Who is Juan Galt?
By Thoreau
Via David Weigel, the New York Times has an article about towns that passed strict laws against illegal immigrants. Some of these towns actually got their wishes and drove a bunch of illegal immigrants away. The result?
With the departure of so many people, the local economy suffered. Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet; several closed. Once-boarded-up storefronts downtown were boarded up again.
You know, I’m no Rand fan, but the idea of a town being abandoned by an important segment of the workforce and facing consequences seems a bit familiar…
Comment by neil —
September 26, 2007 @ 10:50 am
This can’t be right. I am always reading about how Illegal Immigrants are Wrecking Our Economy.
Comment by BigHank53 —
September 26, 2007 @ 11:06 am
Look, what’s worse: a boarded up storefront, or a store full of brown people not speaking English?
Don’t underestimate the number of racists who would rather live in a hellhole than share with the ‘coloreds’. I remember being hornswoggled when I learned how many towns in Virginia and Maryland closed their public schools following the Brown decision. Those people haven’t all died yet, and what makes you think their kids feel more accepting than their parents?
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 11:24 am
The “economy” that’s suffering in this story is the one that was artificially built up through illegal aliens. Most of the shop owners cited here are co-nationals with the illegals.
The other part of the economic “suffering” is the legal blackmail being conducted by the ACLU, who files “pro bono” suits in front of friendly judges and then tries to collect millions of dollars of legal fees. Even if the towns win the legal battle (which in a sane world they would), the costs are meant to intimidate other localities who want to restore a bit of order.
What I’m curious about, and what the article is amazingly silent about, is the rate of crime and the costs of education and public services. Or how about the native contractors that were being underbid artificially by those breaking the law?
Comment by TLB —
September 26, 2007 @ 11:28 am
I’m sure there’s no possibility that this site has swallowed NYT propaganda whole. And, I’m just as positive that there are not any costs to massive illegal activity that can’t be immediately quantified. But, keep reading this site, I’m sure the entries will realize what’s really going on eventually.
Comment by The Modesto Kid —
September 26, 2007 @ 11:51 am
most of the shop owners cited here are co-nationals with the illegals
By “co-nationals” you are meaning to say that they are naturalized immigrants who come from the same country as the aliens? Because an illegal alien is going to have a very hard time owning a business. And what is your beef with them if they are immigrants and some of the people they sell to are illegal aliens? Does this somehow make it less a hit on the town’s economy for their business to go under?
Comment by Gary Farber —
September 26, 2007 @ 11:58 am
“I remember being hornswoggled when I learned how many towns in Virginia and Maryland closed their public schools following the Brown decision.”
As is getting a lot of attention again this month, Governor Faubus closed Little Rock’s three high schools for the entire school year of September, 1958, until September of 1959.
“Those people haven’t all died yet, and what makes you think their kids feel more accepting than their parents?”
Often they are, and sometimes they’re not, and sometimes they are somewhat.
It’s not safe to make any assumptions.
“The “economy†that’s suffering in this story is the one that was artificially built up through illegal aliens.”
Because the concept of who is and isn’t an “illegal alien” is purely natural, and has no artifice to it whatever. If only people wouldn’t cross those natural borders, which they really should notice due to the huge natural lines on the ground, and the different colors of the earth of different countries. People should obey nature, rather than artificially be interested in finding jobs, which is simply unnatural. If God had wanted us to find jobs, and be able to travel, he’d have, like, given us legs and feet, and economic interests.
“Or how about the native contractors that were being underbid artificially by those breaking the law?”
I’m glad more and more people support contracting being turned over to Native American contractors, rather than those “white” contractors who artificially came here on artificial boats, crossing the natural borders installed by the Native Americans, who had every right to control their borders.
Presumably, everyone who artificially came to America, in search of artificial walth and artificial trade with East Indies, couldn’t possibly have had any natural right to illegally immigrate, and thus everyone not descended from a Native American prior to 1400 should leave, as we’re all here illegally, as well as artificially, and are criminals.
I have to note that the crime rate in North America has risen dramatically in recent centuries, and there’s no doubt whatever that it’s largely committed by descendents of Europeans.
Dirty barbarians. And so artificial.
“And, I’m just as positive that there are not any costs to massive illegal activity that can’t be immediately quantified.”
There couldn’t possibly be any benefits to illegal immigration that can’t be immediately quantified, of course. There’s only one kind of imaginary friend possible, not two.
And “Massive illegal activity” describes a lot of things: jaywalking in America, for instance. Littering. It’s all terribly, terribly, frightening. At least, if it’s done by furriners, speaking incomprhensible gibberish, and with clearly dirty, criminal, habits, as everyone knows.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
And what is your beef with them if they are immigrants and some of the people they sell to are illegal aliens?
My beef is that they’re privatizing the benefits of illegal immigration and socializing the cost. Most of these people, if the article is correct, are not selling to some people who happen to be illegals, but catering mostly to them, if not exclusively.
Does this somehow make it less a hit on the town’s economy for their business to go under?
Look, the nail-salon owner makes, say, $20 dollars on a manicure for an illegal customer*, but the taxpayers have to provide social services, like health care and education, for that same customer which costs far more than that. So, in the balance, it is less of a hit on the economy for that kind of business to go under. That’s the problem with NYT article. Were there any savings when it came to law enforcement, health care, utilities and education? As the NYT doesn’t say anything–and given their biases and penchant for leaving out inconvenient facts–I suspect there were some benefits the Gray Old Lady would rather not bring up.
And again, the real clincher in the repeal of the ordinance was not some “Juan Galt” scenario, but the thuggish behavior of groups like the ACLU who sought to offset any potential savings with legal fees for suits that would have been thought ridiculous in saner times.
