Immigration

Bush's Despicable Slam Against Asian Birth Tourists

They are a boon to America and should be greeted with open arms

|

The Donald has upped the ante on the GOP's game of which-immigrant-group-to-throw-under-the-bus. He threatened to scrap the 14th Amendment guarantee of birthright citizenship – handing automatic citizenship to any

Asian Babies
Sam Antonio Photography / Foter / CC BY-NC-ND

kid born on American soil — to fight the scourge of "anchor babies" that Latino parents alleged have to gain green card sponsors.  And Jeb Bush trumped him by harrumphing that the real villains are not Latinos but rich Asians who engage in "birth tourism" — coming to America to give birth so that their kids would get U.S. citizenship.

In other words, Trump wants to deny Latinos birthright citizenship because they are poor and mooch off welfare and Bush questions Asians because they are rich that they can buy citizenship.

But anchor babies are a hyped-up problem like Trump's bouffant, I note in The Week, and Asian birth tourists an unmitigated blessing for the United States:

Restrictionists constantly accuse "anchor baby" parents of mooching off American taxpayers by using emergency services for child delivery and collecting welfare through their American child. (Never mind that unauthorized parent-headed households receive far less welfare than native ones of similar income, and are far less prone to welfare dependency.) But none of that applies to birth tourists, who, with few exceptions, pay for the entire cost of delivery out of pocket. In fact, the agency that formed the cornerstone of the Bloomberg story went out of its way to ensure that its clients don't use public money, and keep copious documentation to prove that.

More to the point, birth tourist babies go home to be raised during their most expensive phase — only to possibly return to America after their 18th birthday, during their most productive phase. In effect, birth tourism allows America to outsource the raising of its citizens, resulting in enormous savings, given that it costs a whopping $300,000 to raise a child in a middle-income family in America today.

Every adult immigrant, even poor Latinos, constitute a windfall for America, given that America reaps the dividends of another society's investment in them. (Indeed, immigration is arguably a far cheaper way than having children for a society to maintain its population level.) But birth tourist babies are a special boon because they are the product of super-ambitious parents who are obviously sparing no expense or effort to build their child's full potential and give him/her options.

Go here to read the piece.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

105 responses to “Bush's Despicable Slam Against Asian Birth Tourists

  1. The US should just sell citizenship. That will eliminate inefficiencies related to “birth tourism.” And it may even pay off a part of the national debt.

    1. Bush is not racist. his real problem is that when we bring in wealthy smart kids outside of the “No Child Left Behind” educational standards it does cause problems. Jeb’s awesome brother(who helped defend us from terrorism) didn’t create a bigger more federalized education system just have some selfish bastards try to do a run-around on the system!

      No we need properly educate these kids to understand the correct procedures to follow if in a live shooter situation. These drills now take place all over the country and is a huge triumph of the serious thinking intellectuals in the country. We need the masses, err cannon fodder, to mindlessly pledge allegiance to the flag every day, we need them to learn to follow orders, line up in a straight line and eat good nutritious food that the government tells them to eat when and how they are told to eat it. How else are we going to fill our prisons, army bases and office parks with people that mindlessly do as they are told. How else are we going to protect our big government granted monopoly industries from innovative trouble making wild catter entrepreneuers?! sure we can set up regulations to help limit new disruptive companies…but troublesome smart kids that don’t understand the right way to do things always figure out ways around regulations….we can’t have that!

      1. seriously reason…i appreciate your hard work in explaining how trump is racist. He is. But to question the un-racist credentials of a Bush or Clinton?! These are serious candidates…I hope that after the silly season is over we can return to real journalism…like explaining the “libertarian” rationale for voting for Hillary or Bush…those are the best articles!

  2. Every adult immigrant, even poor Latinos, constitute a windfall for America, given that America reaps the dividends of another society’s investment in them.

    That’s quite a bold claim, every adult immigrant? There’s not one immigrant whose incarceration has not been a net loss to the economy and government expenditures? And every adult immigrant’s parent society has “invested” in them in some way that benefits the US? If we imported the sum total of all of Somalia’s, or Congo’s or Yemen’s population to the US state of New Hampshire, would New Hampshire be superduper better off? All cultures are equal so why not.

    1. If we imported the sum total of all of Somalia’s, or Congo’s or Yemen’s population to the US state of New Hampshire, would New Hampshire be superduper better off?

