Immigration Raids Are Bad for Legal Americans [Small-Town Pennsylvania Edition]

"My corner of Pennsylvania was thriving again-until immigration agents began carting people away..."

|

NPR.org

Dickinson College professor (and occasional Reason contributor) Crispin Sartwell has a stunning piece in the Wall Street Journal about the ways in which anti-immmigration actions are killing small-town America in the name of preserving, what, the rule of law? Ethnic solidarity? An America that never existed?

The sad truth is, at least in many parts of the old industrial and agricultural East, immigrants are rehabbing places that native-born Americans deserted decades ago. Whether legal or not, these transplants don't pose any sort of public menace, so clearly law enforcement should have better things to do.

Writing from York Springs, Pennsylvania (official population: 800 and 46 percent Hispanic), Sartwell notes:

York Springs in recent years has developed a vibrant, intersectional culture, insofar as that's possible in such a sparsely populated place. Almost anyone might hire Renta Fiestas for a party. There was, until recently, even street life of sorts popping up: a Mexican food truck, children playing fútbol, the occasional interethnic teen couple holding hands at Griest Park…

There were at least 15 actions in York Springs during February and March, with many more since, including street arrests and traffic stops that have resulted in detentions. People are held at the prison in the city of York, 25 miles down the road, and the phrase "they took her to York" has become the expression for someone who's been taken into the immigration system….

York Springs is in Adams County, where apple-growing, picking, and processing dominates the local economy so much that a nearby high school's teams are called "The Canners." The workers who serve this economy are overwhelmingly Hispanic but this is Trump Country, with the current president carrying 66 percent of the vote. And yet, observes Sartwell,

The local growers, many of whom have been operating the family orchards for generations, worry they won't have enough manpower this fall to harvest the crop.

Sure, a lot of the white folk out here voted for Mr. Trump. Even then, many of them had reservations specifically about his immigration stance. I heard them expressed by Trump supporters in line to vote at the Latimore Township building. Now as we spiral into a local depression that is personal, cultural and economic, a lot of them are going to regret voting for him anyway.

Read the whole piece—about a place that conjures "Oaxaca in a Wyeth painting"—here.

Nationally, about one-quarter of farm workers (including apple pickers) are undcomented, and states from Georgia to Washington have struggled to bring in crops when immigration laws were strictly enforced. Perhaps the folks in York Springs and elsewhere will gain a deeper appreciation of how people who come here to work enrich us all, whether or not they speak the language or have the proper papers.

And the rest of us? We need to figure out what sorts of arguments might actually sway people who seem dedicated to the proposition that immigration is bad for America, despite all the evidence that it's about the only thing that keeps us going.

NEXT: Equity at the Supreme Court

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.

  1. They went through that with the Vidalia onions here in Georgia. White people aren’t going to take those jobs that don’t pay any better than welfare, the illegals are single young men who can’t get welfare and they’re not qualified for a good job so they do what they need to earn a living. Interesting to note in many countries where there’s lots of unemployed youths who get welfare money, they tend toward criminality of the soccer hooligan or suicide vest variety whereas in places where there’s no social safety net the young men go find jobs. Those apples and onions got picked somehow in the olden days before there were illegals and welfare, maybe there’s a connection.

    1. you would think free market free thinking minds would want those farmers to pay fair market wages for people to work the job and raise prices vs importing cheap labor outside of the system :/

      Also Chicago sweatshop era showed that cheap labor savings never gets passed along to the consumer. Its human nature to be greedy and under cut competition in shady ways.

      1. They are paying ‘fair wages’ in a free market. That’s why the pay is low to start with.

        And ‘importing cheap labor outside the system’? Where is the boundary of the system? Are you setting it at the national border? If so why? Why is that different from the state border? Or the county border? Why is it OK for a guy from Calexico to move to CO to pick lettuce but not one from Mexicali?

        1. Umm no. If the wages they’re paying for the necessary work aren’t enough to attract available laborers, they are too low. That’s how a free market discovers prices.

          Why is it OK for a guy from Calexico to move to CO to pick lettuce but not one from Mexicali?

          Because there is a government that governs both Calexico and York Springs, but none that governs both Mexicali and York Springs.

          Are you setting it at the national border? If so why? Why is that different from the state border? Or the county border?

          Even the open borders aficionados I know favor disease checks, criminal background checks, checks for explosives at the national border. So they recognize full well that the national border is different from state and county borders.

          1. So annex the world, & poof: no borders.

          2. Uhm yes, they wages they’re paying are *obviously* enough to attract laborers – that’s why these people are there. Free market and all that.

            No they don’t. They just allow a waiver for those things at state and county borders. Plenty of other nations don’t do that – you need an passport for internal travel.

            1. Uhm yes, they wages they’re paying are *obviously* enough to attract laborers – that’s why these people are there. Free market and all that.

              After they make it illegal for the local population to work for free-market wages by setting a price floor and inflating the cost of living, then pig ignorant third worlders should be allowed to come in and work for less than the price floor, and that’s a free market? You must be one pretty fucking stupid asshole.

            2. Uhm yes, they wages they’re paying are *obviously* enough to attract laborers – that’s why these people are there. Free market and all that.

              Those aren’t available workers, as their presence is illegal. If an escaped convict is willing to serve as my butler for $2 an hour so that he can hide from the cops, that doesn’t make his wage the going rate for butlers.

              They just allow a waiver for those things at state and county borders.

              WTF? If tomorrow, states started stopping cars at the border to perform such checks, libertarians would be up in arms about the rights violations. So I don’t think they consider it merely to be a “waiver”.

              Plenty of other nations don’t do that – you need an passport for internal travel.

              Plenty? First World countries don’t do this and most of the third world doesn’t have the government infrastructure to do so. So basically you’re talking about authoritarian shitholes like China. I don’t think that’s what libertarians are holding up as the standard.

