Asymmetrical Information

"I think that the relevant moral community extends outside America to the people who could be helped by immigration--just as I think the relevant moral community in the 19th century extended to the shores of my ancestral lands."

...And herein I think lies the crux of this debate. Because many who favor increased immigration ultimately espouse some variant on this proposition.

Contrariwise, at least in my experience, most who favor reduced immigration take a different tack, namely, that the relevant moral community (at least regarding immigration) stops at the borders of the United States. If they favor immigration at all, it's because they're convinced that immigration (or at least a certain kind of immigration) benefits the United States; they're not especially concerned about the welfare of potential immigrants.

So, to some extent, I think the two sides in this debate are talking past each other, because they start from different premises.

Watch Lost In Translation, many elementary Japanese things are mechanized due to a lack of cheap labor, in one restaurant they have to cook their own food. Now this may not happen in the US THAT QUICKLY because Japanese people are more intelligent, averaging IQ 106, but it would happen eventually. That chicken machine could be invented, if companies needed it enough. Already Cali companies are innovating in mechanized grape pickers because of uncertainty about the future cheap labor supply.

Maybe if you addressed specific arguments, (see: http://larison.org/2007/06/20/it-must-be-immigration-and-libertarianism-week/ for the best summary) rather than straw men, you'd find that your commenters get less angry.

This is starting to get sad.

First, the debate is about how many immigrants, from where and with what skills. It's not about immigration vs. the complete lack of immigration as JG tries to make it out to be.

There are billions of people who could be "helped by immigration". Most of those "being helped" are Mexicans or Latin Americans, when there are in fact billions of people who are even poorer. Oddly, concern for them appears to be a bit lacking.

And, even grade schoolers can realize that we can't invite everyone, so that's why we have limits.

And, of course, it's a smear to say that everyone who realizes the problems inherent in massive immigration from Mexico is a racist. As I've pointed out a few times, JG just doesn't have the knowledge of this issue that qualifies her to be able to assess the risk.

As for cheap produce, we're talking literally pennies: without illegal labor lettuce might go up a few cents. If it became too expensive we'd import it or we'd invent machines, and the latter would be even better for our economy. It's certainly interesting to see the "free" trade types supporting doing things the 19th century way.

And, defending illegal immigration is tantamount to defending political corruption: without the latter, the former wouldn't be an issue.

We elect U.S. Representatives to represent our interests as residents of a district, U.S. Senators to represent our interest as citizens of a state, and the President to represent our interests as citizens of the United States. We didn't elect anyone to represent the interests of the "extra-American moral community" which we, by definition, aren't members of. So yes, that's probably what about 50% of the voters are primarily angry about.

The example above of cooking your own food in Japan is incredibly wrong. That's the way the cuisine was made to be eaten, not because of a lack of cheap labor. The Chinese have it, too -- it's quite good and a nice way to spend time with your family.

However, the example does stand: Japan has automated many, many jobs that would otherwise be performed by inexpensive human labor. But let's not forget that Japan is far more insular than the US could ever be. Additionally, because of the Japanese natural tendency towards introversion, interaction with robots may be preferred to interaction with humans.

not morally salient.

Help!!! I think I'm in love with an English major (general?).

Remember what your supermarket looked like in the 1970's? Without immigrants in food production and processing, you can welcome those days back again

Ah, the false choice. In Megan's world, you must either:

(1) Go back to the dark old days of Richard Nixon in a white disco suit, saying "NO MORE GAS!" whilst watching at "Chico and the Man" on black-and-white TV set, or

(2) Let lotsa illegal immigrants into our country so Megan can purchase whatever kind of brie strikes her fancy at the moment. Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws!

This getting pathetic.

You have the support of this latte-sipping, Manu Chao listening future owner of a Mini-Cooper who has assimilated quite marvelously, thank you, to Northeastern American culture, albeit by spending several years working on a PhD in the Midwest while yearning to move East. I can't help but to point out a minor spelling error in your post (it's a pet peeve of mine): it is Guatemala, not Guatamala. ;-) Otherwise, a very good post, as have been all the recent ones. And allow me to congratulate you for spending so much time addressing your commenters in a thoughtful and reassuring way. It is regrettable that they have felt wounded by what you have said, and I trust that they are having a hard time disassociating your rhetoric from what they perceive as unfair accusations of racism by their political foes.

I thought economists believed the free market establishes the wage of a job. There is no such thing as "jobs Americans won't do." The problem is that employer's want to make as much profit as possible, even if it means hiring illegals. I don't care who goes out of business because they can't hire illegals. I'm sick to death of scare tactics revolving around the cost of salads. Any industry that is built on illegal labor deserves to go out of business. I think most business's that use illegal labor will adapt if forced to actually pay at least minimum wage. And I really don't care if they can't.

I don't care about culture or race. The border needs to be militarized and immigration stopped until there are no "jobs Americans won't do." Because such a job doesn't exist. It's a matter of paying an unacceptable wage for truly nasty work. The current immigration plan will fix nothing. Illegals currently working in construction or agriculture will move to conveinance store type jobs and those industries will need more illegals to do the jobs that Zvisa holders just won't do.

The idea of open borders is ridiculous. I think the right has overplayed the terror card, but it is still a real danger.

Jane, this is not intended as a snarky comment; I am genuinely interested in trying to figure this out:

As far as I can tell, you are American -- or, at least, American-educated (as you noted in an earlier post, you attended an Ivy League university). Why, then, do you use British spellings (some examples from recent posts: theorising, commercialising, programme, neighbourhood, legalising, organisers)?

Jane Galt wrote: " ... one has to weigh the many benefits of immigration. ..."

Jane, That's the problem. You are looking exclusively at the SHORT-TERM benefits, and you are totally ignoring the possibility of long-term costs. I like cheap strawberries and pre-dressed chickens too, but what I really, really care about is the kind of country that my (yet unborn) grandchildren are going to inherit 50 or 60 years from now. I'll gut my own chickens if I have to.

You obviously think that the long-term costs are small, and maybe you're right. But that is not an obvious conclusion, and you need to prove it by something more substantial than simplistic, hand-waving analogies to the immigration situation that existed a hundred years ago when the country was very different than it is today.

And speaking of moral issues:
It would also be nice if you could prove that Mexico's long-term interest is really being served by allowing their ruling kleptocracy to continue sweeping all of its problems under the rug -- or across the Rio Bravo, as the case may be. Wouldn't it be better for them in the long run to bite the bullet and create the kind of society that attracts people instead of repelling them?