      The correct answer is: You imperialist, isolationist, racist, culturally-appropriating asshole! How can that even be a question in your mind?

    2. Such common sense is anathema to Shika and other open borders types.

      Here’s a translation of a Chinese birth tourism website (scroll down until you see pink). Here’s the #1 reason:

      1. Your children born in the United States immediately with American identity, the enjoyment of civil rights; 21 years of age, parents can apply for dependents of permanent green card, without waiting for the quota, provide conditions for future immigrants.

      And that way the parents and grandparents can move here and get pensions courtesy of SSI.

      (But don’t worry, statistics show that elderly immigrants don’t use SSI at greater rates than the native-born! So there’s really no downside. /sarc)

      1. even her employer, whoever wrote the headline, calls them ‘birth tourists’ but Shikha only sees Jeb as the issue.

  3. Really, Reason? This place is already crawling with Nascar yahoos. It’s Friday for fuck’s sake.

  4. Go here to read the piece.

    Is that a dare?

    1. Paging Derpetologist. . . .

  5. given that it costs a whopping $300,000 to raise a child in a middle-income family in America today.

    And when the kids are raised in America, that money is spent in America.

    How spending money overseas to raise American citizens benefits the American economy, is an exercise for the reader.

  6. Every adult immigrant, even poor Latinos, constitute a windfall for America, given that America reaps the dividends of another society’s investment in them.

    Of course, whether any given immigrant is a net economic benefit to America is not such a no-brainer as Dalmia would have us believe.

    Consider a pretty ordinary low-skill Latino who comes here. He works hard, makes some money, great. So far, America is better off.

    Then he sends a lot of that money back to the Olde Country. Are we still better off? Maybe. Compared to an American who might have otherwise had that job and kept the money here? Really hard to see how “we” are better off.

    But its not obvious to me that there’s much difference between (a) work done overseas, with pay going overseas, and the product coming here, is any different economically than (b) work done here, with the pay going overseas, and the product staying here.

    IOW, if we export the work, rather than import the worker, we may get all the economic benefit, and not run the downside risks of the social costs that may arise (medical care, food stamps, all the other costs that low-income workers impose on others in our welfare state).

    On the whole, I’m not really sure how comfortable I am analyzing immigration based on collectivist arguments like Shikha trots out. Everyone oversimplifies immigration, I think, and I just haven’t landed on the analytic framework I would like to use.

    1. It doesn’t get any more simplified than Dalmias absolutist terms; (paraphrased) “All immigrants are a good thing, all of the time, in all places they grace with their presence.”

      She is either too brain dead to fathom how one single immigrant could not be a benefit, or she’s lying but to her the ends justify the lying means.

    2. I don’t think libertarians have any business considering such things at all, but the arguments are nonetheless real and might help some sit more comfortably with the pro-liberty position, which you’d think they’d be able to get to before anyone else anyway.

      1. I don’t think you have any business trying to argue against even the dumbest actual libertarian on these boards. That’s how you manage to frustrate so many people, these lofty notions you have of your own beliefs are so bad that calling them “poorly reasoned” doesn’t even begin to describe it.

        1. I think I’m more of a libertarian than many of you on a lot of issues.

          1. Like what.

            1. In general, I favor individual liberty as a practiced matter more than all libertarians, because I do not define liberty solely as the absence of government. But I align with the libertarian platform on so-called social issues more than the good portion of the population here who seem casually able to find exceptions to liberty when it comes to a number of pet conservative causes. Take immigration, which is particularly egregious since the anti-liberty arguments made are almost always factually unsupported (we have to restrict immigrants’ freedom because of the welfare state!).

              1. So, you’re in favor of breaking the law as long as the laws that are broken suit your beliefs?

                1. I didn’t realize the libertarian position is that all laws are just.

                  1. It isn’t, dumbass, but you knew that.

              2. because I do not define liberty solely as the absence of government.

                You failed another Ideological Turing Test. What a surprise.

              3. Re: Tony the Marxian,

                I do not define liberty solely as the absence of government.

                Nor do libertarians. Liberty is the ability to act unhindered by the aggressive actions of others, whether there is government or not. The criticism against the state is that the state is force.

          2. That’s interesting since you do nothing on these boards but demonstrate how little you understand the concept or any number of issues. But you’re the expert I guess.