          3. Apple-picking jobs are obsolescent.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1bwF3lJKx8

            1. Sweet!

      2. By fair market wages I assume you mean government mandated price floor correct?

        There’s no contradiction there. Nope not at all.

        1. Market wages are wages that available workers are willing to work for. Which the poor, poor employers with their sob story in this article are not willing to pay.

          1. That’s how Supply and Demand works. In a free-market, if employers aren’t willing to pay a given price for wages, they should be able to reduce them if they can find a potential employee willing to work for that wage.

            The minimum wage is a price floor that results in dead-weight loss. Eventually in certain markets (the fast-food market is quickly becoming one), the dead-weight loss will make earning a profit a near-impossible feat.

            It is rational for businesses to try to seek potential employees that would be willing to work for what the REAL free-market wage would be for a certain sector.

            Claiming that our system results in a “fair free-market wage” is economic illeteract at its finest.

            1. Illiteracy*

            2. Indeed, you appear illiterate. This is not a minimum wage issue, since the problem is the unwillingness of employers to RAISE wages to let the market clear

              1. Yep, it’s not a minimum wage issue but it is about one side not wanting to raise wages to let the market clear?

                Fucking derp

          2. Except that they are paying them. They just found a group of laborers you don’t approve of to accept the arrangement instead of the people you wanted in there.

            1. The one that stole my Socialist InSecurity number to file before I did- costing me 6 months and $10K in fees, or the one working under the table not paying any taxes at all?

            2. After they told one group of people that they would throw them in jail for accepting the arrangement. Having two sets of standards = capitalism. You’re surprisingly even dumber than you looked originally.

    2. White people aren’t going to take those jobs that don’t pay any better than welfare

      I think I see a solution that doesn’t require surrendering national sovereignty.

      1. Welfare eligibility only for People of Color? I like it!

        1. everyone is a color…when did white not become a color?

          1. Words never mean what they mean in English to the left

            People of color means
            Everyone but evil Whitey

    3. Thanks for the WSJ link. Paywalled articles are worth less than nothing.

    4. They went through that with the Vidalia onions here in Georgia. White people aren’t going to take those jobs that don’t pay any better than welfare

      So, then two things happen:

      First, the onions are grown in, say, Mexico. That’s a good thing for the US and Mexico.

      Second, farmers modernize and automate, creating well-paying US tech jobs.

      Both of those options are way better than bringing in large numbers of low-pay, uneducated peasants from third world nations, and later giving them US citizenship.

  2. I made two paragraphs in and already started to laugh at how ridiculous and lacking in principle this article is.

    I don’t care if illegals are a menace or not. They are here illegally and must go. They can spend the money hiring an American or legal resident. They cost too much? Than the market says your endeavor should not exist.

    Fuck can reason stop shilling this trash.

    US lets in 1 million people per years. We let in more than any other country…actually more than the next top 3-4 countries combined!

    Adding more than 1 million per year is foolish when you look at the ability for people to assimilate. I would love to see proof that even 1 million per year is possible to assimilate. That is 20-30 million per generation so 10% of the population if I did that math right.

    We don’t need to let more in. You want more temp workers? That may or may not be a good idea but debatable. But this story is 100% bullshit shilling.

    https://tinyurl.com/kqtla5w

    1. Yep – we’re libertarians and we support obedience to the diktats of our superiors no matter what. The law is the law – not even going to try to make an argument that this law is moral, you kids had just better do what you’re told because its the law.

      You’d have returned escaped slaves in another life maybe?

      1. You think the fugitive slave law and the immigration laws are remotely in the same ballpark?

        1. Way to miss the fucking point.

          1. that he is being intellectually dishonest?

            1. If obeying the law is what’s important here then there’s no intellectual dishonesty. Otherwise, where’s the consistency in saying that its important to obey immigration laws because they are the law but its ok to ignore something like the fugitive slave act – even though it too was the law?

              If the primary concern is obedience to the law then that leads you down that path.

              1. How about just having 1 consistent set of laws then, instead of banning one class of people from taking certain jobs, then allowing another class of people to take the same jobs under a parallel system where the law is completely fucking ignored?

      2. “You’d have returned escaped slaves”

        Not for free.

      3. yea because there is no reason to control the boarders at all…no reason to ensure that citizens have jobs over forigners….none what so ever. There is no reason at all to not allow illegals into the country and give them work.

        jesus your dishonest. I am open to temp work visas for foreigners but it is stupid to let people just squat in the US and work.

        1. “no reason to ensure that citizens have jobs over forigners”

          Okay, so, all else equal, why should citizens get preferential treatment over foreigners for a particular job?

          1. sorry correction legal residence vs illegal residence.

          2. A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety and the body politic defending it with his life. A foreigner does not.

            1. “A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety and the body politic defending it with his life. A foreigner does not.”

              Really? This isn’t Heinlein’s America where only veterans get to be citizens. Citizenship means a person was born inside a set of geographical lines represented on a map.

              And besides, we’re talking about a job picking fucking apples. I’m totally okay if apple pickers don’t want to risk their lives fighting in some war.

              1. Do you lock your doors?

                Why are you entitled to limit access to your “property”? They are just lines drawn, after all.

          3. Okay, so, all else equal, why should citizens get preferential treatment over foreigners for a particular job?

            If the foreigner is there legally, there is none.

            If not, it is self-evident.

            A country that decides its own citizens are disposable is not one that will live a long time. There are way more poor folks than rich ones. If the poor ones get angry enough, there will still be way more poor folks than rich ones — there will be just be way fewer rich folks.

      4. Also i can at least be honest and admit that every country has its own right to choose who can come and go into their own country. Japan and South Korea have crazy requirements on voting and being a citizen. I personally have no issue with it because it is their country and they can decide that anyone who wants to stay must know Kanji and pass and very difficult test.