Just to reiterate a point, are we really being compassionate if we only want low-skilled workers into this country so we can trap them into low-paying jobs? If the uppity Mexican demands to be paid like a Gringo, then deport him? This is where your argument is leading, and I don't like the results. You're basically arguing for a class of impoverished workers to keep your food cheap.

IMO, more expensive food may be what the U.S. needs, what with all of us fat folks.

Bob

Jane has already answered your question.

She works for a British magazine, and the habits have stuck.

That doesn't mean that I don't think their concerns are important; I just think that having benefitted from previous rounds of immigration by, you know, existing, in the richest country in the world, we kind of have an obligation to pay that forward.

I think you would find that most people who are fighting you on this one would have no disagreement with this statement at face value. I certainly don't, and if you went so far as to say that the United States is capable of assimilating large numbers of Mexican immigrants, I would still have no argument.

Unfortunately, you went a good deal farther than that, by apparently suggesting that (a) whether people get here legally or illegally is an inconsequential detail; (b) the will of the majority in this republic doesn't matter, since you happen to disagree with these laws in particular; (c) anyone who disagrees with your moral assessments on the matter surely has some sort of motive other than rational, factual objections; (d) illegal labor costs face value; and (e)

If (a) is indeed your position, then we have a substantial and possibly irreconcilable disagreement over what rule-of-law should mean in practice. Best of luck in getting your version enforced.

If (b) really is your position, then let's see how consistent you are if we apply it to laws that you happen to like.

If you can't see how (c) is coming out in your posts, then you ought to step back from this one for a while and come back to it when you can actually read the words themselves, and not the layers of context that your mind is assigning to your writing. We don't have that context -- just the words.

Finally, (d) is just absurd. Okay, so an illegal works to build a house, and the contractor saves money by paying him cash under the table. Does that person then pose a non-zero cost via second-order effects in road use, emergency room healthcare access, social services, law enforcement, etc.? Some of it may be recovered in sales taxes when the illegal shops at Wal-Mart, sure. But all of it? And what would the net cost have been by comparison if the contractor employed a citizen -- whether a legal first-gen immigrant or anyone else -- and paid the relevant taxes?

Who has, or has not, allegedly benefited from illegal labor is a red herring at best. If our country is really at the point where it cannot get these things done without using the services of a grey market in second-class guest workers, then something has gone horribly awry.

Bob, Jane writes for the Economist (a British magazine) and in one of her earlier posts said she the just stuck with the British spelling rather than having to switch back and forth.

john w, you said: "I like cheap strawberries and pre-dressed chickens too, but what I really, really care about is the kind of country that my (yet unborn) grandchildren are going to inherit 50 or 60 years from now."

what kind of country will they inherit if the immigrants keep coming?

for that matter, what kind of country will they inherent if most immigration stops?

I grant that they'd probably be different, though *how* different is up for debate, especially if Megan's right, and most immigrants, spanish speaking ones included, are assimilating.

but why is the future country with lots of immigrants necessarily worse? what are the long term harms you foresee?

As a part of this coastal elite, I can vouch for the fact that we aren't mad at you for being a part of the coastal elite.

We're mad because we had to drag you, kicking and screaming, to address our arguments. Your first instinct was to imply that we are a bunch of racists and, because of that, our arguments were beneath you.

And quite frankly, given the quality of discourse we're used to around here, we had expected better from you than that.

We're not so much mad at you as we are disillusioned with and disappointed in you.

Valuethinker 'splains it all: "Jane has already answered your question. She works for a British magazine, and the habits have stuck."

Sorry, missed that.

Thanks, Value.

Another day.

Another strawman.

Another yawn.

The Economist is the most elitist magazine on the planet, a magazine for the global overclass. They actually have a magazine specifically for the global overclass called 'Intelligent Life', a ridiculous status fueled monstrosity. They're not too intelligent however (like most journalists, they think they can opine at length on subjects of which they know nothing) and frequently say stupid things about finance and especially science - their science articles are atrocious. Megan likes them because they're upper class, snobby British twits who believe nations shouldn't exist.

Hmmm, Jane, while it may be presumptuous, perhaps I am the one who hit the nerve with 'fact's on the ground' argument... Sometimes it's hard not to have the argument go strident when we are writing in this fashion, trying to convince, when the two sides SEEM far apart. [I wrote an email to you on that very Q? over the weekend...] So, the reason I am trying to explain my explanation is precisely because I have seen some really amzing opinons withing these 3 or 4 threads, so it is worth saying that for my part it's not a personal affront, nor do I take replies that way. Also? it's only fair to our hostess to remember what spirited discussion is all about. So, all that considered...

What I was trying to get across buy suggesting that the facts on the ground in the southwestern US are different than what you see by you, Is the point about THIS immigration IS different than before. I know you've probably already made up your mind on this Jane, it sounds like it. I dunno if this will sway you, but I think the discussion is worth it.

1}This wave of immigrants has a very large illegal component. Jane mentioned in another thread that here Irish ancestors had a large illegal component too, but I may have misread. At any rate, I've never heard that. The rules were very different in the mid-1800's but I think those waves followed them, especially since they were coming aboard ship. So, in terms of Latino immigration in the last 40 years, what is the total number if they throwing out a number like 12million who have immigrated illegally since the last amnesty in 1986.

I would say such a large number that is off the books and illegal, is different from any previous immigration wave, why wouldn't it be? The things they do, worry about, etc, would ve very different it seems.

2]This immigrant wave is primarilly LAND based and not ship [or air] based. I don't have studies in hand, but I would believe that there is a different mind set between groups that have to undertake a long perilous voyage on a ship, and those that walk, or drive. The reverse movement back to the old country is particularly easy when you could thumb a ride there, while taking a ship or airplane back across an ocean, might be an impossibility because of the money. I'd think that would change the mindset of the immigree.

3]The illegal group of immigrants from the south, cross in to the US in places that were once part of Mexico, and where their primary language is used equally as well as English. Since these parts of the US are historically spanish integrated, there is a cultural onramp for transition, that is more difficult to find elswhere. Importantly because of that onramp an illegal immigrant can easily blend in. [as an aside the ability of second gens to speak spanish and english both, seems to be re-inforced in border states, where it might not be farther away in the US]. So for all of that this immigration group, both the legal, and the illegal have a significant head start in getting settled in to this country.

For reasons like that [and more that I could no doubt find], I think it is VERY important to look at this wave of immigration very much on it's own, because the dynamic is SO different. There is a distributed large group of people in this country who have come here for many reasons, but outside our, or indeed any similar law in the world, and we need to figure something out that will work for everyone, and most especially work for the FUTURE.