            1. Your little ideology is bullshit, and there’s not much to understand. You hate government and progressives because they took away your god-given right to own slaves, or whatever. Same shit different century.

              1. You hate government and progressives because they took away your god-given right to own slaves, or whatever.

                that may be the single most stupid thing you have ever posted here, an almost Olympian-level of derp, far surpassing your usual weapons-grade offerings. Because if anyone knows anything about libertarians and the folks who post here, it’s how badly they want to be massuhs.

                When your first three words are demonstrably false, an outright lie to be specific, don’t act shocked when people see you as whatever is crawling under the pile of cow shit.

                1. Yes, sometimes I start to think that Tony is ok as far as trolls go but then he says something like this and reveals how utterly stupid and incoherent he actually is. My bad.

                2. You tell me exactly which of the rights, entitlements, and privileges you currently enjoy you want to give up in favor of a new libertarian order. Is there a single one? So you don’t want to own people. Congratufuckinglations. Your ideological forebears did, and they had the same grievances you do.

              2. Your little ideology is bullshit, and there’s not much to understand. You hate government and progressives because they took away your god-given right to own slaves, or whatever. Same shit different century.

                You’re just proving my point. After all your years of lurking in these threads you don’t know the first thing about what motivates libertarians or what they actually believe. You are only familiar with the strawmen that you and your fellow travelers have constructed.

      2. Nobody cares what you think, Tony.

      3. arguments being “real” does not make them valid. You should know that considering how often you trash arguments counter to your worldview.

  7. Here’s a better statement – why the fuck do supposed libertarians care if they are a net economic gain or loss? That’s a utilitarian argument in the first place. I’m tired of hearing it, seeing it. There are lies put out by both sides of that take and most of the studies strike me as being absolute bullshit where a whole lot gets assumed or modeled.

    Jeb Bush only made this comment because he is getting his ass kicked on immigration, and Asians aren’t a protected or rapidly growing voting block like Hispanics.

    1. I’m kinda leaning that way, Broch. Unfortunately, we have a giant machine for socializing (collectivizing) costs in this country – our total state at all levels. If everyone were on their own, with no ability to get into my pocket, that’d be great. Since socialized/collectivized costs are imposed on me, I struggle.

      But that doesn’t mean I won’t go knocking down dumbass utilitarian/collectivist arguments when I see them.

      1. I don’t think it’s using “dumbass utilitarian/collectivist arguments” to point out that importing low-wages workers depresses wages, that importing gangsters increases crime, that importing kids increases school costs, and that importing poor kids increases welfare costs.

        1. Not one single immigrant has ever been a net loss to their host society. Anywhere. In all of human history. /Dalmia

          1. And don’t forget the Cytotoxic claim that any level of immigration is always good. There can be no possible downsides, ever. He says the entire Camp of the Saints problem that Europe is going through now is only a problem because they aren’t letting people in.

            (And isn’t it weird that he’s so eager to bomb Muslims in their home countries, but millions of them magically become benign once they move to the West? Has he ever resolved that contradiction?)

            Yesterday he applauded Nick’s piece on Japan, saying it proved they needed immigration. Maybe, but I doubt Japan’s economy really needs uneducated Honduran peasants and Salvadoran gangsters.

            1. Maybe, but I doubt Japan’s economy really needs uneducated Honduran peasants and Salvadoran gangsters.

              Every single one of those gangsters is a net gain for society. Fact.

              Fuck why don’t we clear out the Gaza Strip and move them all to Des Moines Iowa? Iowa will benefit tremendously from the people whose elected government recently arrested a dolphin for being a Jewish spy. And it’ll surely make for very interesting party primaries every presidential election season.

              1. I find the experience of Sweden to be darkly hilarious. I am old enough to remember the arguments about pornography in the ’70s, when I heard that “there are few rapes in Sweden because they allow pornography.” (I have no idea if that was true, but that’s what some people said at the time.)

                Then:

                Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa.

                1. It’s truly sad. One year in Oslo, Norway, I think 2009. Out of a few hundred rapes perpetrated there, something between 0 and 1 were committed by someone other than North African/Middle-Easterner.

                2. but but but multi-culturalism.

                  We’ve turned E Pluribus Unum on its ass.

