types should be able to pick it up.

the sucky thing is that KMOX no longer broadcasts the Cards. As a lifelong (raised) Cubs fan, I'd still listen to the Cards. Great announcers. The best fans in Baseball. And it pains me greatly to say that. 🙂

[Ken Shultz]

I'm not familiar with the situation in the EU, but weren't they proposing something like this? Weren't people in the EU supposed to be able to take a job wherever they wanted? Is it like that over there now?

[Isaac Bartram]

Ken, I believe that a citizen in any EU country can move to and get a job in any other EU country. It does take time to qualify for welfare benefits in the new country though.

[Isaac Bartram]

Correction:

I think that when the Eastern European countries were admitted some restrictions were placed on their citizens. I might be wrong though, but that is my impression.

[Ken Shultz]

It does take time to qualify for welfare benefits in the new country though.

American citizens have to work for so many years before they become eligible for Social Security. I'm no fan of Social Security--I'd just as soon chuck the whole thing tomorrow. But we could impose a similar restriction on other welfare benefits.

I was struck by Cavanaugh's point about practicality--his really is the most practical solution. And if they're doin' something like this in the EU already, then it isn't completely without precedent. ...even considering the emergence of the welfare state since the 1920s.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

I think I came on too strong, because I was expecting him to be more hostile than he was. (Shoot first and asked questions later: my motto with talk radio hosts and illegal immigrants.) I hope I didn't offend him.

[Stuart]

The case in europe, as far as i am aware, is dependant on the old nation states, so for an EU national to turn up and work in the UK is no diffrent to a british citzen, im not sure about claiming benifits, i dont think your allowed to if your from annother EU country unless you have been there long enough (how long that is i couldnt say and is proberbly dependant on a number of factors).

From a personal on the ground kind of experance, the only real diffrence is that farmers can be moer labour intensive and construction work is cheaper (if lacking in quality, in my al be it limited experance).

[Ken Shultz]

I was surprised he let you make your case too. Alan Nathan could learn a lot from that guy. If Alan Nathan treated his guests that way, I might listen, even when Gillespie wasn't on.

[chuy]

Tim, do you remember that back in August of last year, the Pew Hispanic Center released a study showing that 46% of Mexicans indicated they would go live in the United States if they had the means and opportunity? This figure would certainly increase substantially if barriers to their entry were lowered, and the compounding effect would ratchet up the percentage at an ever-increasing rate.

Do you really think that the US could absorb more than 45 million immigrants in the months that followed implementation of your open-borders policy?

[76]

chuy: Do you believe they would all run for the welfare office or the street corners? Do you believe that as the jobs are taken up that they won't eventually go back to Mexico to seek employment there?

Also, what perimeters are you using to define an "absorbed" Mexican? One who has a job, a house, a wife and family? Or, is it something related to "culture", of which there are many in America and which cannot be adequetely described without long essays read by only English majors?

[Phileleutherus Lipsiensis]

Isaac Bertram,

There are restrictions to movement.

[mo $$]

There was a good op ed piece in the Wall St. Journal last week that brought up the reciprocity point (sorry can't link to it). It was advocating that Mexico dismantle its restrictions on investment in that country by foreigners. That way, while we would let Mexican citizens who are so inclined come to the US to work, US citizens who are so inclined would travel south to invest in Mexico (the oil & gas industry, realestate, etc.) which would help create growth and jobs down there. These two forces combined would do a lot to raise Mexico out of its poliical and economic slump and get us closer to a steady state on our southern border. Unfortunately, it's probably all academic at this point...

I enjoyed listening to the podcast

[Isaac Bartram]

There are restrictions to movement.

Are those restriction on the new members?

I understand that there are no restrictions within the original EU countries.

I vaguely recall a little bit of pissing and moaning in the UK, Germany and France about Spain and Portugal in the early days but that seems to have blown over as they have become wealthier and their citizens become more inclined to stay home.

Now they're p&m'ng about Eastern Europe.

And, of course, the French attitude towards Turkey seems to closely parallel the attitude of the anti-immigration crowd her.

[chuy]

With respect to 45 million Mexicans moving to America if Tim's proposal were adopted: Do I believe they would all run for the welfare office or the street corners?

No, I believe they would further depress wages for the poorest American workers, widening the already historic abyss between the richest and poorest in our country, and when they found that there were not enough work for 45 million unskilled illegal aliens to do, they would prefer being unemployed here to being unemployed there.

Do I believe that as the jobs are taken up that they won't eventually go back to Mexico to seek employment there? Think about the number: 45 MILLION immigrants, mostly those who lacked skills to find work in Mexico, moving here within a matter of weeks. And I think that the trend will accelerate, not taper off. The more Mexicans who leave, even if they don't find work here, will encourage more to come, because being unemployed here is more pleasant than being unemployed there.

Also, what meaures would I use to define an "absorbed" Mexican? I'm not really thinking about this question from the immigrant's point of view. I'm thinking about this: What happens to America when 45 million unskilled immigrants flood into the labor market? I don't think Tim's article has given this question any thought at all.

[Douglas Fletcher]

I think the 45 million should be free to come here, provided that Tim is willing to put them up at his house.

[joe]

First, does anyone actually believe that the guy posting as "chuy" has the last name "lopez," as his email indicates?

Second, "chuy lopez," do you have even a shred of evidence for your assertion that the Mexicans who would move to cities in the United States are the least skilled segment of that society? Because, if so, that would be a singular event in history. In every other case, the people who up and left their homes to seek a new life tended to have higher educational and economic status than their countrymen in the aggregate.

[joe]

BTW, I heard Jim Sensenbrenner on the radio today saying that we need to shut down the "magnet" that draws immigrants to the United States.

What do you think he means? Prosperity? Peace? Opportunity? Freedom? Decent governance? High quality of life?

I'm baffled.