        Do i think it is stupid? sure but it is their country and land and they have the right to choose how to run it in regard to its citizenship requirements and immigration. Would i like to live there and run a small store…sure but its their country.

        Just like i can understand and be honest that US has a right on who can come and go.

        Go I favor legal works over illegals? Yes i do. Would I be fine with allowing temp work visas for Ag. Yes I would but it would force everyone onto the same playing field and not allow this ridiculous shit we have today.

        Your smart Agammamon…please be intellectually honest.

        1. But you saying that a country can ‘choose’ and then telling us that we can’t choose – we must do what we’re told by the people in Washington. ‘We’ didn’t choose this. Some people chose it and are imposing it on the rest of the country.

          1. Uh, “we” did choose. Your open borders fantasies are incredibly unpopular

            1. ‘We’ didn’t choose anything.

              1. Well unfortunately for the rural white rednecks who might be candidates for those jobs they don’t live in Agammamon land, they live in the fucking United States. So they go to jail for working under the table, not paying taxes, working for less than minimum wage, not carrying health insurance. The Mexicans live in Agammamon land though – where there’s no such thing as laws or labor rules, as long as you aren’t one of those filthy white people.

        2. Illegals don’t get Obamacare.

          1. Except when they do

            They don’t get welfare, except when they use false identities (hope yours gets stolen someday) or their entire household becomes eligible for every single state and welfare program through their children.

            1. Isn’t it amazing that libertarians understand, on every other issue, that making something against the law doesn’t make it disappear… but then naively assume that laws against illegal immigrants voting and getting welfare benefits are 100% effective?

      5. Yep – we’re libertarians and we support obedience to the diktats of our superiors no matter what.

        As a libertarian, I favor freedom of association and the right to private property. Once the US government allows me to exercise those rights freely, I’m happy to abolish any immigration restrictions.

    2. Glibertarians is right down the street. You might be more at home there.

      I’M KIDDING, EVERYONE. CHILLAX. Sheesh.

      1. Fist of Etiquette|6.10.17 @ 7:23PM|#
        “Glibertarians is right down the street. You might be more at home there.”

        OK, FoE, who might be more at home there; your post was not at all clear.

    3. Then we will be importing all of our apples, just like we now import all of our t-shirts and televisions.

      1. Oh noes, perish the thought — importing things! All those illegals’ jobs will be taken by people working legally in another country, who don’t fraudulently vote in our elections, don’t suck benefits from our welfare system, and don’t steal our identities. Where’s the fun in that?

        1. So what is important to you is obedience to the law? Not the content of the law, just obey it? So you’re fine with the War on Drugs – because that’s just enforcing the law as written and you’d turn anyone you found smoking pot into the police? Because they too are breaking the law.

          1. Which laws are we not supposed to obey?

            1. How about the immoral ones?

              1. I’ll make sure and let every white person who wants to work under the table know that they can bring up the Agammamon defense when they get arrested and go to trial. “I don’t obey immoral laws, yer honor. Agammamon says I don’t hafta”.

                What a fucking moron.

              2. How about the immoral ones?

                As a US citizen, I don’t have that luxury; if I try, I end up in prison.

                Apparently, you want to carve out a special exception for illegal immigrants.

              3. Immoral according to whom?

                You? That’s convenient.

          2. The drug laws don’t say that people, or even cops, have to turn in pot smokers.

      2. I’d like to see us import more cotton, soybeans, peanuts, sugar, wheat and corn. Put the privileged American ag sector on a level playing field with the free market.

      3. cool. No problem with that. That would be how a free market would work.

        realistically if you knew anything about cost of Ag that would never happen. The cost of raising prices to pay someone 10 dollars an hour vs 7 for Ag would not make a massive difference vs importing said products from other countries.

    4. Don’t worry, maybe enough will come over so that you’ll simply have to assimilate to them.

      1. Is the Tulsa Pride Parade as good as Charlotte’s?

        1. Yeah, but Tony doesn’t allow any gays who voter R; he’s a “tolerant” hypocrite.

      2. Ask an Iroquois how beneficial immigration is.

  3. York Springs in recent years has developed a vibrant, intersectional culture, insofar as that’s possible in such a sparsely populated place. Almost anyone might hire Renta Fiestas for a party. There was, until recently, even street life of sorts popping up: a Mexican food truck, children playing f?tbol, the occasional interethnic teen couple holding hands at Griest Park.

    This makes me want to throw up all over your jacket, sir.

    1. Tip for Nick: on the off chance you aren’t just trolling people, “vibrant” has moved on from leftist euphemism for not white to snarky white nationalist term for the same

      1. You would know

        1. Yes, I in fact do know how some white nationalists talk.

          Just as I know how the mainstream antiwhite racists talk.

          I have arguments against both because I know what both have to say.

          Keep worshiping your ignorance.

      2. Gee, I thought “vibrant” meant something like this

        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vibrant

        1. Are you still claiming not to be a Democrat?

          1. Your non-sequitur is charmingly vibrant.

    2. He ought to trade in that leather jacket for a cocktail dress.

  4. Read the whole piece?about a place that conjures “Oaxaca in a Wyeth painting”?here.

    …If you subscribe to the WSJ.

  5. Yay! Replacement populations!

    The only thing better than the collapse of your culture is watching another move in to replace it.

    Nick’s search for an argument persuasive to unbelievers in open borders continues.

    Is he really this Clueless, or is he just trolling us?

    1. So, even taking the ‘replacement culture’ but seriously, what are we supposed to do here? Are these areas to be left fallow for the rest of eternity because white Americans moved on?

      1. Japanese are actually declining in aggregate, but show indication they have any interest in importing a replacement population.

        Much of eastern Europe the same, I believe.

        Excess capacity for future growth is a good thing.

        1. show no indication

      2. This is the local high school in York Springs.

        As you can see, enrollment numbers stayed fairly steady up until 2000, and then grew slightly up to today. What it also shows is that if every Hispanic kid suddenly disappeared from the school, the numbers would be just above what they were historically.