                  1. I think Sweden (and the US) is getting the results of this sort of thinking:

                    “When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favor of as much immigration as possible. It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants ? from anywhere ? as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties. Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people ? usually in the poorest parts of Britain ? who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’. If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.” ?Peter Hitchens

                3. Sounds like the women in Sweden need to arm themselves.

                  Is there any breakdown of the ethnicity of the victims?

                  1. The article I read on a Swedish news site a while back has been taken down not long after i got posted, the Swedish government censors reports that run counter to the multicult.

                    I recall that victims are about half Swedish women and half Muslim women. But the overwhelming number of perpetrators were North African or Middle Eastern. So do the math. The equation will not yield the result that all cultures are equal.

                  2. I haven’t been able to find that, but I’m pretty sure it’s ethnic Swedish women who are the most popular targets. To a Somali or Iraqi, they often dress in a way that means “they’re asking for it.”

                    1. It seems that Muslim women are just as likely to be victim as a Swedish woman. Meaning the rates are the same, but the number of Swedish women in that society is higher than the number of Muslim immigrant women so there would be necessarily more of them being victimized. Adding to that the fact that the overwhelming proportion of perpetrators are Muslim men, you get your answer.

        2. Free Society – Dalmia is an extremists advocating for one position.

          On the welfare state argument – it’s not going anywhere. Taken to its logical extreme, I could very easily argue that poor people procreating is a burden to me because of the increased taxation to pay for the welfare state that supports them. I don’t see many libertarians adopting eugenics, though. An immigrant is not violating the NAP welfare state or not anymore than the already poor Americans.

          Papaya – I don’t deny that immigrants can drive down wages in various sectors of the economy. But so does globalization and shipping factories overseas. I’m not seeing what separates it from a utilitarian argument. The results aren’t always positive for us, so we call on the government to use force to restrict it.

          1. I don’t see many libertarians adopting eugenics, though.

            Why do you need eugenics to solve that problem?

          2. You don’t need eugenics to stop the rate of procreation among the poor; you just need to quit subsidizing it. Let’s stop acting like the poor are no better than animals and realize that incentives work. They can work for beneficial reasons or perverse ones, but when people know a govt check will accompany a child, they’re not going to be too worried about birth control.

            1. And the children who are created for an extremely short-term financial gain are often raised just so well by their parents.

              1. it’s not short-term, it’s 18 years worth of gain. Per child. Generational welfare did not invent itself. And if you’re worried about the child, why are you subsidizing people with obviously lousy parenting skills?

                1. You think I want to subsidize them/anyone?

                  1. I may have misread sarcasm. Which candidate is going to give me a new meter?

                    1. Read the rest of my posts up and down this thread to fine tune that meter. It was sarcasm, just meant for those in the other camp.

          3. Ok, in the meantime, are the poor themselves violating the NAP? How do they actual differ from immigrants beyond there’s no where to ship them back to?

          4. One doesn’t need to advocate eugenics to want to do things to decrease the number of kids born to parents who cannot support them.

            I think there are distinct differences between globalization driving down wages by reducing the costs of globally-traded goods, and driving down wages by importing poor people. For example, the Chinese factory that produces the cheap good there keeps their workers there. If the worker comes to the US for the same job, we have to school his kids, maybe give them TANF/WIC/subsidized housing, they raise rents and clog the roads, etc. (Of course they have positive benefits, too, but too many people focus only on the positive.)

            1. For example, the Chinese factory that produces the cheap good there keeps their workers there. If the worker comes to the US for the same job, we have to school his kids, maybe give them TANF/WIC/subsidized housing, they raise rents and clog the roads, etc. (Of course they have positive benefits, too, but too many people focus only on the positive.)

              Papaya, I am struggling to see how his is anymore than another utilitarian argument. Globalization has a net benefit to you, as you see it. But if you lost your job to it, and goods didn’t decrease to the extent that you though the trade-off was worth it, then would the anti position be justified?

              It’s no just eugenics. That was an offhanded remark more than anything because that used to be the solution a lot of ‘smart’ people had. The reality is there is no where to deport the poor to, but they aren’t violating the NAP. Neither are immigrants.

              1. when their presence costs the rest of us money, then they are violating the NAP.

                1. Well that’s a rabbit hole of an argument.

                2. No, they aren’t. The people taking your money are violating the NAP. Government is violating the NAP, as always. Then you have the issue of restricting all immigrants because some are a potential drain.