*And, incidentally, these businesses are usually not very scrupulous about following local health, wage and licensing codes. The cultural and linguistic barriers usually render them fairly opaque to local enforcement, thus giving them an unfair advantage over native businesses who do follow the laws.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
There couldn’t possibly be any benefits to illegal immigration that can’t be immediately quantified, of course. There’s only one kind of imaginary friend possible, not two.
Those benefits are limited to business owners who can use illegal labor to drive wages down. That means native wages drop. It also inhibits investment in capital for labor-saving devices. It also creates more tax-consumers than taxpayers. Finally, it robs the supplier country of their labor and it addicts them to remittances, which only worsens the problem in their countries.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 26, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Derek-
How do you feel about poor people born in America? Should they move away from where you live? What about businesses that cater to them? You could just as easily say “That darn store owner is profiting from the presence of poor people willing to work for low wages and other poor people willing to buy services, while society pays the cost of poor people’s social benefits!”
Also, what if a business catered to poor people who were born elsewhere but got the necessary paperwork to come here. What would your view be?
Comment by The Modesto Kid —
September 26, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Always worth pointing out that illegal aliens who are employed do pay taxes, state, federal and social security taxes are withheld from the paychecks of an employee without regard to his immigration status. Illegals do not file tax returns, which means that they do not get any refunds they would have coming if they were legal.
I would not believe without documentation that immigrant small-business owners are any less diligent about following regulations than are “native” small-business owners.
Comment by Fraud Guy —
September 26, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Those benefits are limited to business owners who can use illegal labor to drive wages down.
Wow. A few weeks ago, my wife and I were down in Florida, and looking at the houses in Palm Beach. Nice community, but you can’t see much from the street, as all the houses were screened by massive hedges (some 12′+ tall). Most of them were shuttered, as apparently these multi-million dollar homes are the 2nd+ homes of various celebrities.
Anyway, about 5% of the homes had work being done, usually hedge trimming. Amazingly enough, those workers tended to be brown skinned, unfluent in English, and, quite possibly, not legally here (though I am trying not to make any assumptions).
Qui bono?
The workers who get paid to do a job? Not possible.
The homeowners who are able to get maintenence done at lower rates? Not possible.
The city, who gets to collect property tax on absentee owners at ruinous rates? Not possible.
The nearby city of West Palm Beach (across the bridge and the Intercoastal) where many of these workers might live? (At least that was the original intent of the city), and which collects the taxes on the businesses that support and cater to these workers. Not possible
Ah, it must be the business owners who are exploiting the workers and homeowners, and the governments by hiring these people.
And Big Box stores which subcontract store cleaning to third parties who somehow keep their labor costs low, and the Big Box stores’ hands clean–not that we don’t need low prices
.
And banks, who come up with no SSN loans, to allow people who wouldn’t ordinarily get credit to buy houses–not that we don’t need home buyers now.
America has historically imported cheap labor–first indentured servants, then slaves, then immigrants (legal and not), to provide the dirty and dangerous muscle for its economy. At the same time, while labor was imported, the cries came out about the lazy, shiftless workers who have no ethics or morality, except what was imposed by their
benevolent mastersmanagers, because they are unsuited for the more refined ideals of American living due to their brutish circumstances. Which their employers put them in.Same story, different century.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 26, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
BTW, I know that one could argue, in response to my point about poor people, that there’s no point in setting up a giant magnet to attract more poor people. Fair enough. I would just observe, however, that they ARE coming, despite a whole bunch of rules against it and a whole bunch of federal employees running around in the desert. And they keep getting jobs. So now we need to ask whether the answer is to be more brutal, or if the answer is economic opportunity, so they move from net beneficiaries to net contributors ASAP.
Greater economic opportunity means more contributors to society, but it only happens if you let people out of the shadows.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
How do you feel about poor people born in America? Should they move away from where you live?
First, it’s poor people born in America are exactly the ones most harmed by illegal immigration. It’s their wages that get and their share of the social services that get pinched.
Second, I find equating the two classes completely wrong. American poor didn’t choose the place to live, and we, as fellow Americans, have obligations to them that we do NOT have to people who came here in violation of the law.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Always worth pointing out that illegal aliens who are employed do pay taxes, state, federal and social security taxes are withheld from the paychecks of an employee without regard to his immigration status. Illegals do not file tax returns, which means that they do not get any refunds they would have coming if they were legal.
First, many illegals are paid under the table in cash. So there’s no tax paid on that income. Second, many pull a fancy stunt with their withholding. They put down six dependents on their W-2, which nullifies the federal tax. The also minimize property tax payments by living in flophouses that exceed local habitation laws. It can be a real annoyance when a house down the street fills up with 20 men.
You still have some revenue coming in, true, but that benefit is erased and then some when you factor in the social costs created by illegal aliens. We have to pay for their health care, including anchor babies, whom we have to educate, and all too often imprison when they join gangs. And then there’s the lost revenue created when native wages are forced down.
Comment by Discussion —
September 26, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
I discuss the article at the link.
In addition to the costs mentioned above, there are non-financial costs associated with massive illegal activity, which includes the cost of PoliticalCorruption. The only reason IllegalAliens are allowed to come and remain here is because our most of our pols are corrupt. Perhaps “libertarians” should factor all the costs into the total.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
I would just observe, however, that they ARE coming, despite a whole bunch of rules against it and a whole bunch of federal employees running around in the desert.
Most of that is just for show, for people like you. Border and interior enforcement has been weak to non-existent. The only reason it’s making headlines now is because the Bush Administration was embarrassed into doing something, so we have a few high-profile raids.
There has been no serious attempt setting up mandatory workplace verification, or a serious border barrier, or any kind of serious penalty for hiring illegals.
The idea that illegals are “living in the shadows” is laughable in itself. They’re showing up a mass protests with no need to fear any kind of law enforcement.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
America has historically imported cheap labor–first indentured servants, then slaves, then immigrants (legal and not), to provide the dirty and dangerous muscle for its economy.