Or we'll be right back here in 20 years arguing the same topic... and frankly M, I hope to be arguing about space flights and decent colleges, and weather global warming was a blip by then...

er, that's just me though, D...

"I like cheap strawberries and pre-dressed chickens too, but what I really, really care about is the kind of country that my (yet unborn) grandchildren are going to inherit 50 or 60 years from now."

Spend more time on global warming, less on immigration, would be my advice.

But still, re: "simplistic, hand-waving analogies to the immigration situation that existed a hundred years ago when the country was very different than it is today. -

look, things are always different. (Iraq is not a country in SE Asia). But it's fairly hard, given some historical knowledge, not to have the similarities between each wave of immigration - and the response by folks already here - jump out at you, while the differences, though real, end up fading into the background. The most reasonable point is that proximity, size, and cultural/linguistic uniformity might slow down assimilation - but in the real world, there doesn't really seem to be supporting evidence for that - as far as one can see, statistically and observationally, Mexican immigrants are acting pretty much like earlier groups - certainly there's no evidence for some sort of unprecedented change.

And then, of course, we have the people ranting about reconquista and MECha, which only supports the argument that there's a significant strand there that, if not necessarily racist per se, clearly comes from the same mold of earlier generations of hysterically paranoid nativists. Megan's ancestors were faced with people who feared the Catholic menace, and that they were going to help the Pope take over. My ancestors had folks ranting about how, as a generalized part of the Southern/Eastern European wave of immigration, we were going to outbreed the real 'native' Americans and basically wreck everything, with some classic antisemitism in top. Fifty, sixty years from now some guy named Juan Lopez will be screaming about how the Africans are trying to take over, or whatever. Honestly, I don't know why we ever bothered to leave the ocean - it's just the same old crap, every time.

(Now, that this isn't some unique and dangerous phenomena doesn't mean that it doesn't require real solutions to real problems - large-scale immigration is always rough (as it was for the Irish, and the turn of the century folks, and . . .). But real solutions tend to require a realistic viewpoint, too.

Hey Anony-mouse,

Where did (E) go?

Well stated comment, sir. I was expecting E to be your closer.

Jane,

I ain't mad. I disagree with you. Not the first time and probably won't be the last. I want a writer who will challenge me and make me prove my position or disprove it and go find a better one. I do think some of them are mad, but most of the old timers like me know what we are getting into when we type in the URL.

So, when you post something we don't like, we just blame it on your latte sipping, MiniCooper driving, lettuce munching, Liberal dating, Ivy League attending, out-of-touch with the "real America", Andrew Sullivan filling in for, Upper East Side progressive ways.

Other than that, we love you. Really.

Er...well, you did spell 'Cincinnati' wrong. I don't know what anyone else thought, but boy did that chap my ass.

" I would believe that there is a different mind set between groups that have to undertake a long perilous voyage on a ship, and those that walk, or drive. "

In this case, we probably want to encourage illegal immigration from Mexico, if we're going for long perilous voyages . . .

And while there is the money issue, lets face it - it's getting easier and easier for people to come from anywhere and go anywhere, very quickly and relatively cheaply. All future waves of immigrants will have access to this - we've best learn to deal with it.

And your point 3 - in other words, they have a significant advantage in assimilating? : )

But I definitely agree with "we need to figure something out that will work for everyone, and most especially work for the FUTURE." Yes yes yes.

She’s the very model of a blogger Major-General. She’s informators vegetable, anymouse, and mineral. She knows the editors Economist and projects historical, from china Bolshevik to plans medical, in order categorical. She’s very well acquainted with matters mathematical; she understands equations, both the market signal and the moral enigmatical.

Hello?

The debate is about -- or supposed to be about --ILLEGAL immigration, NOT immigration per se.

Why do those who attack so-called "opponents of immigration" not understand that, or appreciate the difference? And Jane, frankly, from the gist of your post, you are making that same mistake. As for those of us opposed to massive illegal immigration -- which is what is going on -- our anger is really directed towards our own governmental institutions who are failing to do anything substantive about this problem.

Where did (E) go?

There is no spoon. I mean, "(e)."

(Meaning, I had an idea for making five points of response but decided four was enough...and then clicked 'post' with improper editing because I was headed out the door.)

"All future waves of immigrants will have access to this - " -Dan S

This is true, but if you fly here from a foreign country you HAVE to go through customs, in other words sneaking and doing it illegally is out, or at the very least very, very expensive.

"And your point 3 - in other words, they have a significant advantage in assimilating? : )" Dan S.

Mmmm, maybe. The point I was shooting for, is that there is an advantage in coming in illegally, because there is an immediate blend of people who speak your language, and it is a bit easier to find some help with your cause. There is also LESS reason to assimilate because your entry area doesn't require it. Eventually you may move on, and then assimilation starts being needed, IF you are actually going to stay, rather than commute. In my neighborhood people often leave in the early winter, and then come back in the spring. When I ask where they are, I am told Mexico... I doubt if they care enough not to be truthful...

"... It's all the real Americans, the ones living form paycheck to paycheck, who get screwed ..."

No Jane, unskilled workers don't benefit from a decrease in wage levels for unskilled workers even if they do get some goods and services a bit cheaper. This should be obvious and that you would offer this argument is just a sign that you are not thinking clearly on this subject.

I would say such a large number that is off the books and illegal, is different from any previous immigration wave, why wouldn't it be? The things they do, worry about, etc, would ve very different it seems.

This would be an excellent argument for making more (far more) immigrants legal. They will assimilate faster without having to worry about fears of getting caught.

Since these parts of the US are historically spanish integrated, there is a cultural onramp for transition, that is more difficult to find elswhere. Importantly because of that onramp an illegal immigrant can easily blend in.

Actually, this is exactly why most major cities have a Chinatown and other ethnic neighborhoods. New immigrants have always clustered into areas of "high acceptance" in order to make the transition easier. This seems natural and intelligent to me; look for a support system in a new country during assimilation.

This immigrant wave is primarilly LAND based and not ship [or air] based. I don't have studies in hand, but I would believe that there is a different mind set between groups that have to undertake a long perilous voyage on a ship, and those that walk, or drive.

This is basically the idea of cognitive dissonance - if the effort and the reward don't match, people will overvalue the reward in order to justify the effort. (E.g. fraternities that haze have more loyal members).

But really, the idea of pulling up roots moving your family hundreds of miles away can be daunting, especially if it involves splitting your family up. I think the level of effort is high enough, as is, to make people want the effort to pay off.