                  As a libertarian, I don’t think really believe that the American constitution grants me special rights. There are individual human rights everyone has, and by advocating for government to restrict immigration for whole classes of people you are doing more to violate the NAP than the individual immigrant who has almost no measurable impact on your tax rate.

                  1. As a libertarian, I don’t think really believe that the American constitution grants me special rights.

                    except that it does. The Constitution was written to apply to you as a citizen of the United States, not as a citizen of the world. And when it was authored, there was no welfare state to speak of anyway. If you came, you were expected to figure out how to survive. That applied through the big waves of immigration in the previous century. Since then, govt has grown exponentially and that has radically altered the game.

                    1. No. The American constitution would be illegitimate if it violated the NAP. Because my personal beliefs trump those of the nation state in which I inhabit. The government’s enforcement of immigration law is illegitimate to me, and I’m not going to support it because there’s a welfare state and some people may end up paying more taxes. You are going to end up paying more taxes, anyway, because our welfare state is constantly growing. You cannot show what proportion of your tax rate is the result of immigration to begin with let alone tie that to individual immigrants being rejected.

                    2. Because my personal beliefs trump those of the nation state in which I inhabit.

                      good luck with that. You can always try to change laws that you don’t like; we have a system for that and it has a track record showing where that has occurred. But thumbing your nose at them usually ends badly.

                      You cannot show what proportion of your tax rate is the result of immigration to begin with let alone tie that to individual immigrants being rejected.

                      I suspect there are a few studies that would provide a clue, certainly a much clearer one than Shikha’s declaration that all immigrants are a net gain.

                    3. except that it does.

                      It might grant some privileges here and there, but rights existed before the constitution and will continue to exist afterwords. All the Constitution ostensibly did was to secure those rights by codifying them.

                  2. Then you have the issue of restricting all immigrants because some are a potential drain.

                    Whoa, hang on there. Few are saying that there should be zero immigration. (Though I think there might be a good argument for a “pause” of 5-10 years.) But ultimately, and as usual, quantity matters. Perhaps it’s a “utilitarian” view, but it’s one that idealists tend to overlook. If immigration means there are an extra 1000 people on welfare in the country, it’s pretty trivial. If it means an extra 10 million, it’s not.

                    1. Ok. As long as we are on the same page that you are in fact not following the NAP here, there’s not much left to argue.

                    2. My philosophical view is that all ideologies are necessarily imperfect once they are implemented in the real world. The NAP is great as a general guide, but I’m not sure that the best thing is to view everything as a nail for that particular hammer. As someone said elsewhere here, taking my money for welfare for immigrants already violates the NAP, so I don’t think I’m violating the NAP to want to restrict immigration.

              2. Sure, it sucks to be (e.g.) the steelworker priced out of a job by cheaper imports. The slightly cheaper car is not enough to compensate him for the loss of his job.

                But it may be that I just don’t grasp why “utilitarian arguments” are necessarily bad. I understand (I think) the arguments against utilitarianism as an overall ideology, but I don’t think it’s “utilitarianism” to point out real-world negative consequences of actions prompted by idealistic ideologies, and to promote practical remedies to avoid or alleviate those consequences.

                1. And who gets to make the call whether the costs outweigh the benefits? Your argument does not differ in type from the protectionists. You simply fall on the other end of their spectrum. The property rights of the company may be respected under your logic, but only in this instance and the same line of thought you used to get there could be used to restrict their property rights in the future or even if you are outvoted on the issue.

          5. I don’t use the welfare argument too much. And when I do I come at from the moral angle, that I as a tax payer have no duty to support the existence of some Bangladeshi peasant children. A much stronger case can be made by pointing out the public accommodation laws that strip our society of it’s innate ability to regulate immigration by way of social acceptance (free association).

            1. So, the government distorted a market that allows for excessive numbers of immigrants, and here libertarians accept the argument that more government is the solution?

              And again, I’ll point to the minorities who often happen to be poor. You wouldn’t argue that we can’t have minorities in America because there are laws that restrict freedom of association. You wouldn’t argue that the government should crack down on Americans who work off the books (well, most libertarians wouldn’t, in my view) because others follow the rules and have their right to freedom of association violated. Similarly, the various protections for minority groups that already exist that can get employers sued.