        This idea that communities are going to collapse if they don’t have a burrito wagon on every corner is mere question-begging.

        1. I’d think that the teachers’ unions would be subsidizing illegal immigrants.

      3. Are these areas to be left fallow for the rest of eternity because white Americans moved on?

        According to Ron Bailey they should. As long as the white people worked in mining. Farmers are extra special. That’s why we need a set of parallel Agammamon rules so that the extra special farmers can have access to extra special Mexicans for extra special non-regulated prices while the rest of the country lives by a different standard. Capitalist utopia.

    2. There is nothing more collectivist than whining about muh kulture.

      1. Sure. You don’t need no stinking culture. Just as well if we we’re still up in the trees flinging our poo at each other.

        Rule of Law? Religious tolerance? Individual rights? Bah! Who needs em?

        1. Yes, those are all the same thing as culture.

          1. Actually, they are.

          2. What else would they be exactly you goddamn moron?

  6. Nick’s argument for the lack of harm neglects the location where the irreparable harm occurs: the voting booth.

    It’s sad that you have to point out the dangers of government power to a supposedly libertarian organization

    1. Sounds like the problem is government power, not immigrants. Maybe we should try to do something about *that*. Instead of, you know, giving the government more power to help keep out immigrants?

      Or maybe we should just break the country up into pieces that are actually manageable.

      1. Once they are the majority you can take the whole concept of a libertarian and stuff it. For people who have such high regards for themselves, I find the common sense with regards to how these people vote lacking. We need to be a bit choosier in who immigrates here or find ourselves working so someone else can sit on the couch smoking weed playing x-box while dodging his baby mamma for child support payments. The voting booth will decide the direction of this nation, that is if we can’t stop all those pesky Russians from changing the vote. Who was the Libertarian candidate again? Was it Lord Bucket Head? Should it have been Lord Bucket Head!

        1. “I find the common sense with regards to how these people vote lacking.”

          The identity politics is strong with this one.

          1. It only sounds like a dog whistle to you because you’re as fucking dumb as one.

      2. You let me know when you get anarhcytopia working, and I’ll come by for a look.

        While there are states, we’re fortunate to be able to vote and have some effect on how their power is used. The unfortunate part is that some would use their vote for bigger government.

        Actual Facts on Hispanics in the US, immigrants and otherwise.

        PEW Research on Hispanic Americans

        http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..democrats/
        Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1

        http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..-religion/
        Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1

        1. Doesn’t have to be an anarchy – most countries in the world are the size of the medium-sized US states or smaller.

          In fact, the big ‘supercountries’ (US, Russia, China, and the EU) are the ones with some of the greatest difficulty governing their populations because they are too diverse. Breaking all these grouping back up into bite-sized pieces would make things better for liberty.

          Imagine a loos confederacy of US nations that don’t have enough coherency to be able to fund bombing every country (in the name of freedom, of course) where someone looks at us funny.

          1. Breaking up is hard to do

            States increasingly have little in common
            If they weren’t together I wouldn’t propose them all joining

            But we had a big war about union now and forever and Union now and forever won

            The worst thing about this particular problem is that it can’t be solved by decentralization, as citizenship is a national matter

    2. This is the first I have heard of illegal immigrants being allowed to vote. Please tell me more.

      1. They don’t even have to be in the US to vote. The Dems set up a fake border in Oaxaca with voting machines on the other side. Of course, the border jumpers crossed over illegally and voted. All just practice in jumping borders illegally. The results were then sent to a call center in India where the votes bred like bunny rabbits and learned how to say ‘I’m Buffy from Peoria’. Then that was sent to China where the votes were chopped into precinct-sized pieces really cheap – and then wired into Dem districts where the votes can be matched with dead white people who have been disenfranchised merely because they were white.

      2. Illegals do affect voting through apportionment because the are included in the census.

        1. Breaking up is hard to do

          States increasingly have little in common
          If they weren’t together I wouldn’t propose them all joining

          But we had a big war about union now and forever and Union now and forever one

          The worst thing about this particular problem is that it can’t be solved by decentralization, as citizenship is a national matter

          1. Damn it

            Site wouldn’t show submit button on my tablet, so I click elsewhere and save to a different comment

        2. Which is actually better than illegal immigrants voting for the states that import them. Straight away increase for the political power of actual citizens in those states.

          This really should be fixed.

  7. Sure, a lot of the white folk out here voted for Mr. Trump. Even then, many of them had reservations specifically about his immigration stance.

    Then why the hell pull the lever for him? What else did he offer? Trade? Was that it? Weird.

    1. He offered not-Hillary and Supreme Court. That’s about it.

      1. Well, there’s the anti-interventionism, national sovereignty and radical (relative to any other electable politician) deregulation.

      2. It was enough for Obama to be ‘not-Bush’.

      3. That was enough.
        Oh, and cool tweets.

        1. You a big Swansea fan? Not sure many people would others would really care for that handle.

  8. The problem seems to be that welfare pays better than work.

    Otherwise I like how this article conflates illegal immigration with legal.

    1. Libertarians whining about welfare are some of the most clueless fucks in the universe. If you are a able bodied white man with no children in your custody, the welfare you are entitled to is 198.00/ month in food stamps and you will have to now spend about 30 hours a week looking for work to keep that. That’s it.

      Now if you have a vagina and have downloaded some kids, things are different. Fuck smug clueless libertarians (many of whom here work for the government…./facepalm)

      1. You know who has lots of kids? Like 2-3 times more than American white people? Hispanics.

  9. These jobs are going to be gone soon anyway thanks to automation. We have way too many people in this country as it is, who are going to be nothing but useless mouths that must be fed to keep them from turning violent.

