Asymmetrical Information

How far are you upgrading the wine ? From Petrus to Latour ?

Is the upgraded wine a reward of the editorial (an upgrade over what you planned on serving this particular guest) or is it an upgrade from what you normaly consume in honor of this distinguished guest?

As long as someone pledges allegience to the US, pays their taxes , and does not automatically place a strain on the system (auto welfare, so to speak) I can't understand why anyone would be against immigration.

However, I think a lot of people confuse "Unlimited Immigration" with "Unregulated Immigration". I'm still totally against undocumented / illegal workers because (and pardon me a Liberal moment here) the worker may not get paid a fair amount and wouldn't have proper benefits. That then translates into more strain on our healthcare and welfare systems.

Then again, my opinions probably won't get me invited to dinner ;)

As long as someone pledges allegience to the US, pays their taxes , and does not automatically place a strain on the system (auto welfare, so to speak) I can't understand why anyone would be against immigration.

However, I think a lot of people confuse "Unlimited Immigration" with "Unregulated Immigration". I'm still totally against undocumented / illegal workers because (and pardon me a Liberal moment here) the worker may not get paid a fair amount and wouldn't have proper benefits. That then translates into more strain on our healthcare and welfare systems.

Then again, my opinions probably won't get me invited to dinner ;)

Robb wrote:

As long as someone pledges allegience to the US, pays their taxes , and does not automatically place a strain on the system (auto welfare, so to speak) I can't understand why anyone would be against immigration.

I think that the operative words are “place a stain on the system.” There are quite a bit of issues related to immigration (both legal and illegal) which go beyond the specter of an immigrant going on public assistance. There are concerns about possible disease (1), children in the government schools who may require special accommodations, drains on locally-funded health care services, infrastructure and public works costs, having to accommodate people who do not speak English with bi and multi-lingual, and also crime issues from illegal immigration.

Mind you, I am not advocating stopping immigration or even a moratorium but merely pointing out that there are quite a bit more concerns that are not addressed in the Wall Street Journal article (which seemed to be prefer to deal with strawman arguments about racist eugenicists rather than actual concerns). IMNHO if the proponents of increasing immigration or an amnesty for illegal aliens were to propose a workable solution for some of these issues there would be a more persuasive case for increasing immigration.

TW

(1) This is not a “immigrants are dirty and diseased” claim but rather an acknowledgement that whenever you bring in people from other parts of the world with less advanced health care systems, there is the potential for bringing in diseases that we have not had to deal with before.

Opposition to immigration is crazy. In effect, by welcoming immigrants we are skimming the more ambitious members of the world's population. The "illegal alien" problem that exercises so many is a result of the US's failure to allow enough immigration. The demand for the labor offered by "illegal aliens" is so high that these workers are willing to risk breaking the law to meet it. Also a consequence of not allowing enough immmigration is "outsourcing". Firms "outsource" their work because they cannot find enough productive workers in this country to do that work.

Immigrants help to solve the problem that baby boomers are going to face when they retire by increasing the ratio of workers to retirees. Remittances sent home by immigrants are far more effective instruments of nation-building than foreign aid dollars placed into the sticky fingers of foreign political elites, NGO bureaucrats and other rent seekers. Along with remittances, cultural attitudes about civil society, tolerance, property rights, secularism, and democratic governance filter back to the home country, while americans once again observe the rewards that accrue to hard work, ambition, thrift, and family values.

immigrants enrich our own society far more than they enrich themselves. They pay taxes to our government, not their home government. They spend their wages on US goods and services, not foreign goods and services. They enrich our language and our cuisine. Most of all, every immigrant by choosing to leave home and live amongst us becomes a living affirmation of the value of our society.

It is as simple as this: if you don't like immigrants, you don't like America.

If you removed the "misstatements" and the smears from that editorial you wouldn't be left with too many words.

"Let's just deport all 10 million of 'em, Elian-style!"

Very few people are saying that. However, some are suggesting the radical concept of enforcing our immigration laws. In FY2002, just 13 (thirteen) companies were find for immigration violations. If we started enforcing our laws, many illegal aliens would self-deport.

"Suggest that immigration, legal or otherwise, not only is in the American tradition but a net benefit to our economy besides"

First of all, illegal immigration has enormous downsides. It leads to disrespect for our laws, it leads to corruption, it leads to an increase in human smuggling and the creation of networks for it, the companies that violate immigration laws also might not pay too much attention to workplace safety laws, etc. etc.

As for the general concept of immigration being good, few people dispute that. The only question is who you let in and how many.

"California Republicans learned the hard way in the mid-1990s, courtesy of the anti-immigrant Proposition 187, that denying education and health benefits to eight-year-old aliens is a political loser in the long run."

I'll just deal with one "misstatement" in that statement. 187 initially had the support of "Hispanic-Americans." The reason they dropped their support was due to two things: a) horrible advertising by the proponents, and b) lies told by the racial demagogue opponents.