              In every other instance, libertarians tend to attack the government for its distortions of incentives rather than the people involved until we get to immigration.

              1. who here has advocated for more govt? The open borders side clearly doesn’t want that. Neither does the anti-welfare state camp. Those two, however, are at odds with one another. I guess we can debate is citizenship has any value, which seems where you’re headed in a way.

                In every other instance, libertarians tend to attack the government for its distortions of incentives rather than the people involved until we get to immigration.

                That’s no different here, whether the attack is on immigration policy or welfare as govt runs both. You will find a lot of agreement that govt has created a perverse sent of incentives; the only honest broker in the whole deal is often times the immigrant.

                1. You advocate for the destruction of the welfare system, but in the mean time are arguing for violating the rights of a vast number of people until that happens. And you cannot prove that even most of those people in anyway violat the NAP. There in lies the problem.

                  You also cannot differentiate what makes immigrants different from others already in America beyond citizenship or the government recognizing their right to be here.

                  1. You advocate for the destruction of the welfare system, but in the mean time are arguing for violating the rights of a vast number of people until that happens.

                    The first part is accurate, the second not so much. There is no right to someone else’s money, particularly when you’re not supposed to be here in the first place. If I show up at your house, are you obligated to take me in and feed me? Of course, not. Again, open borders and the welfare state cannot co-exist.

                    You also cannot differentiate what makes immigrants different from others already in America beyond citizenship or the government recognizing their right to be here.

                    much of society sees that as a significant difference. This argument about rights cuts both ways; you seem willing to discount those tied to citizenship.

                  2. but in the mean time are arguing for violating the rights of a vast number of people until that happens.

                    Whose rights are violated? Do immigrants have a right to either a) private property or b) the stolen property known as public property?

                    1. The nesting is getting broken here.

                      The right of the immigrant is definitely violated. You are saying they can’t cross a territorial boundary. You are basically arguing that individual rights have limits. Whose property rights are they violating just by moving here? No one’s, unless you are speaking of government as the owners of public property all around us.

                      If an American employer wants to hire an immigrant, you are saying they can’t do so. You are infringing on freedom of association in a number of ways there in your own right, and apparently don’t admit that.

                      An immigrant does not necessarily end up in public housing or leaching off welfare, either. Nor do you have evidence to show just how many do, or that they are actually a net loss. That’s not advocating for Dalmia’s position that none are, but you are going in the opposite direction.

                      At best, the immigrant who accepts welfare is second handedly violating the NAP. The government by restricting the immigrant because they MIGHT end u on the public dole is directly violating the rights of the immigrants and those would willingly interact with them.

                      much of society sees that as a significant difference.

                      Much of society supports the basic premise of the welfare state, as well. Citizenship has no part of my libertarianism. I’m anti–statist period so why would I accept special rights and privileges based on what the status the government grants people?

                    2. The right of the immigrant is definitely violated. You are saying they can’t cross a territorial boundary.

                      Is it a violation of their right to say the can’t cross my property boundary? I think not. Now since we probably agree on that one, is it violation of their right to not let them utilize the stolen welath of tax payers? You’re saying people, other than the tax payers and people from whom the land was stolen, have a right to utilize that property?

                      If an American employer wants to hire an immigrant, you are saying they can’t do so.

                      Sure he can. He gave that person permission to enter his property. But it’s not that simple because the store down the street is forced to sell them goods and that landlord nearby is ostensibly forced to rent them an apartment. And to make matters worse you’re saying that tax payers and people from whom that public property was stolen, have no legitimacy in making rules for the use of that stolen property and furthermore that immigrants have a right to that stolen property. You are the one violating the NAP from where I’m sitting.

                      I’m anti–statist period so why would I accept special rights and privileges based on what the status the government grants people?

                      If you believe that then how can you claim that an El Salvadorian peasant has a right to use and traverse private property and stolen private property?

              2. Immigration is a government program. Any other time, like when you move to a house down the street we just call it “moving”. And in an ideal world, that’s roughly how all immigration would be, but not while we have public accommodations laws telling me that I must sell my goods and services to some Pashtun or Somali tribesman.

                You wouldn’t argue that we can’t have minorities in America because there are laws that restrict freedom of association.

                No I wouldn’t. But I would argue that we can’t have a (more) prosperous society and decent race relations without fully respecting freedom of association of both minorities and majorities alike.