There was a time when we didn’t do it, after 1924, and it was a time when labor conditions massively improved in this country, largely because labor became a more valuable commodity. When labor becomes plentiful, employers have no economic incentive to improve working conditions, or even to maintain them.
Besides, do we really need a nation of easily accessible 12-foot hedged vacation homes built on the backs of indentured servants? Telling me we did immoral things in the past hardly justifies their continuation, Gary.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Let me also point out, Thoreau, that towns which pass these ordinances do see a drop in illegal residents, so enforcement can work. What killed it in this article, again, were the thugs at the ACLU.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 26, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
There was a time when we didn’t do it, after 1924, and it was a time when labor conditions massively improved in this country, largely because labor became a more valuable commodity. When labor becomes plentiful, employers have no economic incentive to improve working conditions, or even to maintain them.
Um, skip a few years past 1924….
Yes, I realize that the rest of the world had a tough time as well in the 1930’s. Still, you can’t point to a few good years in the middle of a boom, followed by a global depression, as evidence that cracking down on the free flow of labor was swell for American workers.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
To be clear about my position, as I’ve stated on other related threads, I’m not opposed to some sort of amnesty. However, as the 1986 amnesty has proven, any such gesture without laying down enforcement FIRST will only make the problem worse.
We amnestied 3 million in 86, now we have 12-20 million. What will the number be in 20 years if we do the same thing?
Comment by Thoreau —
September 26, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
As far as the success of enforcement in towns: It’s about squeezing a balloon. Can you keep somebody from coming to a particular town? Sure, if that town is tougher than its neighbors. Can you keep somebody from finding a job SOMEWHERE in a large economy? Probably not.
How’s drug enforcement working out?
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Yes, I realize that the rest of the world had a tough time as well in the 1930’s. Still, you can’t point to a few good years in the middle of a boom, followed by a global depression, as evidence that cracking down on the free flow of labor was swell for American workers.
First, I’m considering the entire period, from 1924 to 1965, which, despite the Great Depression, saw our standard of living increase phenomenally.
Second, would having MORE workers in the 1930s have helped things when unemployment was at 25%? If anything, the 1924 cut-off ameliorated an already dire situation.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Can you keep somebody from coming to a particular town? Sure, if that town is tougher than its neighbors. Can you keep somebody from finding a job SOMEWHERE in a large economy?
If someone is that determined, then, yes, they’ll find work. It’s like burglar-proofing your house. We’ll never reach 100% enforcement, but I don’t see why we can’t get 80-90%, which would represent a significant improvement.
Comment by matthew hogan —
September 26, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Derek — I will invoke libertarian squatter’s rights this site to give libertarian answers:
First, many illegals are paid under the table in cash. So there’s no tax paid on that income.
Libertarian response: yawn. {Though many do pay}
Second, many pull a fancy stunt with their withholding. They put down six dependents on their W-2, which nullifies the federal tax.
Libertarian response: yawn. {Disclaimer — I do not like tax fraud; but even that shouldn’t nullify, it will lower but the higher collection
will be FICA, ie Social Security which to my knowledge is taken out without variations in withholding}
The also minimize property tax payments by living in flophouses that exceed local habitation laws.
Libertarian response: yawn, plus mild irritation at the anti-property-rights habitation laws.
It can be a real annoyance when a house down the street fills up with 20 men.
Libertarian response: shrug. Heterosexual male response: disappointing, true, but competition is healthy. {I’ll leave the probably more favorable gay male and female responses to those qualified.}
You still have some revenue coming in, true, but that benefit is erased and then some when you factor in the social costs created by illegal aliens.
Libertarian response: social costs? That can mean, like, anything you want it to.
We have to pay for their health care,
Libertarian response: no, we shouldn’t.
including anchor babies, whom we have to educate,
Libertarian response: No, we shouldn’t. {Actually Sup Ct requires educating non-anchor babies too; and despite the above, they do pay taxes indirectly via rent, and do increase property values by working and maintaining the whole neighborhood sets at cheap costs.}
and all too often imprison when they join gangs.
Libertarian response: joining a gang shouldn’t be a crime, acting out the violent creed should be. {Factual response: fairly sure low-income native folks join gangs too. And I doubt all the kids become destructive adolescents.}
And then there’s the lost revenue created when native wages are forced down.
Libertarian response: one gains real wealth by lower production prices. {And in reality, the jobs wouldn’t exist at the higher rates, or would at such rates as to cause massive inflation or collapse, as per the article.}
Comment by Thoreau —
September 26, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
Derek-
OK, if we try hard enough we can probably prevent people from other countries from finding jobs in the US. But it might be cheaper just to hire them, rather than pour lots of money into federal employees chasing after workers.
Comment by Fraud Guy —
September 26, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
First, I’m considering the entire period, from 1924 to 1965, which, despite the Great Depression, saw our standard of living increase phenomenally.
Taking the longer view, in the period from 1600 to 1992, the standard of living in America increased dramatically.
Your point is?
And are you sure that the improvement in labor conditions during your time period were due solely (as you seem to be arguing) to restricted immigration, or because of things like labor strikes (and near revolts), organization of unions, massive domestic government intervention, government diplomacy that opened up foreign markets to US goods, massive industrial capacity increases due to military expenditures, and massive increases in government expenditures in general?
And who’s Gary?
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Matthew,
My response to the average libertarian is, get rid of of the welfare state, and THEN we can talk about open borders.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
OK, if we try hard enough we can probably prevent people from other countries from finding jobs in the US. But it might be cheaper just to hire them, rather than pour lots of money into federal employees chasing after workers.