The attempts to smear FAIR and CIS verge into Dave-Neiwert-regurgitating-SPLC-special-report territory.

"Short of mass alien deportations at gunpoint, which would damage the economy and aren't likely to fly well with the public, any transition to a more sensible system will involve some sort of decriminalization."

A repeat of the strawman above, coupled with a misstatement. Just enforce the darn laws. Any "regularization" plan (that's the term Vicente Fox uses, and, since we're just following his lead we'll use that) will be scuttled by illegal immigration.

Let me repeat that: any "regularization" plan will be scuttled by illegal immigration. The employers who currently hire illegals will simply continue to do so if they can save a buck. The way to prevent that is to enforce the laws.

Real conservatives support U.S. sovereignty. They realize that allowing millions of citizens of another country to develop a country within our country is an extremely bad and dangerous thing.

Real conservatives look at the steps that the Mexican government takes to make sure that the Mexican citizens in our country stay Mexican.

Real conservatives look at the chain of Mexican consulates in the U.S. and the actions that those consuls take and are shocked. Mexican consuls agitating their citizens in our country? Mexican consuls attending city council meetings with Mexican illegal immigrants in tow? Mexican consuls lobbying mayors and councilmen?

Real conservatives don't buy the nonsense from the Open Borders lobby.

Check out my Immigration category for much supporting information. If you choose to respond, please make sure you know what you're talking about first.

If a million illegal Mexican immigrants annually innundating the southwest is good for our county, then shouldn't tens or hundreds of millions be even better? And let's not leave out the hundreds of thousands or millions of Haitians, Somali Bantu, Hmong, etc who would be happy to live here.

There are roughly 5.7 billion non-Americans in the world. Considering that most of them live in countries with standards of living nowhere near ours, how many would move here if they could? A few billion? What do you think would be left of our culture after a deluge on a scale approaching that?

The mostly-unspoken and unspeakable truth about US immigration is that the country is what it is because of european immigration. Up until a few decades ago, 95% of the population was of european descent. In other words, all immigration is not equal. 100,000 British immigrant engineers is not the same as 100,000 Somalis who have never ridden in a car, much less driven one.

Given the fact that the great majority of the darker-skinned peoples who would be happy to immigrate here come from failing societies that have never approached the level of civilization and prosperity of our own, what makes immigration proponents so sure that they won't bring that failure with them? Our European cousins are virtually as free and prosperous as we are; to put it bluntly, Caucasians have a proven track record of civilizational success. Mexicans, Haitians, Hmong, and Somalis most certainly do not. Are we so hide-bound by racial political correctness that we're willing to ignore these realities at the cost of our society's future?

When he comes to dinner, I'd suggest having a copy of the March/April 'Foreign Policy' handy. Make him read "The Hispanic Challenge" by Samuel Huntington.

I read it last night (in an El Pollo Loco of all the wacky places to read something like that), and while Huntington does overstates some things his overall conclusion is correct. Unfortunately the full text is not online.

However, Huntington refers a couple times to an article by Stanford history professor David Kennedy. The full text of that is online: 'Can We Still Afford to be a Nation of Immigrants?' It includes the oft-repeated statement: The possibility looms that in the next generation or so we will see a kind of Chicano Quebec take shape in the American Southwest...

It'd be interesting if the WSJ author would like to respond to Huntington or Kennedy. I mean, other than with a series of smears that is.

Lonewacko wrote:

As for the general concept of immigration being good, few people dispute that. The only question is who you let in and how many.

Bingo! The idea that all immigrants are bad or immigration is automatically bad is equal in stupidity to the notion that all immigrants are good or immigration is automatically good.

Just as there is a difference between an American citizen who holds down a job (or starts a business) versus one who is a net burden on taxpayer funded social services or a citizen who obeys the laws versus one who commits crimes, etc. we are capable of making similar distinctions amongst those who we do or do not let into the country as a legal immigrant.

IMNHO in order to make these distinctions we are going to need to reform our immigration policies and actually enforce them rather than set up an amnesty every twenty years or so which is ultimately counter-productive in that it rewards law-breaking and creates a disincentive for people to actually obey the law.

"California Republicans learned the hard way in the mid-1990s, courtesy of the anti-immigrant Proposition 187, that denying education and health benefits to eight-year-old aliens is a political loser in the long run."

I didn't want to deny an 8 year old health care and education, I just want that 8 year old to obtain that care and education at home.
I might even suggest that a bit of reciprocity is in order, and that Mexico be told that, at a minimum, no right will be given Mexicans that is not given U.S. citizens by Mexico. Further, we should not be asked to give any consideration to Mexicans that Mexico does not give to, say, Guatamalians.
My main concern about illegal entrants has been the willingness of democrats to encourage the registration and voting by those illegals.

jim linnane wrote:

immigrants enrich our own society far more than they enrich themselves. They pay taxes to our government, not their home government. They spend their wages on US goods and services, not foreign goods and services.