Here's the thing, though: even if you are right, that the ease of "commuting" makes it less likely for a new immigrant to assimilate, the likely outcome is that they will go back. It is nearly impossible to stay, unassimilated, for more than one generation -- kids will always want the social advantages of being assimilated.

So, what would be the disaster?

I can understand when people make economic arguments, no matter how unsupported those arguments are. But the argument that they won't assimilate is just a difficult one to really understand.

Now... are things different in the Southwest? Sure, I'd buy that. But there is anyone thinking that "elite east-coast liberals" have too much influence, and thus wanting to hand it over to 4 states: AZ, NM, TX, and CA (esp. considering that AZ and NM are not terribly populous, and at least half of CA is as removed from the problem as we are).

I mean, with ease of transit, what's the problem? ;-)
[note: meant in a friendly, kidding spirit]

Dan S. opines: And then, of course, we have the people ranting about reconquista and MECha, which only supports the argument that there's a significant strand there that, if not necessarily racist per se, clearly comes from the same mold of earlier generations of hysterically paranoid nativists.

To the leftist mind, some forms of racism are not racism, and complaining about non-racism is racism in itself.

Say, Dan S., could you use the space below to list the major MexicanAmerican political leaders who do not have some form of extremist link, either through uttering reconquista sentiments, being former members (or leaders) of MEChA, having links to extremists like ArmandoNavarro or NativoLopez, and the like? The only one I can think of is RobertVasquez, and he's in Idaho. Plus, to help you out, I'll take the Sanchez sisters off the list, since they're mainly just racial demagogues AFAIK.

Start the list here, but please do your research first to avoid me having to make you look bad:

Adrian Reilly: What does it mean to say "the debate is about illegal immigration"? We're arguing that we should make more immigration legal. Some of us argue that virtually no immigration should be legal. And some of us argue that we should cap immigration, but at a much higher cap than we have now. But either way, whatever immigration we think should be illegal, we think should be illegal and should stop. We disagree over whether it should be illegal.

I'm having trouble articulating this, I guess, because your phrasing makes it sound like some immigration is inherently illegal, and some immigration is inherently legal, and we should stop the former and allow the latter. But since the debate is over which immigration should be legal, saying "this immigration is illegal, and therefore bad" isn't useful—my position is precisely that we should make it legal.

"This would be an excellent argument for making more (far more) immigrants legal. They will assimilate faster without having to worry about fears of getting caught." -Brad L.

aye, agreed, but that's the rub. How do you do that for those who are here already? Are you rewarding them for doing something that you have said no to? How do future groups like them feel if you say OK, we'll let in 200,000 per year, if they are 200,001? Will they not say, 'well, I'll just cross outside Nogales, and no-one will know...'

"Actually, this is exactly why most major cities have a Chinatown and other ethnic neighborhoods." -Brad L

Well, yes, except this neighborhood is 2000 miles long and 400 or more miles wide. I think that changes the dynamic from "Chinatown" Which is inside a city, and occupies a specific place...

"the idea of pulling up roots moving your family hundreds of miles away can be daunting." Brad L

Initially, they do not move in family groups. Mostly young men come first and send money back to the extended family. If they intend to stay, that person is a beachead, and then more family follows as they can afford to make it happen. If they are not intending or are undecided about staying in the US, then they commute... What's important about those ideas, is how much time this may play over. I know a guy in Chicago who came illegally, and became a legal through the 86 amnesty. He has since become a citizen. He married his girlfriend who was illegal, and got her a greencard, and she became a citizen too... That's been many years ago, and the extended family is here, but except for his children [who are obviously citizens being born here, and with grandchildren] and her parents, everyone else commutes. One cousin that I knew from those days told me he works a year, and then ranches for 3 or 4 in Mexico, because it's too expensive here.

"But there is anyone thinking that "elite east-coast liberals" have too much influence, and thus wanting to hand it over to 4 states:"

Naw, my point was that some understanding has to be for everywhere, so that a conclusion can be made... It is quite probable that being in the southwest actually has us TOO close to see everything, so to get some balance opinions from far away are needed. That's what this democracy dance is all about, IMHO...

I've always kind of enjoyed the perspective of the righteous leftist who can see no difference between the Democrat and Republican parties. Wow to be so far out that the geometry of your position collpses any difference. I've been having that perspective lately in reference to the immigration debate; it seems much about food stamps and disability social welfare burden etc. on the part of 'rock ribbed conservatives' for whom in my view their U.S. citizenship seems importantly like a union card. What did the New Deal bring? I suppose though restrictive immigration really began in the early Republican twenties.

So how did we ever have the unrestricted immigration that is basis of 'Jane's' historical reflection. Actually as non-English immigration began to pick up in the twenties of the nineteenth century, the Whigs, the party of the gentry that won the Revolutionary War, became in part opposed to it. This oppostion led to Democrat support by the Italians and Irish already here. The Know Nothing party, opposing immigration, grew from the Whigs and the Whig party collapsed as the Democrats won. Evenutally the core of the Whigs re-emerged with new allies as the Republican party. This was a Republican party with the economic perspective but not the anti-immigrant stance of Whigs and it ruled the nineteenth century. This is all well covered along with how the Democrats got too aligned with the South in Storm Over Texas which I reviewed and linked.

People - the market will sort itself out. It always does. Illegal or not. The market is an entity bigger than any subculture.

The thing I find troubling is that very few seem to comment on what impact illegal immigration has on the immigrants themselves.

The "illegal" part forces people into a sub-culture where there is scant need to learn the American language. This only serves to make it so the one guy who is legal - can basically keep his illegal crew in servitude. He makes decent money while paying his workers next to nothing. Since they can't speak the language- it makes it so they can't work without the one fluent English speaker. Its pretty sad really. I see it all the time.

If these people were forced to legally enter the country, they would have the same access to resources and ultimately live better lives. I don't understand why people don't care at all about that.

Megan:

I am currently living 400 yards from the Mexican border and I often work down in Juarez, legally, of course. I think I know what I'm talking about.

I want to address your, frankly, hilariously ignorant statements about the illegal "paying taxes". With all due respect (and I have often enjoyed your writings over the years), that statement is an unbelievable crock.

The illegal immigrants pay no taxes, since their wages are too low. In fact, with legalization, they will be receiving government checks, such as the EITC, food stamps and huge benefits.

In this country, poor and the lowest middle class families do not pay taxes in this country; they get cash on the barrelhead.