Well, how many do you want to let in? As many as want to come? Because there’s five billion people out there living in countries POORER than Mexico. I’m guessing you believe there’s some limit. Well, we’re not going to be able to maintain that limit if we just shrug our shoulders and say it’s all due to demand.
That’s why it’s important to achieve some kind of control before we pass out amnesty. If it turns out that we need more, then we can talk.
Comment by lemuel pitkin —
September 26, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
Look, what’s worse: a boarded up storefront, or a store full of brown people not speaking English? Don’t underestimate the number of racists who would rather live in a hellhole than share with the ‘coloreds’.
In fact, the former Mayor who pushed the bill through says almost exactly that:
““The business district is fairly vacant now, but it’s not the legitimate businesses that are gone,†he said. “It’s all the ones that were supporting the illegal immigrants, or, as I like to call them, the criminal aliens.—
Amazing, isn’t it: he’d rather see his town’s center boarded up than have businesses selling to possibly illegal immigrants. Some men, you just can’t reach.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
FG,
Sorry, I confused you with Gary Farber.
As to your point, the improvement rate between 1924 and 1965 was far greater than any other period of time. At the beginning of the 20s people were still living off the sweat of their brow, laboring behind mules, if doing the plowing themselves (as was the case in 1622). In 1965 that kind of thing was largely a memory.
I’m not saying the immigration cut-off was exclusively responsible for that improvement, but it did play a large part. It also allowed the country to come together and form a national culture, which you really hadn’t seen before, with the nation being divided between sections and large numbers of immigrants.
You say those waves of immigrants from the turn of the century did us good? Well, fine, let’s have the second half of the process now. Let’s end the new flow and assimilate what we have. At least stop those who are coming here illegally.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Amazing, isn’t it: he’d rather see his town’s center boarded up than have businesses selling to possibly illegal immigrants.
Maybe it’s because there things going on beyond the town center that the NYT doesn’t want to talk about: crowded schools, higher crime rates and rising costs of public services.
Comment by Walt —
September 26, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Derek, you make a good case until you call the ACLU “thugs”. Then you sound like a nut.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 26, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
Derek-
Just so we’re clear, are you only against the pathologies associated with illegal immigration, or are you also opposed to expanding legal immigration? Do you support keeping the number of immigrants allowed in fixed, or do you want to reduce the number of legal immigrants brought in?
And what do you think about drug control?
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
Derek, you make a good case until you call the ACLU “thugsâ€.
They’re thugs in suits. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but they are. Much of their “pro bono” work involves coming back and trying to stick their opponents with outrageous legal bills. The “pro bono” part is definitely not for the “publico.”
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
Thoreau,
Ideally, I’d like to limit immigration to 250,000 a year. It would allow the country to stabilize its population. Given some time, I’m not opposed to increasing that number, based on skills (not the chain immigration system we have today).
That said, we can still disagree on legal levels, but agree that illegal immigration should be ended. If I lose the argument on legal immigration, well, fine. That’s our system. But the current system does an end run around the laws (by ignoring them) and presents us all with a fait accompli.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Thoreau,
Drug issue: It should be taken out of the hands of the feds. States and localities should deal with it.
Comment by Walt —
September 26, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
It doesn’t make me feel uncomfortable, because I know all about the ACLU. It makes you sound like a nut. An unfortunate fact of our legal system is that money has a disproportionate impact. That does not make the ACLU thugs, unless you are prepared to concede that all prosecutors are also thugs.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Given their penchant for intimidating defendants into a plea with overcharging, I’d say a lot of prosecutors are thugs.
Comment by Juicy —
September 26, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Maybe Derek makes some valid points. Maybe not. In the grander scheme of things I don’t think it matters much. Non-whites a majority in 4 states and climbing. Those “horrible brown people” will still keep coming regardless of whether we put up his thousand foot high wall across the Mexican border and round up all their dirty brethren. While you’re at it why don’t you buy yourself a pony.
You can spend a $100 billion chasing poor workers across the country if you want, assuming you have enough change down the back of the sofa because Cheney stole daddy’s checkbook for some little skirmish across the ocean.
Comment by Farah —
September 26, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
re “and things improved after 1924″, I’ll chime in on the side of the people who point out the activities of the unions were mostly responsible. Which were full to bursting of undesirable immigrants like Jews and Poles.
Immigration restriction had another interesting effect which we see today: it stopped temporary migration. Old patterns of work where agricultural workers looked for building work in the summer were halted because if you left the USA, you might not get back. Italian “permanent” migration took a sharp turn upwards. The same is true today: many people would happily be temporary migrants, returning with their little savings, if they could be certain of being able to return the following year.
Comment by Joshua Holmes —
September 26, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Is it just to kill someone to stop them from crossing the border?
Comment by Thoreau —
September 26, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
What it always comes down to is this: Who’s going to build that wall?
I can think of some good places to hire a cheap construction crew…
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Which were full to bursting of undesirable immigrants like Jews and Poles.
One of which was Samuel Gompers, who supported the 1924 act.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
What it always comes down to is this: Who’s going to build that wall?
Pre-fab T-barriers are quick and easy to make and drop.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
You can spend a $100 billion chasing poor workers across the country if you want…
That’s a few months in Iraq. I’ll take that deal. It’ll pay for itself in the savings we’ll realize from public services and other costs.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Is it just to kill someone to stop them from crossing the border?
Yeah, let’s drag out all the red herrings and other fallacies while we’re at it.
We don’t need to kill anyone. We just need to make it less of a temptation than it already is.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 26, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
The same is true today: many people would happily be temporary migrants, returning with their little savings, if they could be certain of being able to return the following year.
The number of illegals has been steadily increasing since 1986 (after the last amnesty). Whatever number of temps we had, they’ve been long outnumbered by their squatter brethren.
Comment by Gary Farber —
September 26, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
“Telling me we did immoral things in the past hardly justifies their continuation, Gary.”