That’s a debatable point. On an annual basis about $12 Billion a year is remitted from the United States to Mexico which rather refutes the notion that this money is being paid in “taxes to our government” or being spent on “US goods and services.”

MarkJ, boy are you full of it. Believe it our not, many, many people would rather stay in their own sucky country than move to our Great and Glorious Empire. The primary reason being that the U.S. is not their home and their own sucky country is their home. Let us just start with that.

Next, let us just remember that some of the greatest societies have been non-caucasian (like the Egyptians and persians...you know, they guys now trying to blow us up with big planes) and that one of the reasons white people have historically had to keep advancing was because they lived in the crappiest places around. Really, if you live in a warm climate with a great deal of food there is no need to invent anything more elaborate than a hunter-gatherer society.

I'm glad you seem to think you pigment makes you better than everyone else. I don't recall all those illiterate Irish were thought of as any better than Black people back in the mid 19th century, but there you go.

Kate wrote:

Next, let us just remember that some of the greatest societies have been non-caucasian (like the Egyptians and persians

Actually those are also considered to be Caucasian cultures.

Kate, my pigment doesn't make me better than everyone else. Pigment is a poor basis for judging people. However there are other criteria for judging potential immigrant populations that make a lot of sense: average IQ, cultural norms, level of education, level of civilization attained, assimilability.

People like yourself are the first to insist that primitive Amazonian pygmy tribes be left alone, free of outside influence, to maintain their culture and ways of life. Well, I only ask that we be allowed the same. Is that so unreasonable?

You cherish "diversity". How much diversity will exist when all peoples and cultures have melded into one undifferentiated whole? I don't want to live in Mexico, for example. I wouldn't move there. And I don't care to have Mexico move here. I don't want to have to learn Spanish to get along in my own country, and I don't want to pay taxes so that Spanish-speakers can fill out their documents without learning English and have their children educated in their native language. If they want that, they can stay in Mexico. I wouldn't expect Mexicans to be happy if a million gringos a year were moving into their country, demanding that it change to accomodate them. Why should I be happy that the reverse is true?

In the 19th century the US government was interested in populating the vast American west. It was in their interest to have millions of their European cousins move here. (I think they'd have had a different reaction if it was millions of Africans.) This is not the 19th century. We don't have a vast frontier to populate. We don't need a million new immigrants a year from anywhere, much less from the third world. And the people who are migrating here from Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia are not the close cousins that the European immigrants of the 19th century were.

Finally, regarding the Irish: if the massive Irish immigration caused as much bitterness and turmoil as it did, when the Irish were of the same racial stock, spoke the same language, and had the same basic religious and cultural beliefs, what can we expect from tens of millions of third-world immigrants who are as different from us as any people on earth?

The solution is for these immigrants to stay in their own countries and fix their problems there. The fact that the most ambitious and motivated among them leave to come here does nothing but drain their populations of the most able and give their corrupt leaders a safety valve. For that reason if no other, humanitarians should be against immigration.

I'm more than a little stunned by MarkJ's assertion that "Caucasians have a proven track record of civilizational success. Mexicans, Haitians, Hmong, and Somalis most certainly do not." Wow! I guess that east Kentucky is somewhat of a civilizational success compared to say, Mogadishu.

Now that the trolling/cheap shots is out of the way, I think it should be noted that there's some sort of equilibrium of new immigrants that are needed in the United States. For one, they seem far more willing to go into the scientific and engineering positions that our society is based upon. I can say this -- without foreign students, most university science and engineering departments would be devoid of undergraduates and graduate students. (Why is that? Got an answer, MarkJ?)

I would argue that the immigration problem is not solved easily because it is more difficult to assimilate people. It is partially the avoidance of 'cultural imperialism' -- the 'sadness' that liberals feel that the native culture is being de-emphasized and 'American' traits being taken on.

Assimilation is also more difficult because it is easier to keep ties to the mother country. The mail doesn't move by boat anymore -- you can talk cheaply to the folks at home for pennies. The lack of need to socialize with native-born Americans also removes the opportunity to assimilate.

MarkJ: "100,000 British immigrant engineers is not the same as 100,000 Somalis who have never ridden in a car, much less driven one." My English, Scottish, German, and French ancestors had never even heard of cars when they immigrated - automobiles hadn't been invented yet. Your statement is just snobbishness. For example, I know a quite good engineer in Minnesota, who grew up in Bangla Desh in poverty and primitive conditions beyond the imagination of most of the people sneaking in across the Mexican border. Is he a less valuable addition to American society than a manual laborer who is familiar with modern gadgets?

MarkJ: "100,000 British immigrant engineers is not the same as 100,000 Somalis who have never ridden in a car, much less driven one." My English, Scottish, German, and French ancestors had never even heard of cars when they immigrated - automobiles hadn't been invented yet. Your statement is just snobbishness. For example, I know a quite good engineer in Minnesota, who grew up in Bangla Desh in poverty and primitive conditions beyond the imagination of most of the people sneaking in across the Mexican border. Is he a less valuable addition to American society than a manual laborer who is familiar with modern gadgets?