    1. This is actually an interesting subject that I have been thinking about. And, automation isn’t just going to affect this country, but the whole world.
      Just in this country alone there are 3.5 million truck drivers. How many accountants? I even saw a robot that lays bricks.
      Not everybody is suited to a white collar job, and those white collar jobs won’t be safe from automation for long either. We can’t all just sell each other phone apps.

      1. Automated construction is cool stuff. Whether robotics or 3d printing, a lot of people are going to be out of work. And the costs of construction will come way down.

    2. “These jobs are going to be gone soon anyway thanks to automation”

      Someone is going to have to polish the robots until we get our robot polishing robots production up to speed.

      1. Life was much simpler when we had an abundance of orphans. The Libertarian moment was many generations ago.

        1. I will always only hire orphans to polish my monacles.

          Orphan tears are the best polish
          They will never be able to automate that

      2. Even after that, we will need people to polish the robot-polishing robots until the robot-polishing-robot-polishing robots come out.

  10. “York Springs is in Adams County, where apple-growing, picking, and processing dominates the local economy so much that a nearby high school’s teams are called “The Canners.””

    So in this article we have a unique, cherry-picked (sorry) community which has put all its economic apples in one basket (sorry) vitally dependent upon cheap (“illegal”) immigrant labor. I’m not getting too worked up over this.

    1. I’m still trying to figure out what canning has to do with apples. I don’t think I’ve ever seen canned apples.

      1. It’s all about the sauce, bro.

        1. Also, “the corers” just sounds weird.

          1. Peelers?

      2. You’ve never seen apple pie filling in a can?

        1. Real men are married to real women. Real men don’t make pies they eat pies. And real women don’t use canned apple pie filling, they slice fresh apples (preferably while barefoot and pregnant).

          These and other questions are answered in my newsletter.

          1. A campfire, a loaf of bread, a couple cans of apple pie filling, and this thing makes for a good snack in the woods.

            Pie Maker

            1. Nice.

            2. Damn. I forgot about that. Only $16.95.

        2. No, but I don’t make apple pie so it’s possible I missed it. That seems like a pretty small market though, compared to other canned fruits like oranges, pears, pineapples, and beets.

      3. That’s unlikely. You’ve probably eaten apple pie.

        1. It sure as hell wasn’t in a can.

    2. *sigh*

      Because we have a ‘historic jail’ in this town one of my local high schools is the ‘Yuma criminals’. At least ‘The Canners’ is more aspirational.

      1. Jailbirds would be better.

  11. Does the site really need Dalmia AND Gillespie writing the same nonsense?

    1. no…its offal to see this trash

  12. Stormfront is>>>>>>>>boys

    1. Because not keeping one set of laws for Mexicans and another set for everybody else is the same as lynching niggers.

      The short yellow school bus is out in front of your house. Guess why?

  13. “And the rest of us? We need to figure out what sorts of arguments might actually sway people who seem dedicated to the proposition that immigration is bad for America,”

    Hey Nick, if you took a national survey and asked if people thought “immigration is bad for America”. And if you used the word “immigration” properly, how many people do you think are really “dedicated” to that proposition?

    It is only by your healthy conflation and contribution to the confusion that a sentence like yours can be written in a mag like this.

    1. It makes Nick seem like, to be gentle, a fucking moron.

      Why would anybody take his arguments seriously when he is so deficient in making cogent and honest arguments?

  14. “Almost anyone might hire Renta Fiestas for a party.”

    What! This cultural appropriation will not stand!

  15. “intersectional”

    stop

    1. I still don’t know what that word means.

      1. Neither does the guy that wrote this. It’s what the grievance factory uses to describe simple connections to one another. Like feminist and lesbians and black women are all women so they need to support each other’s fake victim screeching. Wherever you hear that word, it’s a good time to stop listening because whatever comes after is going to be the dumbest thing you hear that day

        1. That would be awesome if in some dictionary, the first definition was the “connection” thing you explained, and then the second definition was “a bullshit word with dumb stuff to follow”.

          1. Maybe I should add the second definition in the urban dictionary.

        2. You never met my girlfriend. Maybe second dumbest.

  16. A perfect example of the way open borders appeal to both halves of the bipartisan duopoly – cheap labor for Team Red and compliant voters for Team Blue.

    Notice that a town in PA was chosen – a crucial swing state. With the D’s abandoning the white vote, even more Hispanics will have to be shipped in to keep it competitive.

    1. Re: Mencken Sense

      Hispanics = cheap labor.

      Got it.

      1. Farmers in rural PA are hiring Mexicans because it costs them money. More economic brilliance from Mexico’s chief economic mind.

  17. Cut government backed student loans.

    Tuition prices would drop and kids looking to go to college would have to earn that money.

    Young people could pick fruits or whatever other farming work for the season and pay for college.

    Nick, stop trying to equate ignoring the Rule of Law with illegal immigration law violations and victimless crimes like drug use. We should get rid of drug laws but not immigration & naturalization laws.

    1. Re: loveconstitutuon1789,

      Young people could pick fruits or whatever other farming work for the season and pay for college.

      That’s funny. You really think that what’s stopping young Americans from going to the fields to pick up strawberries and lettuce is college tuition.

      stop trying to equate ignoring the Rule of Law with illegal immigration law violations and victimless crimes like drug use.

      Because… What? You like drugs better than immigrants?

      Just so that you know, so-called “illegal” immigration is not even a real crime. Immigrants are invited in by the Market. You merely want to believe that your dislike of foreigners should be justification enough for even more restrictive immigration policy.

      1. “That’s funny. You really think that what’s stopping young Americans from going to the fields to pick up strawberries and lettuce is college tuition.”

        Well he does have part of a point. The easy money for college tuition does make college more attractive than it otherwise would be. So the marginal student is going to be lured into going to college, and may or may not graduate, when otherwise they might be better served skipping college altogether and getting a job directly out of highschool.

        But the other side of the coin is that, strictly from an economics point of view, American education is too expensive to be wasted on jobs that quite literally can be performed by illiterate 7th graders.