That’s nice, but I didn’t write the comment you responded to, Derek. I am not, in fact, Thoreau, though I generally find him an agreeable fellow.
Comment by Joshua Holmes —
September 26, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
We don’t need to kill anyone. We just need to make it less of a temptation than it already is.
If you’re not willing to kill someone sneaking across the border, you’re not terribly interested in stopping it. Fences can be avoided or dug under. People can be snuck in vans and trucks. Officials can be bribed.
So, you’re standing at the border with a rifle, and you see 3 figures streaking into the desert. Do you shoot?
Comment by Gary Farber —
September 26, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
“They’re thugs in suits. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but they are. Much of their ‘pro bono’ work involves coming back and trying to stick their opponents with outrageous legal bills.”
The ACLU is, relatively speaking, publically run. The people who join vote for local boards, and the national boards. Their interest is civil liberties and freedom (there are always arguments about the most appropriate stance on given issues, and since various liberties conflict, legitimate debate).
Nobody I’ve met in the ACLU, including Nadine Strossen, is interested in other goals, and the idea that they want to make money is perfectly silly: there are far easier ways than that than to run a non-profit focused on civil liberties, a rather esoteric concept for most Americans, alas, who have no idea what the history of civil liberties in this country is.
How many dozens of meetings of which ACLU group have you been to, that you can testify to such claims, and which ACLU group, specifically, are you referring to, and which cases?
Generally speaking, you’ve shown a penchant in this thread for throwing around a tremendous number of generalizations and general assertions, without offering any links to proof or support of your claims, Derek, such as every single one of your economic claims, but, of course, the largest are the base claims about illegal immigrants and their effects.
But you also do things like attribute sentience to The New York Times (”I suspect there were some benefits the Gray Old Lady would rather not bring up”; “Maybe it’s because there things going on beyond the town center that the NYT doesn’t want to talk about”); the fact is that there’s no actual Gray Old Lady, and no group mind that makes up stuff, or decides what to include and what to leave out, in a story.
All these sorts of conspiratorial accusations of groups controlling the acts of individuals, such as that the NY Times as a whole gives a damn about what’s in an article by, let’s see, Ken Belson and Jill P. Capuzzo, and has some mastermind editing their story according to some agenda about immigration, tend to suggest no actual experience with how these organizations and groups, you know, actually work. How exactly do you think the conspiracy at the NY Times to determine what They “don’t want” works? A daily memo, such as at Fox?
Because real news organizations don’t, as a rule, actually work that way. Not above the size of the Calaveras County Enterprise, anyway.
And, as I said, ditto that ACLU chapters don’t sit around plotting how to make money via suits. Speaking as an on-and-off member for decades, with many friends who are members, and with some knowledge of how some local boards, and at times the national board (which has had problems, to be sure, but not along the lines of looking for suits to somehow make money from) work.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 26, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
So, you’re standing at the border with a rifle, and you see 3 figures streaking into the desert. Do you shoot?
You’re tossing him a softball. The easy answer is that he and his colleagues chase them and stop them without shooting at them.
The harder question is just how many people he’s willing to pay to do the watching and chasing, and how much of a drain it will be on the economy before he concedes that maybe it’s better to just have some sort of orderly process for admitting anybody who wants to work, passes a criminal background check, and doesn’t have certain diseases.
Comment by Juicy —
September 26, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
Bah. You’re all just tinkering around the edges.
Big business doesn’t want immigration reform – Who’s gonna clip their 10 foot hedges and wash their Bentleys? Liberals don’t want it coz they’re all a bunch of bleeding-heart, grass-grazing hippies, right? And our current ruling elites would much rather spend $100 billion on some Mesopotamian misadventure than on the Great Wall of Mexico™, no matter what some loser like Tancredo says.
The rich get their shiny cars, the liberals get their smug grins, the poor huddled masses get their ghettos. Everyone wins. Who am I leaving out? Oh yeah, every conservative without a live-in maid.
But wait, look over there! Two gay guys getting married.
Comment by Joshua Holmes —
September 26, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
You’re tossing him a softball. The easy answer is that he and his colleagues chase them and stop them without shooting at them.
They resist and try to escape. And now?
Comment by Mona —
September 26, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
I’m quite interested in Derek’s answer to that.
Comment by huh —
September 26, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
As I think Derek mentioned, the USA used to regulate immigration by quotas, and that worked well. The ‘libertarian’ approach seems to be, why regulate? Well, there’s a price point where Haitians can afford to come – and I hear it’s rough there.
I don’t consider open borders a moral obligation. The recent riots in France apparently were a result of poor cultural assimilation. Yes, here, we can do better. But let’s choose a policy and implement it… or let the free market act; but that do-nothing approach is for religious extremists.
Actually I do favor using market forces, by using a guest worker system to suppress illegal immigration. The lower cost of living (for now) in Mexico will persuade many to keep their home south of the border. Maybe some birth control down there?
Comment by Thoreau —
September 27, 2007 @ 12:20 am
The recent riots in France apparently were a result of poor cultural assimilation.
I would say that cultural assimilation, or at least peaceful and productive co-existence, is far more likely when the state does less instead of more. In France, it’s easy for an immigrant to get state benefits but hard to get a job. The benefits side of the equation is obviously a product of the state, and while there are many factors that make a labor market tight the state is certainly one of them. The consequences of this policy are utterly predictable.
I predict that the less the state does about immigration the more likely it will be that people will find productive, self-sufficient ways to exist with one another. Whether it’s assimilation, a melting pot, separate but peaceful, or something else, I don’t know. But I suspect it will be a lot better than the pessimists predict.
Comment by teh —
September 27, 2007 @ 1:27 am
I don’t usually comment (excellent blog by the way) but I can’t help but point out that if the government would just clearly follow the constitution and the law then they wouldn’t have to worry about defending themselves in long court battles in the fist place.