Mark M wrote:

"100,000 British immigrant engineers is not the same as 100,000 Somalis who have never ridden in a car, much less driven one." My English, Scottish, German, and French ancestors had never even heard of cars when they immigrated - automobiles hadn't been invented yet.

Right in which case it would not be important for them to understand how to drive an automobile if they had not been invented yet. On the otherhand, in twenty-first century America in which most people own and/or drive an automobile, importing people who are not familiar with automobiles carries all sorts of implications and potential problems that it would not have when your English, Scottish, German, and French ancestors immigrated.

The Huntington article is available online:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2495&print=1

Klug trolled...

"I guess that east Kentucky is somewhat of a civilizational success compared to say, Mogadishu."

Okay, I'll take the bait.

The short answer is "yes" eastern Kentucky is indeed a civilizational success - especially - when compared to such places as Mogadishu. (As are WVA, Eastern TN, Western VA and NC and all the rest of Appalachia that you are so quick to denigrate.)

How many automobiles (and the roads to drive them on) are there in Somalia compared to a town like Pikeville? How many hospitals are there in Somalia? The larger towns in Eastern KY all have community hospitals. Most even have high-tech equipment like MRI and CT scanners, full service ER's, and surgery suites etc.

While it may be true that Appalachia is less prosperous than the more populated area's of the US, the mindless stereotypes of the "Beverly Hillbillies" tv show and the movie "Deliverance" are nowhere near the reality of the region.

Klug, your thoughtless comparison of Eastern KY to Mogadishu leads me to believe that you have never been to either place.

Roy

I've found there is an amazing disconnect on this subject between conservative Texans and conservatives from elsewhere (as noted in "The Corner" more than once). I attribute this to two things.

1. The obvious economic benefit of immigration. Nearly all of the thankless low-wage jobs in Texas are done by immigrants from Mexico and Central America. Natives don't want these jobs, immigrants are more than happy to do them (vs. doing whatever they have to to scrounge a semblance of a living in Latin America). Net result for us, CHEAPER STUFF. Sure, there are costs, but I'd be willing to wager that the long-term benefits outweigh the costs.

2. Texas has a longer tradition of sizeable Hispanic influence than most other states. I read a statistic once that California only had 4,000 people of Hispanic heritage in 1910. I don't know if this is true or not but I would suspect that Texas had some orders of magnitude more Hispanics at that time. Which means that nearly every Texan knows a person of Hispanic descent who's family has been in the U.S. for at least three generations and who speaks perfect Texan-English. In other words, they've assimilated--many, many of them are even Republicans. (Just a tip, focus on fighting for policies that encourage assimilation instead of fighting immigration itself, you'll find far broader conservative support [and liberal disdain]).

So economically and culturally, Texans are not threatened by a majority Hispanic nation, we almost live in one now and don't have any complaints.

P.S. Any wonder why Bush proposed this?

"In the 19th century the US government was interested in populating the vast American west. It was in their interest to have millions of their European cousins move here. (I think they'd have had a different reaction if it was millions of Africans.) This is not the 19th century. We don't have a vast frontier to populate. "

Yes, we do. Just look up one clear night and you'll see it. One day we'll get off our butts and actually populate it. Probably with more than a little help from immigrant engineers.

"And the people who are migrating here from Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia are not the close cousins that the European immigrants of the 19th century were."

At the time, there were plenty of people who were not willing to consider the European immigrants "close cousins". What they were all-too-willing to consider them is not really printable, but suffice it to say we've heard all this before, and it was complete nonsense.

On the other hand, at the time we had sink-or-swim policies with regard to the general population, including immigrants, so the only ones willing to come here and stay here were those willing to accept those terms. Maybe we'd have a more successful experience if we returned to those policies.

"The mostly-unspoken and unspeakable truth about US immigration is that the country is what it is because of european immigration. Up until a few decades ago, 95% of the population was of european descent. In other words, all immigration is not equal. 100,000 British immigrant engineers is not the same as 100,000 Somalis who have never ridden in a car, much less driven one."

Don't forget the Indian immigrant engineers. Or the Chinese immigrant engineers. Or the Japanese immigrant engineers. Or even African immigrant engineers.

And most of those Somalis wouldn't bother coming here, especially if they never set foot in a car or other modern conveyance.

"I can say this -- without foreign students, most university science and engineering departments would be devoid of undergraduates and graduate students. (Why is that? Got an answer, MarkJ?) "

I haven't read up on this, but as a person with two masters' degrees, I am familiar with the phenomenon, having spent years in graduate school. I can offer a few thoughts:

(1) Asians tend to have higher IQs and tend to be drawn to the hard sciences and engineering. Their higher IQs are probably largely genetic; their interest in the left-brain subjects like math and science may be partly genetic and partly cultural.