        1. I will bet your next paycheck that an illiterate 7th grader cannot tell which apples to pick.

      2. Kids don’t have to work, so they don’t work for the most part.

        Parents pay for the kids college or more commonly is that the kids get tens of thousands in school loans. If they worked during the summer on farms and other menial jobs to earn money for college, they would have enough or need small loans to make up the difference.

        The big kicker is that colleges would not be guaranteed this huge stream of federally backed cash, so their tuition would go down.

        Young people to work the fields, earn money, get basic work experience, and no need for illegals immigrants.

        1. college is explicitly expensive due to loans. Without loans teachers wages and pointless programs and amenities wouldnt exist.

          College was not this expensive 40 years ago because these loans didn’t have any impact.

          If you look at tutition and history its obvious but people even here like to be ignorant as fuck

      3. Just so that you know, so-called “illegal” immigration is not even a real crime. Immigrants are invited in by the Market.

        The market would also support slavery to keep overhead low.

        Giving anything total control is an inherently stupid idea.

        You merely want to believe that your dislike of foreigners should be justification enough for even more restrictive immigration policy.

        How is “following the actual current immigration policy” an “even more restrictive immigration policy”?

  18. When people talk about Roman civil engineering, you’ll often hear them marvel at how well things were built. The roads were so straight! The aqueducts and roads are still in use today!

    Those structures were overbuilt, and the reason they were overbuilt was because of the overabundance of free labor. Those structure were all built by slaves.

    If those structures wouldn’t have been built to last for centuries or wouldn’t have been built at all without the overabundance of slave labor, then they shouldn’t have been built to last for centuries or shouldn’t have been built at all.

    All that labor would have been put to a higher and better use if its cost had been properly priced in a market.

    There is an argument to make that if apple orchards can’t survive without an overabundance of illegal labor, then maybe those apple orchards should have been converted to a higher use a long time ago.

    We understand this in regards to America’s history with slavery. If the cotton production industry can’t survive without the benefit of slave labor, that isn’t a good reason to keep slavery. That’s a good reason to let free markets kill the cotton production industry and covert all those productive resources to a higher use.

    The same thing can happen with apple orchards and an overabundance of cheap labor, really.

    1. Re: Ken Shultz,

      There is an argument to make that if apple orchards can’t survive without an overabundance of illegal labor, then maybe those apple orchards should have been converted to a higher use a long time ago.

      Slavery is the result of force and not market action. It leads to distortions such as you mention. Instead, the existence of so-called “illegal labor” is the result of an artificial barfier imposed by the state, with the result that an unmet demand opens the opportunity for a black market to appear. The thought that the two things – slavery and underground or black market labor – are comparable, is evidence of a major misunderstanding of the economics of labor in modern times.

      1. Slavery is the result of force and not market action. It leads to distortions such as you mention.

        There are a number of government initiated market distortions at work here. There are also payroll taxes, minimum wages, income taxes, regulations, etc. that give illegal labor a cost advantage they wouldn’t enjoy without government intervention in the labor market.

        If one of the legitimate functions of government is protecting our rights by enforcing constitutionally valid rules about who can and can’t come across our borders, then if the government at any level is willfully failing to enforce those rules, why isn’t that also a government initiated market distortion? Because I disagree with the law doesn’t mean the law isn’t valid or constitutional.

        Regardless, it is not only the labor side of the equation that needs to adjust to market forces. If an industry model is predicated on a cheap supply of something, the industry model needs to change if and when that supply diminishes. The purpose of our immigration policy should not be to ensure a steady and cheap supply of labor to apple farmers.

        If the cost of labor goes up because the supply diminishes, then the solution is for apple growers to find something else to do with their resources–not rent seeking.

        1. There are also payroll taxes, minimum wages, income taxes, regulations, etc. that give illegal labor a cost advantage they wouldn’t enjoy without government intervention in the labor market.

          Wow, someone on Reason who isn’t economically braindead and actually understands 2nd order effects. 1 out of 100 ain’t bad.

    2. “There is an argument to make that if apple orchards can’t survive without an overabundance of illegal labor, then maybe those apple orchards should have been converted to a higher use a long time ago.”

      Think of it this way. I am sure you have heard progressives earnestly argue “if a business can’t afford to pay its employees a ‘living wage’ then they don’t deserve to be in business”. Implicit in that argument is a normative statement that employers ought to be paying their employees some sort of state-imposed ‘living wage’, and the burden of proof should rest on the employer to justify why they should be permitted by the state to continue operating in the face of such requirements. We libertarians look at that argument and say “it is precisely backwards. Individuals are free to use their property as they see fit, and the burden of proof rests with the state on why it should have the authority to inhibit free individuals from using their property as they wish to do so (a burden that the state most often fails to meet on some principled level)”.

      Well, it’s the exact same thing here. The burden of proof should not rest with the employer on why it has to justify hiring labor that is willing to work for a wage that all mutually agree to. The burden of proof should rest with the state on why it should PREVENT such financial transactions from occurring.

      1. “The burden of proof should not rest with the employer on why it has to justify hiring labor that is willing to work for a wage that all mutually agree to. The burden of proof should rest with the state on why it should PREVENT such financial transactions from occurring.”

        This is the answer to the question of how open our immigration policy should be. I would like to see open borders with Mexico by way of a treaty that lets people come across the border at will through a checkpoint, so long as they can show an ID we have confidence in to verify that that they aren’t convicted felons, have been immunized against certain diseases, etc.

        Your answer assumes that interference in immigration is something the state needs to justify in court–as if it were a violation of someone’s rights. That isn’t the way immigration policy is set up in the Constitution. In the Constitution, the rules of naturalization, the process by which people can come here and become tourists, legal residents, and then become naturalized citizens, are correctly enumerated to Congress along with the power to declare war.