I wonder how someone who is for ending farm subsidies - which I agree with - finds it OK to fork over huge benefits, cash and other taxpayer goodies to illegal immigrants, provide legal amnesty for felony absconders, and greatly expand the government at the expense of law-abiding taxpayers. What kind of a Libertarian could ever agree with that scenario?

Megan, please read the bill before you commence more arm-waving. It is a fraud and an full frontal assault on small government and the rule of law.

Yeah, I just love "facts on the ground guy". I live 70 miles north of the Mexican border in South Orange County. In my condo complex, I am one of the token white guys. There's a largish (for the complex) Mexican family on the street who speak Spanish and play Mexican music all afternoon. Guess what? It doesn't bug me. "Facts on the ground guy" is a moron.

Jane, there are a lot of people here saying they lost respect for you, think you've sold out, used to like you, etc. I'm calling bullshit. Your stand on immigration is no surprise to anyone who has read your blog since the beginning (or for more than a couple weeks). Watch you server logs, and when you see that these posts don't hurt, yell "scoreboard bitches" from the top of your lungs.

Jadagul - But since the debate is over which immigration should be legal, saying "this immigration is illegal, and therefore bad" isn't useful

That would only be true if all parties were opposed to amnesty for those who violated existing laws.

'The illegal immigrants pay no taxes, since their wages are too low.'

Actually they do pay taxes, there are lots of them; sales taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, payroll taxes.

Why is it that the folks who do the "some of my best friend are Mexicans" shtick don't see how pathetically condescending that is?

We're not talking about Mexicans in this debate, we're discussing illegal immigration, guero.

'The illegal immigrants pay no taxes, since their wages are too low.'

and Patrick (O) Sullivan Writes:
"Actually they do pay taxes, there are lots of them; sales taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, payroll taxes."

Here's the deal, from one who was involved in the restaurant trade and talked to many illegals who work in this job category. It is much cheaper for the owner of the restaurant to pay the illegals under the table with cash...this means there ARE NO PAYROLL TAXES. Of course, when you spend your money, there is a certain amount of tax you can't avoid, illegal or citizen (others mentioned above).

The single guy beachhead scenario is pretty accurate for many who want to truly remain in Mexcio. There is a whole informal infrastructure (although Fox institutionalized part of it) that is used by the Mexicans to get from their home to the Norte Americanos border (and back). It is almost costless, with one gentleman (who was a cook) saying he went back 'home' at least once a year, usually twice, for about 30-45 days total. The rest of the time he worked up here and sent home over 60% of his pay. He lived with four other (should I use 'guest worker' here?) guys and rented a house that was pretty decrepit. However, he did say it was a little better than the house he grew up in back in Chiapas.

It's good to make nice with all here, because when the invective flows and the recriminations take hold, you can't reasonably expect anyone to be truly civil, and then you lose your audience. They're processing how to figuratively string you up in the most eloquent (or brutal) words possible.

There's room for a statuesque, blimey-blokin' scribbler, who can turn a phrase with exquisite accuracy, as her archives show. Dunno about the slip into generalities, other than to show that even the best can have a topic that causes the juices to flow, flushing out the reason-seeds that provide us with our best palaver.

Be fruitful and multiply, or the dreaded illegals will overrun us!!! (I'm kidding here, just in case anyone was taking it a little too serious).

Farm out...

How do you do that for those who are here already? Are you rewarding them for doing something that you have said no to? How do future groups like them feel if you say OK, we'll let in 200,000 per year, if they are 200,001? Will they not say, 'well, I'll just cross outside Nogales, and no-one will know...'

I think we covered this in an earlier thread, so I'll try not to get too verbose here (for once).

If you reward illegality without changing anything, you are correct, this sets a terrible precedent for any hopes of voluntary compliance.

But if you make legal entry possible and reachable to a large number, while increasing the penalty on illegal entrants, that 200,001st guy is going to have to decide between a realistic possibility of legal entry, and an illegal one with stern penalties. (This assumes both a large enough inflow that a potential immigrant can see the light at the end of the tunnel, and enough enforcement to gain credibility).

Well, yes, except this neighborhood is 2000 miles long and 400 or more miles wide. I think that changes the dynamic from "Chinatown" Which is inside a city, and occupies a specific place...

I'm confused... wasn't the initial point that the spanish-speaking population was so dense that no assimilation is required? Your 800,000 sq mi 'neighborhood' is roughly 5 times the size of CA, which would tend to diffuse the effect.

Personally, either way, I'm not sure how worrisome this really is. Dense populations? We've handled that. Diffuse populations? Even easier.

Mostly young men come first and send money back to the extended family. If they intend to stay, that person is a beachead...

Ok, but my question still is: and what is the harm? After all, if they stay, and gain legal access for family, they are assimilating. If they go back, they aren't. There is a whole 'but they won't assimilate' (meaning, as a community) argument going on here, but what is the damage here? I mean, if a guy comes here one of every four years, what is the bad thing that is happening? And if they stay and have kids, they'll assimilate.

as an aside the ability of second gens to speak spanish and english both, seems to be re-inforced in border states, where it might not be farther away in the US

Is this a bad thing? Why? (I am asking sincerely).

Naw, my point was that some understanding has to be for everywhere, so that a conclusion can be made...

Fair point, and the experience of those four states of course counts and should be weighed.

I do, though, think that a lot of the people fretting over the Big Changes of Immigration are worried about their town/city, not near-border AZ, and that these fears are largely unfounded.

For the SW, I suspect that if the immigration process were more open and legal, you'd actually see less of the population stick around the border-crossing stations (areas? entry points? I don't know what to call them.) If you have to sneak in, you create bottlenecks of movement, and inertia/lack of resources is likely to keep people in a certain spot.

If, instead, people flew and drove over legally, some number would choose a different place to go and live, and I think it would be a large number.

You obviously think that the long-term costs are small, and maybe you're right. But that is not an obvious conclusion, and you need to prove it by something more substantial than simplistic, hand-waving analogies to the immigration situation that existed a hundred years ago when the country was very different than it is today.

I think the burden is on the restrictionists to support slashing immigration, and not on the people who want America to continue its traditional policy of generous immigration levels. For better or worse, America is the country she is because of immigration. The much vaunted time-out last about thirty-five years, or about 20% of the country's existence to the time (about 10% if you date America's founding back to 1607).

If you count illegals, the Untied States experiences a net immigration level of .5% annually. This is extremely modest by historical standards. Again, radically slashing this number departs from precedent, and in my view the case for doing so needs to overcome the case for the status quo.

Why is it so difficult for the supporters of this proposed legislation to understand that, for the majority of its opponents, it is not amnesty of the 12-20 million already here (our economy is doing just fine) that concerns us, it is the next 12-20 million that this bill refuses to regulate.