(2) University science and engineering departments would not be devoid of undergraduates and graduate students if we didn't allow foreign students here; the standards would simply be lowered somewhat so that more native applicants were accepted.

Is it really worthwhile filling our universities with foreign students, anyway? They take the knowledge they learned here back to China, etc and use it to compete with us. I know that some will say it fosters goodwill towards the US when these people go back home, but...so what? We're essentially opening up our vault of scientific and engineering advancement, hard won and costly to develop, and saying "hey foreigners who will be competing with us and in some cases actually seeking to destroy us -- come on over and help yourself!"

Klug's argument is representative of the whole category of pro-immigration argument that says that if we don't allow immigration, we'll stagnate and no one will be willing to do the work immigrants do. Which is nonsense. Natives aren't willing to do the work for the wages that immigrants are, but so what? Without immigrants to undercut the wage level, wages will rise and there will be plenty of natives willing to do the work. Either that or producers will resort to more mechanization.

I'm usually completely in favor of any kind of free trade. However, because of the cultural realities of immigration, I'm against it. Seeing our culture swamped by, frankly, people with low IQs and alien languages, attitudes, and habits is not worth getting my lettuce 50 cents cheaper at the market.

Ken: "Don't forget the Indian immigrant engineers. Or the Chinese immigrant engineers. Or the Japanese immigrant engineers. Or even African immigrant engineers."

How many African engineers, exactly, are emigrating here? Have there been as many as three yet?

And how many of the million Mexicans swarming across our borders each year are engineers?

As I said, not all immigrants are equal. Pointing to Chinese or Indian immigrants who are engineers and arguing that that means that all immigration is good is just intellectually dishonest. We aren't being swamped by a million Chinese engineers each year. And if we were, I would oppose that since I don't care to live in China and I don't care to have China move here.

Again I reiterate: the ambitious, intelligent people should be staying in their own countries and helping to fix them. If you style yourself as a compassionate liberal who cares about the third world, you should be encouraging these people to stay there.

First, for the racially inclined, caucasian does not denote a skin-tone, it denotes a racial grouping. That grouping includes europeans, all semites, all of the peoples loosely grouped as 'east-indian' and not a few others. Most caucasians are 'of color'.

Regarding the immigration issue, the word getting left out in the rush to quantify and qualify each individual immigrant is illegal.

An illegal african immigrant who happens to be an engieer is still here illegally. That is a problem, no matter how many 'jobs americans won't do' he's willing to take.

Large uncontrolled influxes of immigrants-- legal or illegal-- are NOT good for the country. The large waves of immigration in the past were coupled with assimilation programs that were designed to give these new Americans a solid footing and a place as a part of the overarching culture. Without assimilation immigration does not benefit the US at all.

I've found there is an amazing disconnect on this subject between conservative Texans and conservatives from elsewhere

See this. "Eighty-six percent of Texans say unauthorized immigration from Mexico is a very or somewhat serious problem." Less than half support the Bush/Fox Amnesty. If the respondents had been provided with additional information on the Bush/Fox Amnesty, I think support would plummet. Additional info would include: those guestworkers will have three years in which to have children, and those children will be U.S. citizens. In other words, they aren't going home. Add in the fact that Bush met with Fox and promoted his plan on the 168th anniversary of the storming of the Alamo, and I think you'd see support under 10%.

"Natives don't want [thankless low-wage jobs]"

Ah, the reading of the AILA talking points. Natives don't want indentured servitude either, and we shouldn't encourage indentured servitude, off-the-books work, loose workplace safety, etc. etc.

"immigrants are more than happy to do them (vs. doing whatever they have to to scrounge a semblance of a living in Latin America).

I realize this is difficult to get one's mind around, but perhaps what we should be doing then is helping them make a better living in Latin America. Propping up the Mexican elite by serving as their safety valve is going in the wrong direction.

"Net result for us, CHEAPER STUFF."

Yes, cheaper stuff at the cash register. However, more expenses whenever a tax is paid. The average Mexican immigrant costs $50,000 lifetime (taxes paid minus services used). In other words, we're subsidizing labor-intensive industries.

"I read a statistic once that California only had 4,000 people of Hispanic heritage in 1910. I don't know if this is true or not"

I don't know if it's true or not either. However, the fact remains that Mexico, Texas, and the rest of the Southwest were once part of Mexico. They are Mexico's "lost territories." They want them back.

"P.S. Any wonder why Bush proposed this?"

Because he's one of the most elitist presidents ever? Because he wants to help out his buddies in the Mexican elite? Because he thinks Tyson Foods deserves a break? Because Karl Rove thinks all "Hispanics" think the same? Because Karl Rove thinks all "Hispanics" support law-breaking and the Mexican and U.S. corporate elite?

Frankly I don't know why, all I know it's not good.

GT, thanks for the link. Looks like an interesting read.

"We aren't being swamped by a million Chinese engineers each year. And if we were, I would oppose that since I don't care to live in China and I don't care to have China move here."