Other possible alternatives solutions to the government spending large amounts of money defending itself in court from the ACLU:
-Not waste public money defending something they should know is illegal.
-Attempting to change the law so that they are not actually breaking it.
Comment by Gary Farber —
September 27, 2007 @ 1:38 am
“As I think Derek mentioned, the USA used to regulate immigration by quotas, and that worked well”
Don’t know any Chinese, or Japanese, descended Americans, among other ethnicities, I gather.
People, can we look into a bit of history, so our opinions are remotely informed, before commenting?
I realize that violates blog commenting law, but still.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
September 27, 2007 @ 4:01 am
“First, it’s poor people born in America are exactly the ones most harmed by illegal immigration. It’s their wages that get and their share of the social services that get pinched.”
Isn’t it the Fed that determines how tight the labor supply is? If the Fed wants a tight labor supply, and rising wages, it could just drop interest rates till the economy roared. Likewise, if the Fed is fearing inflation, it might choke off growth, keeping a large pool of unemployed is good protection against inflation. The tightness or looseness of the labor supply has nothing to do with the supply of labor. It has everything to do with how much capital the Fed feels like pumping into the economy.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
September 27, 2007 @ 4:11 am
“Well, how many do you want to let in? As many as want to come? Because there’s five billion people out there living in countries POORER than Mexico. I’m guessing you believe there’s some limit.”
Why exactly do we need a limit, other than what facts a person gathers from their actual experience of living in America warrants? The population is now beyond the imagining of citizens of the 1800s. Likewise the future population is probably something beyond what I can easily imagine.
If people in the 3rd World want to move here, why exactly should I mind? What do I lose, by having them here? I’m unable to see how I suffer, just because a bunch of Mexicans or Chinese or Indians want to move here. It seems to me reasonable that they’ve something to add, as much as they might have something to take.
All I ask, in return, is the freedom to travel to their countries. Because I like to travel.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
September 27, 2007 @ 4:14 am
Just to clarify my last post, I wasn’t arguing for illegal immigration, rather, I was arguing for the dramatic expansion of legal immigration.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 27, 2007 @ 8:52 am
So, you’re standing at the border with a rifle, and you see 3 figures streaking into the desert. Do you shoot?
If I’m acting under authority and they’re trying to enter violently, then, yes. Otherwise you apply proportional measures.
The harder question is just how many people he’s willing to pay to do the watching and chasing, and how much of a drain it will be on the economy before he concedes that maybe it’s better to just have some sort of orderly process for admitting anybody who wants to work, passes a criminal background check, and doesn’t have certain diseases.
I don’t know where to begin with this. The system we have can’t even do this much for the LEGAL aliens we admit, and now you want to get rid of the cap altogether, and you still expect the U.S. government to check everyone for criminal backgrounds and diseases (which assumes their host will be honest, as if they’d rather keep their social problems to themselves instead of exporting them!)
At the moment the number of people we have dedicated to actual border enforcement is less than we have in other more dispensable agencies. We only have 13,350 border patrol agents. That’s less than the number of troops we used for our surge in the idiotic Iraq War.
The idea that controlling the border to some reasonable extent (like reducing illegal entries to 80-90%) would be beyond us is is risible. The only thing holding us back is obstruction, not costs.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 27, 2007 @ 8:57 am
I don’t usually comment (excellent blog by the way) but I can’t help but point out that if the government would just clearly follow the constitution and the law then they wouldn’t have to worry about defending themselves in long court battles in the fist place.
Sure, and magical fairies would bring us breakfast in bed.
People have been fighting about how to “clearly follow the constitution [sic]” since it was written. People can have different views on the Constitution and be arguing in good faith. The ACLU doesn’t work on that principle, and it tries to impose its own penalties on those who have to temerity to disagree with it.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 27, 2007 @ 9:18 am
If people in the 3rd World want to move here, why exactly should I mind? What do I lose, by having them here?
Living space for one. Then there’s the fact that most people from the third world are unskilled, so, even if fully legal, it’s highly unlikely that they’ll pay as much in taxes as they’ll consume in services. Education alone will be a huge burden as most do not speak any English. Those who do not learn English will then need translation services.
These are just simple dollar costs. I’m not adding in the social costs, which can be quite high in themselves, if you live in one of the neighborhoods being transformed overnight into a foreign enclave.
This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t accept any 3rd World immigration, but it should be a manageable number, and those coming in should be able to demonstrate that they will add to the economy in a significant way. The only practical way to do this is to work with a manageable number.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 27, 2007 @ 9:19 am
At the moment the number of people we have dedicated to actual border enforcement is less than we have in other more dispensable agencies.
We could retask the guys in the DEA, I guess.
Hey, how well are the DEA guys doing at their jobs?
Comment by Thoreau —
September 27, 2007 @ 9:23 am
I can’t help but note that 2 of the most prosperous places in America (NY and CA) are chock full of immigrants. Why, some of those immigrants even own their own businesses! It’s almost as if people who have already risked everything for a better life are more willing to take economic risks for continued betterment…
No, can’t be. No way could hard-working risk takers be good for the economy.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 27, 2007 @ 9:24 am
Isn’t it the Fed that determines how tight the labor supply is?
No. It determines how tight the money supply is. If it opens up the money supply, and we have open borders, then any potential benefit is undermined as wages are held down.
Now you may like that, as it keeps your McMansions cheap, but that’s rather cold comfort for those on the bottom rung.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 27, 2007 @ 9:32 am
I can’t help but note that 2 of the most prosperous places in America (NY and CA) are chock full of immigrants.
California, the place with debt problems and rolling blackouts California? California, where the natives are leaving, where blacks are being ethnically cleansed from L.A. neighborhoods? Where hospitals are going bankrupt? That California?