Let us open the immigration floodgates - but let us, at a minimum, know who we are letting in.

"Watch Lost In Translation, many elementary Japanese things are mechanized due to a lack of cheap labor, in one restaurant they have to cook their own food."

Loved the movie. It was my first taste of Scarlett, and an overdose of Billy M.

However, in Japan, its a cool thing to cook your own food. There are small, out of the way eateries that you have to find, that allow you to do that. Ideally, there is an adoring woman who will cook the shrimp/veggies/pork over the grill, and then feed him with chopsticks...ok, the PC version is they cook for each other, but...

It's a slow dance between two people who greatly respect each other, with each trying to outdo the other (in a friendly, loving non-controversial way) in showing how they can do a wonderful thing for each other, but in a very elegant manner.

Ok...the thread... There are machines that can pick the grapes, harvest the nuts, not too swift with tomatoes and the thinner skinned fruits, but they're getting there. Soon, it's really going to be a matter of where do ya wanna live, that is going to drive where we live and call home, not some artificial line on a map that does nothing but bring hate roiling up from the depths.

Of course, there will be little things that will have to be shaken out first, like freedoms such as speech, protection, etc. And anytime a human has a high dose of the ability to control their life, it is much more enjoyable.

At this point, there is only little Uruguay that allows anything like this kind of freedom, and the super rich are trying to keep it quiet from us 'average' types. Oh, did I say that!!!??

Why is it so difficult for the supporters of this proposed legislation to understand that, for the majority of its opponents, it is not amnesty of the 12-20 million already here (our economy is doing just fine) that concerns us, it is the next 12-20 million that this bill refuses to regulate.

Let us open the immigration floodgates - but let us, at a minimum, know who we are letting in.

Why is it so difficult for the supporters of this proposed legislation to understand that, for the majority of its opponents, it is not amnesty of the 12-20 million already here (our economy is doing just fine) that concerns us, it is the next 12-20 million that this bill refuses to regulate.

Let us open the immigration floodgates - but let us, at a minimum, know who we are letting in.

"I think that the relevant moral community extends outside America to the people who could be helped by immigration"

Since this works out to 99% of the world's population, taking anyone who would benefit from coming to America as the relevant moral community for this issue is tantamount to the hard-core open borders position. But I have another angle on this statement. If we are going to take the needs of Mexico's poor as decisive, the question we have to ask is not "would they gain if they came over the border?" The question is, rather, what policy would actually be best for them -- what action, within the power of the US government to perform, would most relieve Mexico's poor in their present straits? It is clear to me that the true good of these people would be best served if the USA were to annex Mexico, break up its corrupt government, and reform its culture, imparting respect for the rule of law. Our hard-won experience doing the same favor for Iraq's citizens will be of great help in this new project.

In fact, I'll throw the question open to anyone who thinks massive immigration from Mexico is on balance a good thing. Is there any objection to the US doing to Mexico what we did to Iraq, which does not place the interests of Americans above those of Mexicans?

Megan,

Why are the wages paid to illegal immigrants lower than those paid to Americans of similar skill levels? Is all the difference attributable to prejudice and poverty at home?

Or is perhaps some of that difference due to the practical second-class status of illegal immigrants, a status which puts them at a severe disadvantage when negotiating a wage?

Should we really get excited about lower wages being paid to people who are often not being taxed? Who are subject to their employers' whims and mistreatments because they cannot risk talking to the police?

We can argue that private interests can take the place of the current government role in many of those areas, as libertarians who prefer to reduce government control over the labor market, but we have to live in the real world. And in the real world, illegal immigrant labor is cheaper because it violates the law.

Often with very negative consequences for those involved.

Is that really something to be proud of?

bains, you want tight borders then amnesty. I want amnesty first and then we can talk about the tight borders. That's where our disagreement kick in :).

Ridiculous. Amnesty happens and it's done. Border security requires an ongoing commitment. One obviously has to come first or else the other one is illusory.

Tight borders no, responsible barriers yes. Zhong, my second cousin (removed) just recently became naturalized - the process she went through is mind-bending. My grandmother, her great grandmother were American sisters - with lineage dating back before 1776. Not that that gives "Sandy" any exclusive rights. Yet it speaks to the real proirities of those wishing to grant blanket amnesty for those whose good fortunes allow them to be already 'in-country...'

but then I suspect I'm preaching to the choir.

We live in a large Welfare State. That's the problem that Milton Friedman saw in open borders, and that assessment still holds true in this debate.

If the illegals are legalized, then the tax bill and social damage will be enormous. That's the status quo - "no legalization" works great.

Deport some, arrest the absconders, but under no circumstance allow these illegals to become legalized unless they go through the legal immigration channels that everyone else has to.

We get their labor, they get wages, and it works out fine. Some will get deported, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

It may seem a bit heartless, but it is actually the most practical and fair way to deal with this issue.

The spectacle of otherwise intelligent people commencing Liberal crying and hand-wringing, "sharing" pathetically condescending "personal" stories of charming minority members they once met at an Arby's, lobbing ad hominem attacks on opponents as racists or Nazis or child molesters or who-knows-what, while at the same time exhibiting an overarching willful ignorance of the particulars of this bill is simply not an enobling sight to see.

If the illegals are legalized, then the tax bill and social damage will be enormous. That's the status quo - "no legalization" works great.

If the illegals are legalized, they'll be more inclined to pay their way via the taxes you insist they don't pay now.

Deport some, arrest the absconders, but under no circumstance allow these illegals to become legalized unless they go through the legal immigration channels that everyone else has to.

Unless the immigrant has a legal relative or a very special talent worth sponsorship, there is no legal channel to get in to.

We get their labor, they get wages, and it works out fine. Some will get deported, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

It may seem a bit heartless, but it is actually the most practical and fair way to deal with this issue.

Why not just be satisfied with the status quo, as that is what you describe?

So many libertarians have defined down the concept of assimilation to the point where merely acquiring English seems to be grounds for calling an immigrant or his or her descendants assimilated. By that standard, there are many people who've never set foot in America who are well assimilated Americans. However, if you look at the educational and economic norms and crime and illegitimacy rates for Mexican-Americans in any generation, you'll find that they haven't assimilated at all. Most libertarians seem intent on aggressively ignoring IQ disparities between races at all costs, even at the cost of their country's future.

If the illegals are legalized, they'll be more inclined to pay their way via the taxes you insist they don't pay now.