                In exactly the same way immigrants aren’t an undeniable win in a situation where there exists no freedom of association. Not all people are worth the same, just as not all immigrants are worth the same. If maximizing value is the goal, then we need to be able to differentiate between immigrants for what they bring to the table. You can’t simply force good results into existence with some public accommodation laws. Any economic exchange requires both parties to gain benefit from the exchange or it doesn’t occur in the first place. That is unless you use politics to force one party to make the exchange.

                1. Yes, immigration is currently a government program. But instead of wanting change in the government program, you want to violate the rights of those people who would immigrate because you believe the negatives outweigh the positives.

                  But I would argue that we can’t have a (more) prosperous society and decent race relations without fully respecting freedom of association of both minorities and majorities alike.

                  Ok, but if you could go back to 1865 knowing that we’d end up with violations of the NAP and freedom of association as a result of civil rights, would you advocate for sending blacks back to Africa? I’m guessing the answer is no. Historically speaking, the people are here and we have to deal with it. But in terms of the infringement of your rights, the policies of the government in both cases (protections for the poor and minorities) are the same as in the case of immigrants.

                  I’m failing to see how the argument here isn’t that because the government infringes on my rights here, I’m ok with them infringing on the rights of others in another area until they stop the other. And I’m hardly convinced that yours is the greater violation of the NAP, frankly. Really, the opposite.

                  1. you want to violate the rights of those people who would immigrate because you believe the negatives outweigh the positives.

                    No one has a right to the property of others. Whether that property is still under the owner’s control or whether it was stolen from the owner. Explain to me how someone has a right to the property of others.

                    Ok, but if you could go back to 1865 knowing that we’d end up with violations of the NAP and freedom of association as a result of civil rights, would you advocate for sending blacks back to Africa?

                    um no? Rounding people up and shipping them off against their will actually is a violation of their rights. It’s not the case that opposition to the 1964 civil rights act necessarily means I want to commit genocide or re-enslave those people.

  8. One issue with these citizens living abroad and then returning to the US either for their undergraduate or graduate degrees is that their English written and speaking skills are very often well below that of even international students.

    An international student must submit a Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) score along with all of their other application criteria (SAT, GRE, etc)

    This is a requirement for a I-20 necessary for a Visa, not for the admission to University itself. But as the I-20 is necessary for the student to matriculate (they cannot attend if they can’t legally reside in the US) it is an effective University admission requirement.

    The returning citizen would bypass all of this as they have no need of a visa.

  9. BOOOOOOOOOSCCHHH!!!11!ELEVENTY

  10. Here’s what IS wrong with our immigration system. A lot of Americans support allowing in skilled immigrants that are ‘good.’ Most of these come on H1’s that amount to indentured servitude to large employers. These definitely do drive down wages. The issue still isn’t the immigrant, but the fucked up H1 system.

    Low skilled workers lose out to immigrants who come here and work off the books or skip regulations. Well, the issue there is the regulation. They do definitely drive down wages for some Americans, as well. They are often willing to take less to work because they are used to less. Well, tough shit.

    Libertarians have few problems with shipping jobs overseas and laugh at people who claim those are ‘American jobs.’ Yet every time this issue comes up, people mock Dalmia (who does grossly exaggerate her positions) while throwing out all forms of their own hypocritical arguments.

    1. The H-1B system is one I used to support. Import skilled immigrants? It sounded great. But it’s too often a scam in many ways. Often the immigrants have fake or inflated credentials. (I once worked on a project with a “credentialed” Sharepoint expert from India who soon proved he was no such thing.) Often the companies are gaming the system and exploiting the immigrants as you said. And I find it hard to justify when companies do things like fire their whole IT department and have the soon-to-be-unemployed train their new, cheaper replacements.

      1. I don’t understand what the companies hope to gain with that system. It’s not like they’re getting top notch (or even passable) work product out of these individuals; on the flip side, I don’t really see why people are so opposed to it. Are there a lot of H-1Bs overstaying their visas, committing crimes, and obtaining welfare benefits? It just seems like a clusterfuck of stupid, which is typical of government, but I’m not seeing why it should be a pressing issue one way or the other.