Prosperous is a matter of perspective. A lot of places have become unliveable by American standards. Of course, the wealthier sections of the population have gained, because they now have a cheap pool of labor to exploit, but this has an effect on the national level. Instead of drawing people from places like the Rust Belt, and increasing national prosperity, California is drawing in illegals, who produce all sorts of side costs.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 27, 2007 @ 9:33 am
Hey, how well are the DEA guys doing at their jobs?
You know what? Despite everything we do, we still have murder and rape and robbery. Let’s just legalize that, too.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 27, 2007 @ 9:39 am
Why, some of those immigrants even own their own businesses! It’s almost as if people who have already risked everything for a better life are more willing to take economic risks for continued betterment…
Again, I have nothing against taking in skilled immigrants who can add to the economy in reasonable numbers.
But you should bear in mind that every doctor or entrepreneur we take here means one less doctor or entrepeneur in a poor country who needs them far more than we do.
Comment by Cala —
September 27, 2007 @ 9:55 am
We have an open society with long borders. We also have a society with laws, sometimes. People seem to forget this when they think about just magically building a fence.
Meaning that your costs of enforcement include not only guarding the border, not only increasing the number of ICE agents empowered to arrest people, but increasing the number of judges authorized to sign deportation orders. Given that (contrary to popular belief) you can’t tell who is here illegally just by looking at them, and that the penalties for being ‘illegal’ vary based on the specific way the person is ‘illegal’, you need more judges.
Now perhaps you’d like to get rid of due process, but I’m assuming you’re sane. But with the current number of judges, if you rounded up all 12 million tomorrow, it would take about 72 years to get them all out of the country.
It is NOT just obstruction, by the way. Many, many… 3.8 million ‘illegals’ did not jump any fences. They came here legally on tourist visas or student visas or work visas and stayed. (Meaning they had all their shots, too!) Putting up a fence does nothing to get rid of these guys or the millions already here.
So the question is how much are we willing to spend to end up with a boarded-up town. I am not for fully open borders but I don’t see a reasonable way out of the current situation that does not include a blanket amnesty.
By the way, an ‘anchor baby’ is just a little U.S. citizen. Being illegal and having a so-called anchor baby child confers you no special legal right to stay in the country, as countless court cases have determined. It doesn’t mean you can stay here. At absolute best, the anchor baby may, upon reaching the age of 21, petition for her parents.
OMG they have a path to be legal, you say. Not quite. See, petitioning for one’s parents is subject to an annual country cap. Right now, from Mexico, they’re processing petitions from 1991. Plus, if you file for permanent residency for your parents, they’re subject to all the legal regulations they normally would be. This means if they entered without inspection, or committed any serious crimes, or re-entered after having been deported, they are NOT eligible for a green card.
So, let’s see. Anchor baby born in 2007, cursed by pearl-clutching ninnies. Assuming current rates of green card numbers coming available and no crimes and a legal entry (best case)… let’s see, 21 years plus another 16 for a green card to become available…lala, 2042 is when the so-called anchor baby will be able to secure her parents any kind of legal rights.
It’s a red herring and should not be part of any reasonable discussion.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
September 27, 2007 @ 10:38 am
“The ACLU doesn’t work on that principle, and it tries to impose its own penalties on those who have to temerity to disagree with it.”
I think it was said before above, but the only way for the ACLU can win a case is for the government to break the law. It’s easy for the government to defeat the ACLU: obey the law, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Obey those 3 things and the ACLU can not win.
To the extent that our legal system functions in a sane fashion, then the ACLU only wins the cases that it should. I’m sure we can all think of ways we’d like to see our legal system reformed (I’ve got my personal list) but those issues are quite separate from any immigration issues.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
September 27, 2007 @ 10:43 am
“But you should bear in mind that every doctor or entrepreneur we take here means one less doctor or entrepeneur in a poor country who needs them far more than we do.”
Why are they here? Can’t we assume they know their own economic interests better than you know it? Perhaps the laws of their country didn’t allow them to pursue their business dreams. Or perhaps the government in their country was busy killing everyone of their ethnic group. Personally, people who have the guts to start over in another country are the kind of people I’d like to have here. Which is why I favor an expansion of legal immigration.
Comment by matthew hogan —
September 27, 2007 @ 10:53 am
Cala –
I think you are wrong (though I am in general agreement or broader principles). A parent is (or used to be) an immediate relative of a US citizen and therefore a 21 year old child is not on the long “preference” waiting list for countries like Mexico – they got to come at the speed of the application processing (1-2 years). Unless that’s changed in the past few years.
Comment by The Modesto Kid —
September 27, 2007 @ 11:01 am
I’m assuming you’re sane
It’s hard for me to see how this assumption is justified given Mr. Copold’s contributions to this thread.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 27, 2007 @ 11:26 am
But with the current number of judges, if you rounded up all 12 million tomorrow, it would take about 72 years to get them all out of the country.
You’re assuming that my position requires a round-up. Applying interior enforcement to employers (hiring databases, checking false SSN’s higher penalties, etc) that prohibitively raise the risk of hiring illegals will dry up the job market and effect deportation through attrition.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 27, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Why are they here? Can’t we assume they know their own economic interests better than you know it?
Hitmen know their own economic interests pretty well, too. Does that make what they do right?
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 27, 2007 @ 11:31 am
I think it was said before above, but the only way for the ACLU can win a case is for the government to break the law. It’s easy for the government to defeat the ACLU: obey the law, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Obey those 3 things and the ACLU can not win.
That’s easier said than done. Often nobody knows what the law is all too often. It really depends on which judge you happen to come in front of, and how he reads the law.