Why in the world would you expect Chinese immigrants of any number to bring China with them? The whole reason they come here in the first place is that they don't like China, they profoundly dislike the way things are done there, and they're certainly going to take a dim view of reproducing the very place and environment that they went to the trouble of getting away from here in their new home.

Same applies to immigrants from other places. It's not easy to convince most people to leave their homes; those that do leave want to be far away from their homes for a reason.

"Again I reiterate: the ambitious, intelligent people should be staying in their own countries and helping to fix them."

Why? First of all, as an American, I'd rather see ambitious, intelligent people come here and stay here and add their contributions to the United States. They'll serve humanity better by improving upon what we have here rather than by beating their heads against the wall trying to fix things in their backward homes.

"If you style yourself as a compassionate liberal who cares about the third world, you should be encouraging these people to stay there."

I'm a compassionate liberal who cares about intelligent, capable, ambitious people, and I think it's rather cruel to force them to stay where their talents will go to waste in a place they want to get away from more than anything else in the world.

Yes, cheaper stuff at the cash register. However, more expenses whenever a tax is paid. The average Mexican immigrant costs $50,000 lifetime (taxes paid minus services used). In other words, we're subsidizing labor-intensive industries.

Maybe so (source of that statistic please?), but if people are willing to work with that arrangment, what's to argue? I grew up a bit north of Denver, Colorado, an agricultural region along the Platte River valley. As I have said in other posts along these lines here at AI, the local market for meticulously plucking acres of asparagus shoots, onions, and cabbage heads under direct sunlight at 85-95F ambient temperatures is not being heavily contested by the local teenage labor market.

I think it is safe to say that the average wage necessary to change their minds would be relatively high. With a little patience and good workmanship, you can easily be making $6-7 an hour in food service or department store clerking, even more at the supermarkets. Those have air conditioning. The competing agricultural wage would have to be high enough that, in my estimation, the local farms would largely have to shut down, as some tasks are just not readily mechanized (asparagus harvest, for example) and mechanization where possible can damage the good at least as readily as a practiced human, so you have to be running a fairly large farm to make the investment profitable -- mechanization is overhead, whereas immigrant labor hire can vary with the profitability of the season's harvest. The land would then be converted to yet more housing tracts as yet more farmers decide that it is an easier path to retirement, and all of our summer fresh produce in the region would be shipped in from the giant agricultural conglomerates elsewhere.

Much of the farm labor is provided by first-generation legals; some of it by illegals, usually something along the lines of an oral hiring clause "I will need to see your papers eventually" that is never dilligently pursued. What this does to the income taxation structure is an exercise left to the reader, but since the immigrant population overall doesn't exist in a vacuum and typically buys some measure of food, housing and transportation, there are more paths to economic recirculation than just Caesar's due. And since I both have a relation running a farm and have been personally acquainted with a first-generation immigrant family, I've largely become ambivalent to the illegal "problem."

I don't think illegal immigration should be encouraged or the relevant laws loosely enforced, because admittedly there CAN be problems, but these simplified views of the ag and immigrant scene -- capped by snotty dismissals of "AILA talking points" -- are disservicing the argument.

re: only Mexicans will do farm work. Tell that to the Okies, Armenians, Filipinos, etc. etc. Tell that to the residents of areas without large numbers of Mexican immigrants.

re: farm mechanization. See "The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers" from 80 Foreign Affairs No. 6, November/December 2001. It's not available online, but there's an excerpt here.

"The whole reason they come here in the first place is that they don't like China"

That's a simplistic analysis. Many or most might share that. However, some might be agents of the Chinese government. And, the fact that there are millions of Mexican citizens in the U.S. gives the elites of Mexico a lot of control over U.S. policy. Which is what they want, and they have indeed stated as much.

Why don't all you "real conservatives" go read the article Stealth Invasion: "Working through its consulates in the United States, the Mexican government is waging a war of subversion against our nation — with the silent complicity of Washington."

That article has names and facts, and details how Mexican agents got a bill defeated.

If you directly or indirectly support the activities of the Mexican government, not only are you not a "real conservative," you're something else entirely.

Regarding the cost of Mexican immigrants: Based on fiscal estimates developed by the National Academy of Sciences for immigrants by age and education at arrival, the lifetime net fiscal drain (all taxes paid minus all services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a negative $ 55,200.

American resources are being expended needlessly on restricting the immigration of hard workers who hold no malice against the United States. You see, amongst crimes, one can identify those which are malum in se and those which are malum prohibitum. Crimes which are malum in se are inherently wrong, regardless of statutory prohibition (e.g. murder, theft, adultery). Crimes which are malum prohibitum are laws that are wrong because they are prohibited (e.g. exceeding a speed limit, failing to shovel one's sidewalk). Laws against malum prohibitum crimes require the state to expend more resources to detect and deter them than crimes of the other sort. With our immigration laws, we create make a class of hard-working, desperate perons into a class of criminals and spend a great deal on ferreting them out and deporting them, when both they and the persons that harbor them have significant, otherwise benign, interest in the maintenance of the malum prohibitum crime.