They'll also be more inclined to apply for the benefits they can obtain. The 1986 amnesty also led to a baby boom among Hispanics, which means more taxpayer money being spent on education (successful or otherwise) of their children. Hispanics are largely uneducated and thus don't pay much in taxes in any event. Better educated, non-Hispanic taxpayers wind up footing the bill.

We get their labor, they get wages, and it works out fine. Some will get deported, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Except that I don't get their labor. Rather, the employer of an illegal alien gets their labor. The employer of the illegal alien minimizes their costs by having the taxpayers foot the bill for the illegal alien's medical expenses, their children's educational expenses, any criminal justice system expenses they accrue, etc. Illegal immigration is a form of corporate welfare.

> Remember what your supermarket looked like in the 1970's?

Actually, I do, and I'm pretty sure that our hostess doesn't.

The big difference between then and how is that there are more imported foods and heavily processed foods. Neither of them depends on low-wage jobs in the US.

Jane Galt:

"... I think that the relevant moral community extends outside America to the people who could be helped by immigration ..."

No, the leaders of a nation are morallly obligated to do what is best for the country's citizens just as the managers of a corporation are morally obligated to do what is best for the shareholders. Gifts of citizenship to your pals, like gifts of stock to your pals, are a violation of your duties.

That chicken machine could be invented, if companies needed it enough. Already Cali companies are innovating in mechanized grape pickers because of uncertainty about the future cheap labor supply.

Thanks for bringing that up, the reduction of cheap labor means that higher value jobs can be created -- in this case R&D into making robots. And those robots required skilled (or semi-skilled) laborers to manufacturer, so everyone benefits.

No Jane, unskilled workers don't benefit from a decrease in wage levels for unskilled workers even if they do get some goods and services a bit cheaper. This should be obvious and that you would offer this argument is just a sign that you are not thinking clearly on this subject.

Or is a latte drinking elite from the east coast. I only wish I was half kidding on that :)

Listening in on the CNN newsradio today underscores a couple of things...let's distract 'em with Wonderful Paris being Liberated, Floods in the Central US, Killer Cutts and Where are the Hurricanes?

The little news you hear about the vote is not very encouraging for those who wish to have a different immigration bill passed.

It is sad.

Cloture won.

America lost.

Megan,

What you and seemingly all the other pro-illegals commenters seem to think is that illegal immigration is a fact of life that the rest of us need to get over.

But this ignores the very important fact that this is blogworthy precisely because our current Congress seems to be willing to reexamine our laws on the matter. So is it really unreasonable for us to wish that Congress and the Executive should actually do something substantive to severely curtail illegal immigration? Is your position that we should shut up and go along with this band-aid "solution" because it means cheaper and more abundant salad greens in perpetuity?

Nobody here doubts that it sucks to be a poor person in Mexico, or anywhere else. We just don't think the solution is to perpetuate an absurdly complicated immigration process and simultaneously turn a blind eye to the millions who skirt it.

I would appreciate it if you would pull a Tyler Cowen and address the most interesting comments you get, not the the ones you deem most asinine.

The agriculture and poultry industries have had no incentive to mechanize. Why why should they, given the unlimited supply of cheap labor? I'd think this would be obvious to a person of JG's economic leanings.

I live in Los Angeles, and two examples from recent days here reveal the problem I have with our immigration system.

First, on Sunday, there was a protest held in the Leimert Park area by an anti-illegal immigration group. The group acquired the necessary permits, but pro-illegal immigration groups got wind of the protest, and blocked the other group's access to a public park. Valid protest permit, public park, and LAPD present did nothing to enforce the group's protest and First Amendment rights. The LAPD's position was that "public order" is more important than enforcing a lawful permit. Why do they think that public order was threatened, and would the LAPD act the same if the groups were reversed? The answers reveal much about the power we've lost over our laws, our rights, and our media (which typically favored the trumping of rights by the LAPD, and labeled the groups "Pro-immigrant" and "Anti- immigrant").

Second, last night I had to take my wife to the emergency room where we live in Culver City (part of LA County). We sat in the waiting area as the sole TV in the room blared Spanish-language entertainment to the few Spanish speaking patients present. This was at the time when the national news was on, which we would have liked to watch. My wife feared rocking the boat by me changing the channel, so we endured the stuff for about 5 hours. Wherever we go, it seems, we're feeling like we're living in a foreign land where we have to accomodate. I relaize this is of minor concern to JG, or most others, because it's personal, but we deal with it here every single day. (My wife is fine, BTW.)

How long until we realize we've essentially given away our country. The wheels are coming off. Socially, technologically, politically we are so different from the 1800s and early 1900s, when the last strong waves of immigration occurred. There's simply no comparison.

Meanwhile, I am getting phone calls from young African-Americans who can't get jobs because they don't speak Spanish - in south Florida.

Immigration has always been an issue of which group is important. If we assume that "all men are created equal and are endowed with their creator with unalienable rights, that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," then immigration is a must because all humans, whether it's a Mexican or a Canadian, is a creation of God of supreme importance. If we accept this then immigration clearly is good.

Maybe it isn't the wave of immigrants that is so different (although I think they are) but our community and our multicultural PC attitudes is different.
The ruling attitude seems to be ambivalent or even hostile to the notion that assimilation would be a good thing.

Previous waves of immigrants we strongly encouraged to assimilate.

Rather than Hispanic's learning English, our marketers make room for Spanish labels and signage.

When the next wave comes, we'll have to create fold out directions for shampoos and plant care instructions.

Lunacy

Dear Jadagul:

Huh?

I didn't realize my statement about "illegal immigration" was confusing or could be construed as meaning that "some immigration should be declared illegal," as if I was implying that certain kinds of people shouldn't be let in even if they did so by legitimate means.

No. I meant this: If you enter the country without going through a border post, airport, customs, without a visa, or if you do any of the above "legal" things and then overstay your "visit" by, say, a bunch of years, THEN you are here ILLEGALLY, period. Why is that hard to understand, Jadagul? My impression of what you are saying is that "legality" is a fluid term that can be applied (or NOT applied) on a whim. THIS is the problem I have with so-called "pro-immigration" advocates who make no distinction between the two different types of foreign entrants into the U.S., while labeling those of us who have a problem with blatantly illegal behavior as being xenophobes.

I am from immigrant stock on both sides of my family, with one side being so recent that I learned at an early age to immitate their accents.

I live adjacent to a neighborhood now called "The Chirilagua," which is largely inhabited by Central Americans. They have made this area their own, and I'm fine with that except for the part about them NOT being here with documentation. That's the fault of our "leader" class and their minions in the beauracracies. If we "need" a lot of these people (and NO, we don't need ALL of them), then we should have had a legal mechanism to let them in.