        1. Companies benefit via wage deflation and also affirmative action/diversity objectives.

  11. It seems to me that a lot of people are renouncing their dual American citizenship because Uncle Sam taxes their foreign income. The question I have is does, a dual citizen qualify for the EITC and other Tax credits while living abroad? If so then that’s going to put a dent in the “enormous savings” from “outsourcing the raising of our citizens”.

  12. Every adult immigrant, even poor Latinos, constitute a windfall for America, given that America reaps the dividends of another society’s investment in them.

    The Steinle family might have a quibble with the “every” part of that statement. Others might want a word with you as well.

    1. another society’s investment in them

      Straight up progressivism there. That’s truly disgusting – so the individuals that leave are betraying the society that invested in them? It had nothing to do with the effort of the individual?

      Sickening.

  13. when you’re calling them “Asian birth tourists” maybe Bush is not the problem.

    1. Dead Pandas

      /my new band name

  14. By Shikha Dalmia

    Have you ever heard the expression “Only Nixon could go to China”? Do you know what the opposite of that is?

    1. Is it, Why do we bother with Shikha’s nonsense at all?

      1. Probably because Reason publishes her and they give us only a scant few extra articles to commentate upon.

  15. If these rich Asian babies with US citizenship grow up to hold assets and earn income in their natural countries, wouldn’t they be subject to US taxation? Maybe the IRS can go after them until they renounce their citizenship.

    1. Setting aside the horrible idea of siccing the IRS on anyone, your idea doesn’t seem to accomplish anything. If the individuals are just staying outside of the US, then they can’t sponsor anyone else for citizenship, so who cares? And if they’re coming over here to sponsor other people, then they’re paying taxes anyway.

      1. It’s vindictive, that’s what it accomplishes.

  16. OK, it’s perfectly possible that the citizen-children of birth tourists, plus their parents, will be net assets to the U.S. I don’t know. It’s hard to disprove.

    But it’s amusing that the official line has gone from “there are no anchor babies, you paranoid teabaggers!” to “sure there are anchor babies, and they’ll benefit the country, you racist teabaggers!”

  17. Re: R C Dean

    But its not obvious to me that there’s much difference between (a) work done overseas, with pay going overseas, and the product coming here, is any different economically than (b) work done here, with the pay going overseas, and the product staying here.

    In either case, the advantage is still for this economy because the more productive labor can be released to more productive endeavors. If your objection is towards the idea of having the laborer here rather than over there, that becomes a subjective valuation question ?i.e. your opinion? and not a moral or economic question.

    From the standpoint of the NAP and Natural Law, immigrants who arrive and trade in peace do not constitute a problem. From the standpoint of economics, it matters not if they’re over there or over here except that immigrants reduce the logistical problems due to their absence, e.g. when their labor cannot travel cheaply.

    From the standpoint of personal prejudices, xenophobia, inferiority/superiority complexes or bigotry ? that’s different.

  18. Firstly, I don’t think other countries have “invested” in the immigrants they foist off on the US. (I’m talking Latin America, mostly).

    Do they speak English? Do they have any skills besides manual labor? Uh, no.

    Yet somehow, an immigrant who comes here, makes $10 a day yet uses all sorts of government welfare including stuff like education for his family is somehow a net plus?

    I swear, it’s like Keynesian economics, somehow there is a magical multiplier.

    Middle class/Rich people from Asia? Sure, let them in. That’s basically Canada’s immigration policy – keep the poor people out, let in the middle class and educated.

    But people who come in to leech off the countries welfare system? No.

    1. Do the feds force states to pay for the education of children of illegal immigrants? Is there a Dept of Education program to fund their schooling?

  19. Parents giving their kids the “gift” of being permanent tax cattle are going to feel pretty stupid in 20 years. FATCA applies even if you never set foot in the US.

    1. FATCA applies even if you never set foot in the US.

      But it can only be enforced if you set foot in the US or do business with a US company, unless there are some treaties I’m unaware of.

      1. The enforcement uses the following mechanism:

        1. All Banks and financial institutions in the US must follow FATCA, by law.
        2. Foreign banks may choose to either obey the rules or not.
        3. However, one of the rules is ~40% withholding whenever sending funds to a non-FATCA institution.

        In practice it means all banks must choose between complying or being cut off from the global financial system.

        And if the bank obeys the rules, they have to be able to seize funds when required by the US government.

        In practice, most foreign banks simply refuse service to people with US citizenships, as that’s the cheapest way to comply.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.