Let me give you an example, for over a century, nobody thought of banning abortion as Constitutional issue. It’s not in the text. But now it’s considered a Constitutional right because of S.C. fiat.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 27, 2007 @ 11:31 am
It’s hard for me to see how this assumption is justified given Mr. Copold’s contributions to this thread.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sticks and stone, kiddo.
Comment by Derek Copold —
September 27, 2007 @ 11:33 am
Personally, people who have the guts to start over in another country are the kind of people I’d like to have here.
I can say that exact same thing about almost every member of MS-13. They certainly don’t lack for initiative.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
September 27, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
Easily done! Just go into a paranoid fit under the belief that 5 billion people are going to swarm over us and tak ur jerbs and apply immigration law that looks like drug law. Seize businesses that are suspected of employing illegals and other, similar measures. While you won’t keep many people out of the country, you’ll tank the economy enough that nobody will want to try here for a job…
Comment by Eric the .5b —
September 27, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Great perspective, this deliberate conflating of people who sneak across borders to do honest work and violent career criminals. I’m reminded of the nutso warbloggers who declare with a straight face that Muslims are obligated by Islam to make war upon liberal societies, no matter what actual Muslims think.
Comment by Gary Farber —
September 27, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
“Prosperous is a matter of perspective. A lot of places have become unliveable by American standards. Of course, the wealthier sections of the population have gained, because they now have a cheap pool of labor to exploit, but this has an effect on the national level. Instead of drawing people from places like the Rust Belt, and increasing national prosperity, California is drawing in illegals, who produce all sorts of side costs.”
This is lovely: your offered proof of the deleterious facts of illegal immigration is that it it causes illegal immigration, which “draw[s] in illegals, who produce all sorts of side costs.”
Well done.
Comment by Gary Farber —
September 27, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
“Hitmen know their own economic interests pretty well, too. Does that make what they do right?”
Ah. Violating an immigration law is the same as murder.
“Litters know their own economic interests pretty well, too. Does that make what they do right?”
No, so let’s give them a ten dollar fine.
I’ve now proven my case identically to yours. Woo-hoo.
Comment by just sayin —
September 27, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Personally, people who have the guts to start over in another country are the kind of people I’d like to have here.
True. Me, I’d like to have the ones with guts who are also unwilling to break the law. Whether or not the current immigration laws (or any immigration laws) are optimal, the way to deal with them isn’t to ignore them. What we definitely don’t need is a larger supply of people willing to break the law. Especially ones with guts.
Comment by Gary Farber —
September 27, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
“What we definitely don’t need is a larger supply of people willing to break the law. Especially ones with guts.”
Often laws deserve to be broken.
Am I a libertarian now?
Comment by The Modesto Kid —
September 28, 2007 @ 9:08 am
Am I a libertarian now?
Better! I think you’re ready to sign up with the Bush administration for employment as an environmental regulator!
Look, laws is laws is laws. I don’t care whether you’re crossing the border from Mexico, driving too fast, not paying Social Security taxes for your children’s nanny, breaking and entering, assaulting with a deadly tennis shoe, refusing to give up your seat at the front of the bus; you’re a criminal and you deserve to rot in jail. In my book.
Comment by Cala —
September 28, 2007 @ 9:50 am
A parent is (or used to be) an immediate relative of a US citizen and therefore a 21 year old child is not on the long “preference†waiting list for countries like Mexico – they got to come at the speed of the application processing (1-2 years). Unless that’s changed in the past few years.
Oops, you’re right. Adult parents are like spouses and minor children. Still. 23 years after the child is born, and all of the worries about EWI, waivers, and excludability apply. It’s not an incentive, or at least not one compared to the fact that oh, there’s a lot of money to be made.
You’re assuming that my position requires a round-up. Applying interior enforcement to employers (hiring databases, checking false SSN’s higher penalties, etc) that prohibitively raise the risk of hiring illegals will dry up the job market and effect deportation through attrition.
I am skeptical. And yes, I am assuming your position requires a round-up largely because given that so many illegal workers work in short-term contracts like seasonal farm work or construction. This law that says ‘pay $10,000 or fire the employee’ is a lot of show, given that by the time the SSA gets back to the employer and says the number is fake and the employer appeals it, the employee can be easily let go.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
September 28, 2007 @ 10:18 am
Fortunately, our trusty law enforcement officials are on the case (via radley balko’s blog)
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
September 28, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
“Whether or not the current immigration laws (or any immigration laws) are optimal, the way to deal with them isn’t to ignore them. What we definitely don’t need is a larger supply of people willing to break the law. ”
That’s why I said I’d like to see a dramatic expansion of legally allowed immigration.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
September 28, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
“I don’t care whether you’re crossing the border from Mexico, driving too fast, not paying Social Security taxes for your children’s nanny, breaking and entering, assaulting with a deadly tennis shoe, refusing to give up your seat at the front of the bus; you’re a criminal and you deserve to rot in jail.”
Do you feel that the person driving too fast and the person committing assault deserve exactly the same punishment? Or do you feel that they deserve different levels of punishment? Maybe you feel that some crimes are more serious and others are less serious? Perhaps you feel that the law is an area with many shades of gray? If you really do believe that all crimes deserve exactly the same punishment, please say so clearly.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
September 28, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
“Often nobody knows what the law is all too often. It really depends on which judge you happen to come in front of, and how he reads the law. Let me give you an example, for over a century, nobody thought of banning abortion as Constitutional issue. It’s not in the text. But now it’s considered a Constitutional right because of S.C. fiat. ”
That’s true. As a country, we’d be better off if we could get rid of the courts and the lawyers and all the law cases that constantly confuse us and instead replace that whole complicated system with a single person who could consistently tell us what the law should be. Maybe you’d like to be that person?
Comment by The Modesto Kid —
September 29, 2007 @ 7:04 am
91: I was jokin’ Lawrence, I was jokin’.