Please add up a how much you have to spend on gas, food, etc. to tally up the $5-7000 per year per student most states spend on education. Then add in the other services the government provides.

Illegals come now where close to paying their way through taxes and legalizing and taxing them at their present incomes will still come now way close to paying their way.

These are real people, and I do feel for them. However, the same could be said about a million starving people in Africa. I suppose I should be willing to sell my car and cash in my savings account to spare them from starvation and death, but just because someone is in need of my help does not mean the government should require me and society to assist them.

The solution is to heavily fine any first offenders who employee illegal immigrants. Three strikes and you're out - prison time. Strangely enough, if illegals can't get jobs they'll have to go home. And please don't tell me we should be afraid they'll riot and start attacking us if we start to make it difficult for them to work. If a sub culture wants to declare war on the U.S. for enforcing our laws and protecting the interests of citizens of the United States then so be it.

Please add up a how much you have to spend on gas, food, etc. to tally up the $5-7000 per year per student most states spend on education. Then add in the other services the government provides.

Illegals come now where close to paying their way through taxes and legalizing and taxing them at their present incomes will still come now way close to paying their way.

These are real people, and I do feel for them. However, the same could be said about a million starving people in Africa. I suppose I should be willing to sell my car and cash in my savings account to spare them from starvation and death, but just because someone is in need of my help does not mean the government should require me and society to assist them.

The solution is to heavily fine any first offenders who employ illegal immigrants. Three strikes and you're out - prison time. Strangely enough, if illegals can't get jobs they'll have to go home. And please don't tell me we should be afraid they'll riot and start attacking us if we start to make it difficult for them to work. If a sub culture wants to declare war on the U.S. for enforcing our laws and protecting the interests of citizens of the United States then so be it.

Sheesh, forgive the horrendous grammar issues...I'm sick and my head is spinning in circles today.

Adrian Reilly: it's only confusing because I feel like we're talking past each other. My position is that we ought to allow far, far more people in legally than we currently do. Your arguments don't really respond to this, and your last post makes me think they're not intended to, which in turn means that I'm not communicating very effectively, which I thought I was. You say the debate is "about illegal immigration"; the debate I'm trying to engage in is a completely different one, about how much immigration should be legal.

I think we need to dramatically increase the number of people we allow to immigrate legally. Until we do, I don't think we can stop people from entering illegally, and I have trouble blaming people who sneak in under the current regime. I also am at least somewhat swayed by the idea that our current system is unjust, and thus no one has an obligation to follow it. But I'm not saying we should encourage people to immigrate illegally.

Illegals come now where close to paying their way through taxes and legalizing and taxing them at their present incomes will still come now way close to paying their way.

Anything I've ever read about the subject suggests the above analysis is wrong. The received wisdom is that state and local authorities come out behind, but that the federal government comes out ahead, and that in sum illegal immigration leaves the finances of the public sector as a whole neither in worse nor better shape.

To: John Aitek, you stopped reading the Declaration of Independence too soon! The next line is:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

and don't forget the preamble of the constitution!

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note the bit about "ourselves and our posterity", Immigration isn't a moral right, its a public policy question.

I think we do owe at least some of the people outside our borders something, though I don't think we owe everybody everything.

It would be smart not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Illegal immigrants have a labor price advantage over citizens. They don't pay labor taxes. Most do not bother fakeing SSNs and such. Instead they form partnerships that find work through labor brokers. Their employer accounts for their pay as payments to a contractor. Everybody's books look good, and their income falls through the recordkeeping cracks.

If you tax or prohibit something, you create an underground market for it. The higher the taxes the larger the market. Examples include anything with a high tariff, drugs, and labor.

Undocumented workers can compete in the underground labor market much better than citizens, who are tracked, checked, and taxed too much for that. Naturally, citizens resent it.

The solution is not to tighten the record keeping grip, but to eliminate the high taxes on labor.

Illegal immigration is a violation of written law, but it's also widely winked at and done openly. It's not like any policeman would have a hard time finding illegal immigrants where I live. Just go to a construction site, or out onto a farm, or in the kitchen of a restaurant. This is illegal in the same sense that, say, small-time gambling is illegal, or underaged drinking in a college town. It's illegal the way bribing a traffic cop in Mexico to forgive a ticket is illegal.

So I think one part of the debate really is, or should be, about whether we should change that. My opinion is that we ought not to have laws which we tolerate being openly, massively broken. Also, I think having illegal immigrants be illegal imposes a lot of costs. We ought to try to make illegal immigrants very rare, and illegal immigration (and hiring someone here illegally) a serious matter.

The second issue is how many immigrants we should let in, and how we should choose them. This is the sort of question that US politics seems really bad at, for whatever reason. IMO, the primary responsibility of the US government is to the citizens of the country. Humanitarian concerns are legitimate--go ahead and send blankets and hospital ships to places clobbered by a tsunami--but I don't see how we can let that guide most US policy. And almost nobody who argues for allowing lots of immigration on humanitarian grounds also argues for, say, spending 5% of GDP on development programs for the third world. If it were up to me, I'd set a price for a five year green card, and another price for access to citizenship, both subject to background check. Let the argument in Congress be about the price of green cards, not fine details about whether we should let in more Salvadorans or more Haitians this year. Treat humanitarian refugees as recipients of aid, in the form of paid-up green cards.

The last issue is how to deal with the 12 M or so people already here illegally. This is hard, because deporting any large fraction of those people is a seriously nasty thing to do, letting most of them stay illegally leaves us with the status quo and makes future enforcement impossible, and giving them amnesty creates a huge incentive for further illegal immigration. The only decent thing I can imagine doing is giving them some path to getting a green card, at least, while requiring them to come out of the shadows to get it. Maybe give people who can prove they've been here a year or more a cut rate on a green card.

Jesus. I enjoyed this post. I'd respect you so much more if you hadn't supported the war.

What I find most interesting about this impassioned debate is the assumption that if people are deported from the United States, or not allowed to enter it, then their lives are ruined.

The assumption may or may not be true, and it is fascinating that it is taken without question by all sides of the debate.

Note that the total impact isn't the same as just the impact on one person of not getting in or getting deported, multiplied by 12 M. Several million new unemployed young men showing up in Mexico or El Salvador tomorrow, with kids to feed who were formerly living on money transferred from their jobs in the States, is going to have a pretty serious impact. Several million fewer low-wage employees in various labor intensive jobs is also going to have a pretty serious impact.

Comments are Closed.