If we, say, eliminated quotas on the numbers of immigrants permitted to enter the country, and instead focused on ensuring that those who entered came for legitimate purposes, our security would be enhanced because the filters on immigration would be able to focus on true criminal and terrorist candidates. Furthermore, we would be able to stop the detriment to the economy incurred by a trade deficit propelled by artificially high wages in some sectors (such as manufacturing and low-end services).

Malum prohibitum laws are necessary for the government and the society to function, but the laws that apply to immigration are an unneccessary source of pain for both foreigners and citizens. America is an idea, a principle. America is freedom, and it is folly to deny that freedom to others simply because they were born in the wrong country or because they are full of desire to strengthen their families and improve their lifestyles.

For all those who think that immigration from non-Caucasian countries creates a cultural disconnect, just think about German, Italian, and Irish immigrants. For a long time, Irish immigrants were regarded as being at the bottom of the barrel. Now they're fairly well integrated with American society. And what do we celebrate? St. Patrick's Day. Perhaps we'll someday celebrate the Day of the Dead. Would that be so bad?

Also, considering these things politically, Republicans have every reason to want to help Hispanics out of the lower state they're in. New immigrant populations tend to vote Republican, but as they rise in income and meld with the middle class, they begin voting like the general population.

Again, immigration by European caucasians is not the same as immigration by sub-saharan Africans or mestizo Mexicans. There are actual racial differences in average IQ, crime rates, certain personality characterists like time preference, as well as differences that have medical implications, and so on. For evidence I refer you to a brand new book titled "Race: The Reality of Human Differences" by Vincent Sarich, Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology at UC-Berkeley, and Frank Miele, a Senior Editor at Skeptic magazine. They lay out the clear evidence that there really are significant differences between races. In fact, a chihuahua and a Great Dane have less genetic difference than do Caucasians and blacks. Race is most definitely NOT just a cultural artifact and involves a great deal more than skin pigmentation.

Imagine there were a race of people with an average IQ of, say, 40. People who were barely capable of dressing themselves, much less ever contributing to society. Could you say that having millions of people like that immigrating here was a good thing? Of course not. The whole open-borders immigration stand rests on the premise that all races and peoples are exactly equal in their capacity to contribute fully to our society. That simply isn't true. The difference in these respects between German, Italian, Irish, and English immigrants is so small as to be insignificant. The same can't be said of other races.

At least concede that this is worth debating and exploring. If it is true that the races really are different, than an immigration policy that allows immigration of low-functioning races is going to be a long-term problem for our country.

And as for immigration as the American ideal, I think that is debatable. I recall reading that the French gentleman responsible for designing and gifting us with the Statue of Liberty did not intend its message to be "hey everyone, move to America" but rather that Liberty's torch was a shining example to people all over the world to change their own countries to be free as well. The "give us your huddled masses" poem engraved on the base was added as an afterthought.

"American resources are being expended needlessly on restricting the immigration of hard workers who hold no malice against the United States."

Let me repeat this again, but even slower: having millions of citizens of another country in our country is a really bad and dangerous idea. I don't care if they're worth $50,000 (rather than costing us $50,000). If you dispute this point, go to a library and read up on history. Countries hold territory by occupying it. Countries can lose territory by allowing another country to occupy it.

Whether each individual worker holds no malice doesn't really matter when you get 10 million of them in one country. As we see, that gives the sending country power over us.

Perhaps Attorney Nate wouldn't mind answering a few questions:

• Is it a good thing that Mexico agitates their citizens to pass laws that favor of their citizens? For instance, by packing state houses with illegal aliens, going on Freedom Rides, etc. (Explain if not an emphatic NO)

• Is it a good thing to have Mexican consuls pitching mayors and city councils? (Explain if not an emphatic NO)
• Is it a good thing for a Georgia assemblyman to draw a $50,000/year salary from a non-profit which was founded and based at the Mexican consulate in Atlanta? (Explain if not an emphatic NO)
• Is it a good idea to allow millions of the previous owners of a territory to resettle that territory? (Explain if not an emphatic NO)
• Is it a good idea to have a "a foreign adviser to President Vicente Fox of Mexico" employed as the deputy mayor of Ogden, Utah? (Explain if not an emphatic NO)
• Is it a good idea to allow Mexico to distribute free books (including history books) to U.S. schoolchildren? (Explain if not an emphatic NO)
• Is it a good idea to allow the Mexican government to take a census of Mexican-Americans serving in Iraq? (Explain if not an emphatic NO)
• Is it a good thing for a non-profit U.S. organization to allegedly share information on opponents of Prop. 187 with the Mexican consulate? (Explain if not an emphatic NO)
• Is it a good thing for Mexico to declare that the Mexican Nation extends beyond its borders and includes the millions of Mexicans in the U.S.? (Explain if not an emphatic NO)

Mr. Riley's wish to import more Mexicans to pay for social security particulary mauls my sense of economic efficiency. Why not just pay more than we already do to Mexican teenage girls (most are married) to have more babies. Lets get them to have 6 instead of the average of 5. And think of the grandchildren. Every 6 girls having 6 children will really rake in the dough to social security.