      2. We shouldn’t impose an unpopular immigration policy on the American people any more than we should impose an unpopular war.

        I’m all for an expansive immigration policy–but there should be a policy. That policy, constitutionally, must respect people’s rights, be in harmony with both the First and Fourteenth Amendments, etc., but there should be a policy. I’m talking about what our policy should be, but you seem to be arguing that there shouldn’t be a policy. That’s like the difference between being against the Iraq War and contending that Congress shouldn’t have the power to declare war.

        1. No I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be any policy at all. I’m simply saying that the burden of proof should rest with the state to justify its policy, and the burden of proof shouldn’t be with the people who want to use their property and their labor as they see fit free from undue government interference. Just saying “The Constitution!!” really isn’t enough. The Constitution doesn’t *require* any immigration policy at all, it simply *allows* Congress to set rules *if it so chooses*.

          “Your answer assumes that interference in immigration is something the state needs to justify in court–as if it were a violation of someone’s rights.”

          I’m not talking about an actual lawsuit. Instead I’m starting from the presumption that individuals are free to use their property, and their labor, as they see fit, and if the state wants to forbid me from doing so, they had better have a good reason to do so. The state should have to justify its interference with my natural property rights as a matter of principle. Would you agree?

          1. “No I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be any policy at all. I’m simply saying that the burden of proof should rest with the state to justify its policy”

            The burden of proof of the state justifying its immigration policy is its harmony with the Constitution and the elections won by the representatives, senators, and the president who signs it.

            “Instead I’m starting from the presumption that individuals are free to use their property, and their labor, as they see fit, and if the state wants to forbid me from doing so, they had better have a good reason to do so”

            I agree that the government has business imposing fines or criminal penalties on businesses for whom they hire to pick their apples or babysit their children.

            The argument in this article is that the enforcement of immigration laws deprive apple growers of cheap labor.

            1. “I agree that the government has [no] business imposing fines or criminal penalties on businesses for whom they hire to pick their apples or babysit their children.”

              Fixed!

          2. In other words, you are living in a pre-1790’s world where this issue wasn’t already decided and ignoring the reality of how it actually works in practice in today’s market with today’s laws.

          3. How do the immigration laws keep the farmers from using their property as they see fit? The farmers are US citizens, so they are not subject to immigration laws. Immigration laws also do not affect their trees or their land. So I don’t understand the reference.

            1. If a farmer wishes to hire labor that is from another country, from working on his property, why should the government stand in the way? It is his property, is it not?

      3. The burden of proof should not rest with the employer on why it has to justify hiring labor that is willing to work for a wage that all mutually agree to. The burden of proof should rest with the state on why it should PREVENT such financial transactions from occurring.

        Baloney. If the party that I wish to contract with is unable to fulfill the terms because of a law, and that law is reasonable and made through constitutional means, I have no grounds to demand that the state justify the law.

        If the person I want to be my butler is currently in their 9th year of a 10 year jail sentence, my inability to make a contract with that person for butler services now does not give me grounds to demand that the state justify why the sentence for his crime was longer than 8 years.

        If I want to contract with a pizza place 3 miles from my home to deliver pizzas within 5 minutes after they come out of the oven, that does not give me the right to demand that the state justify why the speed limit on the road between them and me is 30 MPH instead of 40 MPH.

        And analogously with the laws to protect our borders.

        1. “and that law is reasonable

          So why is the law reasonable? I guess you, as an apologist for the state, can stand in its stead and justify why.

  19. .” White people aren’t going to take those jobs that don’t pay any better than welfare”,

    Fuck you. Sure they would if they didn’t have to compete with tens of millions of illegals so cheap cocksucking hip libertarians wouldn’t have to pay extra for their tomatoes. Fuck you.

    Proximity + Diversity = War

    1. Another way to look at it is that unemployed people who won’t pick apples for low wages may be more suited to higher uses with higher pay.

      They have this problem in India. Because of China’s one child policy, they’re having problems finding enough qualified people to work in their factories.

      Some companies started looking to India, but India has a tremendous disadvantage in that their peasants are illiterate. It takes a certain amount of math knowledge to work in a factory. You need to be able to read instruction, write notes, and add fractions.

      In China, the communists educated all their peasants. When the factories came and took their fields away, they could get jobs in those factories and improve their standard of living. In India, they spend their money creating higher education institutions to train the elite in mathematics and computer scientists–and they have some of the best in the world. Math PhDs aren’t what you need to work in factories, though. For that, you need peasants who can read, write, and do basic arithmetic.

      Point is, there’s more than one way to solve a labor pool disparity, and one of them is to move into another value adding industry where having the cheapest labor isn’t necessarily as important. That’s what China is doing now.

      If Americans won’t pick apples for peanuts, then maybe those apple orchards need to be repurposed to do something that either adds more value or is less dependent on cheap labor.

      1. Sounds like central planning to me, Ken.

        1. What sounds like central planning–businesses repurposing their resources in response to market forces?

      2. You need to be able to read instruction, write notes, and add fractions.

        Actually, you need to be able to look at a picture (with or without the red circle and slash), press the correct picture on the touch screen, and input fractions into the same touch screen.

        The communists did not do much more training than “communism good, all else bad. obey or die”.
        And they took the factory workers and sent them onto the fields for ‘reeducation’.

        1. The CCP taught every peasant child how to read, write, and do basic arithmetic.

          This is a fact.

          India’s unemployed peasants are largely unemployable in factories because they can’t do those things.

          This is also a fact.

  20. “Read the whole piece?about a place that conjures “Oaxaca in a Wyeth painting”?here.”

    I’d like to read the whole piece but the link takes me to a paywall, not the piece. I don’t have a WSJ subscription. Since the professor is an occasional Reason contributor, perhaps he can contribute his piece to Reason, too.

  21. The article is a reminder to people dodging the law that sometimes laws are enforced and you should have a backup plan in case that happens.