Really, something is sick about a society that wants to import more people in some sort of multi-level marketing scheme with the Mexicans holding the bag at the end. When the Mexicans are a majority and retiring who do they import? (Black) Africans?

What makes Mr. Riley think that all those Mexicans will be willing to pay all that money to all those gringos anyway?

Besides, don't we have plenty of barren and near barren white women devoting their energies to getting well paid and they can contribute more to social security (as well as paying teenage Mexican girls to have babies)?

Mr. Riley I am sure has nothing in common with those of us living and working in, and paying for an increasingly dominate latin american culture.

I reject the association by guilt to Fair and CIS. That was an ugly thing to do. Ronald Regan spoke decades ago and the extent and impact of this mass invasion were not known then.

I hope you serve some of that wine produced in outer long island.

from Nueva California

David...

I want to respond to MarkJ (and I will, later -- when I'm not terribly tired), but I think it's worth mentioning that MarkJ's candor about his belief that "not all races are created equal" is stunning. It may be un-PC or untrue, but at least I think it's clear that *all* his cards are out on the table. For that, sir, I salute you (without a trace of irony, I might add.)

"Is it really worthwhile filling our universities with foreign students, anyway? They take the knowledge they learned here back to China, etc and use it to compete with us. I know that some will say it fosters goodwill towards the US when these people go back home, but...so what? We're essentially opening up our vault of scientific and engineering advancement, hard won and costly to develop, and saying "hey foreigners who will be competing with us and in some cases actually seeking to destroy us -- come on over and help yourself!"

All of the foreign students I know want to stay in America, but most can't anything but a student visa and are forced to go back to their home countries.

Regarding the cost of Mexican immigrants: Based on fiscal estimates developed by the National Academy of Sciences for immigrants by age and education at arrival, the lifetime net fiscal drain (all taxes paid minus all services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a negative $ 55,200.

So in short, it makes a very static assertion without factoring any of the dynamic effects (including second order and beyond) -- e.g. how much those immigrants contribute to local economic activity and what impact that has on those taxpayers already there, and how much their subsequent generations contribute back by promoting economic growth (if any). It also doesn't provide any perspective, namely, how existing classes of American workers compare if similarly analyzed.

I would be hesitant to enter an argument bearing that statistic as a standard until more of those factors could be studied and taken into account.

Read the report online and let me know. Page 254 or so includes the following:

Combining the local, state, and federal estimates of the net fiscal burdens imposed by immigrant households on native residents in New Jersey and Califor- nia shows that the average native household bears an overall fiscal burden of $229 in New Jersey and $1,174 in California.

See the summary here.

As to why would Bush support his buddies in the Mexican elite, er, I mean as to why Bush would propose the Bush/Fox Amnesty, consider this article: LOS AMIGOS DE BUSH: The disturbing ties of some of George W. Bush’s Latino advisors:

Those who say that George W. Bush has scant knowledge of foreign affairs don’t understand his family’s relationship with Mexico.

If one event could be said to make that relationship visible, it had to be the state dinner given eleven years ago by President Bush for Mexico’s president, Carlos Salinas. It was an elegant yet boisterous gala, where the biggest movers and shakers in Texas and Mexico congregated and celebrated. This group was to become W’s Mexican legacy, a gift of ties and connections passed on from the father to his son.

What was not visible was that the group included two men with numerous links to drug cartel figures. These men helped George W. Bush win the Latino vote in Texas. Which raises a few questions: How did these guys get into the Bush circle? What else do they do for him? And, to rephrase a famous query, what did the presidential candidate know and when did he know it?

Also, regarding farm mechanization, check out the NYT article In Florida Groves, Cheap Labor Means Machines'

David wrote:

Mr. Riley's wish to import more Mexicans to pay for social security particulary mauls my sense of economic efficiency. Why not just pay more than we already do to Mexican teenage girls (most are married) to have more babies. Lets get them to have 6 instead of the average of 5. And think of the grandchildren. Every 6 girls having 6 children will really rake in the dough to social security.

Question: if the problem with Social Security is that on the aggregate each worker is being promised more in benefits than they are expected to pay in payroll taxes (which is what caused the unfunded liability of the program), wouldn’t increasing the number of people paying into the system to keep it afloat for the baby boom generation, also increase the number of people who will later expect to receive benefits and since they too on the aggregate are being promised more in benefits then they pay in FICA actually make the problem worse?

There may be good economic arguments for immigration or even increasing immigration levels but the idea that this will “fix” Social Security or even make it more solvent does not seem to be one of them.

Comments are Closed.