  22. Just another fantasy that legal and illegal immigration are the same thing with the same problems / results.

    Sorry, two issues.
    1. Legal immigration is too limited, and too complex for those who just want to work for awhile, not live here forever and a day. We can assimilate way more than we allow in at this time. It seems the limitation is the number of bureaucrats to do the processing. Simplify the process and get on with the legal immigration.
    2. Illegal immigration is a criminal act, and all illegal immigrants are criminals. We lock up thieves whether they have a family or not. No difference.

    1. Really so we can assimilate more than 1 million near people per year? 20-30 million immigrants per generation? Your so full of shit. Prove it!

      Not even the next 3 countries combined match the amount we let it. It takes the the next 4 to pass us.

      This doesn’t count the 10-20 million illegals not assimilating either. Hispanics in particular dont assimilate. They have no intention of doing so.

      Legal immigrant is not too limited.

      Temporary working visas? Maybe but thats highly debatable.

      1. “Hispanics in particular dont assimilate. They have no intention of doing so.”

        And they say opposition to illegal immigration isn’t driven by racism…

        1. Just what part of that comment are you claiming is racist?

          People may or may not wish to assimilate. I don’t see racism in claiming it either way.

          1. Gee I don’t know. Maybe it is the stereotyping of an entire group, the sweeping generalization, the statement asserted without any proof or evidence that is claimed to be true of an entire nationality of people..

            “People may or may not wish to assimilate” is different than claiming that Hispanics, as a group, don’t assimilate.

            You know, just because some people overuse the racist charge, doesn’t mean that some of you all really are racist.

            1. Generalizations are just that – generalizations.

              They may be true or false as generalizations, but why racist either way?

              If it’s a bad generalization, provide evidence to the contrary.

        2. Jumping to accuse someone who disagrees with you of racism? Sounds like a Democrat to me.

          1. Fuck off. I don’t give a shit what you believe.

            1. Just the kind of thing I’d expect a racist to say.

        3. If you look at various cultures each culture has different levels of pride and dedication. There is a better work but i can’t think of it.

          Japanese and Hispanics are two cultures (other exist) that are extremely prideful and dont assimilate well.

          Some cultures are not as deeply ingrained into people where they refuse to assimilate.

          This is a simple fact and has nothing to do with racism. Just be honest about different cultures and you can clearly see this.

          I bet Pew has studies on this on how many people consider themselves an American verse German, Japanese, Hispanic.

          1. https://tinyurl.com/bhjjkg5

            good research here but leaves many questions unanswered.

          2. https://tinyurl.com/yd73ftee

            cant find a comparison of Muslims vs Asian vs Hispanics vs Europeans.

            muslims seem to assimilate the least which isn’t surprising.

            1. totally racist comment lol /derp

  23. Maybe they should just take meth and die like the whites living in economically depressed shitholes, like Ron Bailey suggested.

    Oh wait, I forgot, farming is totally different from mining. White farmers out in the east jesus are entitled to a permanent underclass of unregulated sub-minimum wage foreign labor. When the EPA kills coal, whitey should just fuck off to San Francisco and get a master’s in computer science. Mexicans? Well, they’re enriching our 600-person farm villages, so we should just look the other way and have a separate set of standards for them.

    Fuck you.

    1. I think it’s just Kevin Williamson over at National Review who has openly come out in favor of death for downscale white communities

  24. Policing is bad for law abiding citizens too, since they occasionally get swept up in it. Your immune system is bad for health people, since it occasionally attacks healthy cells.

    In both cases, it’s still preferable to have police and an immune system around.

    in which anti-immmigration actions are killing small-town America in the name of preserving, what, the rule of law? Ethnic solidarity? An America that never existed?

    They aren’t “anti immigration actions”, they are “anti illegal immigration actions”. Yes, they are done in the name of preserving the rule of law. And hyperbole like “killing small town America” are just stupid, and your idea that this is a racist issue is merely a reflection of your own racist thinking, so knock it off.

  25. The local growers, many of whom have been operating the family orchards for generations, worry they won’t have enough manpower this fall to harvest the crop. @ hotmail sign in

  26. And as usual, we are obsessed with the workers rather than the honeypot that draws them here, i.e. the employers willing to continue the artificially low wage rates by paying under the table (if they even pay at all, many get the work done for them and then stiff the workers, threatening them with “a call to ICE”).

    The workers, who, rightly here or not, have performed work, would rightly attribute a lot less weight to the “I will call ICE if you try to get your back pay” threats if we actually punished the illegal behavior of the “risktakers” and “job creators” but no, we all just sit around yelling about how Mohammed and Miguel are “takin our jerbs.” While refusing to look at how our own countrymen contribute to the issue.

  27. “Whether legal or not, these transplants don’t pose any sort of public menace, so clearly law enforcement should have better things to do.”

    We are either a country of laws or we are not. If illegal immigration is good for our well being, then change some laws or create a work permit to make it legal for Mexican workers to get into the state and work. Don’t turn a blind eye to something that is illegal, make it it legal by changing the laws if it is not a bad thing or is beneficial to the country’s well being.

  28. … these transplants don’t pose any sort of public menace…

    Wrong. Their very presence is a menace. We should invite them to leave. Now.

    If they don’t leave, we should hunt them down and exterminate them.

    1. Woodchipper Party is getting outflanked on the Right

  29. I’m sorry, but jobs based in the USA should go to AMERICANS until such time that there is a TRUE shortage of labor (which I think we are past ever having again).

  30. The article is wrong about people believing immigration is bad for the US despite all evidence to the contrary. What they believe is that immigration of brown skinned people is bad for white American control over their little peice of America/

    1. Since white America is the majority of America, why isn’t “bad for white America” a valid concern?

      Note that I don’t grant your premise. Open borders are bad for the vast majority of American citizens, and worse for blacks and hispanics.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.