Legal vs. Illegal Immigration Isn't the Real Issue

Michael Kinsley on immigration:

Kidding Ourselves About Immigration, by Michael Kinsley, Commentary, Time: What you are supposed to say about immigration--what most of the presidential candidates say, what the radio talk jocks say--is that you are not against immigration. Not at all. You salute the hard work and noble aspirations of those who are lining up at American consulates around the world. But that is legal immigration. What you oppose is illegal immigration.

This formula is not very helpful. We all oppose breaking the law, or we ought to. Saying that you oppose illegal immigration is like saying you oppose illegal drug use or illegal speeding. Of course you do, or should. The question is whether you think the law draws the line in the right place. Should using marijuana be illegal? Should the speed limit be raised--or lowered? The fact that you believe in obeying the law reveals nothing about what you think the law ought to be, or why.

Another question: Why are you so upset about this particular form of lawbreaking? After all, there are lots of laws, not all of them enforced with vigor. The suspicion naturally arises that the illegality is not what bothers you. What bothers you is the immigration. ... So in the end, this is not really a debate about illegal immigration. This is a debate about immigration. ... [...more...]

Update: Andrew Samwick disagrees with Kinsley. Update: knzn disagrees with Andrew.

Comments

says...

I eviscerated, denucleated, shredded, and then torched Kinsley's thoughts here. He has no clue about this issue.

[zinc]

OK, I'll say it. Come one, come all. If you think you can take it, you're welcome. Just register to pay taxes and Social Security. We want you.

[Bernard Yomtov]

I eviscerated, denucleated, shredded, and then torched Kinsley's thoughts here. He has no clue about this issue.

You didn't lay a glove on him.

[Gil]

zinc says it well. If immigration was desired and relatively easy to obtain then there'd be little incentive for illegal immigration. No? Maybe it's something to do with those migrants who aspire to be hard workers are wanted not welfare-seekers, perhaps?

[calmo]

I need this little preamble because, well, rdf has had this terrible influence on me for not really knowing the author beyond the article.
Last year (according to wiki) Kinsley had a form of surgery known as deep brain stimulation, to treat his Parkinson's...not exactly experimental surgery but new enough and patients opting for this do so only if their prognosis is grim.
I was wondering if he is old enough to use the word "gumption", this youngster of 56, or whether he has been hanging out with the symphoniacs too much and has just absorbed it...but after finding out about the surgery, I'm in a slack-cutting mood, you?
So I don't know the media personality, I only know about this writer who probably hasn't got long to live and might be thinking extra hard in his last inning. I appreciate the effort to guide in any case rather than some more self-interested direction/absorption.

So that guidance:But let's not kid ourselves (this from someone who has seen up close and in detail, Parkinson outcomes) that all we care about is obeying the law and all we are asking illegals to do is go home and get in line like everybody else. We know perfectly well that the line is too long, and we are basically telling people to go home and not come back.Gentle guidance for the Times magazine readership, letting us know we (that Times readership --stressed out middle class America?) are hypocrites by telling us we are kidding ourselves, yes? So this is not about immigration, not about the difference between legal and illegal, nor about us defending our economic turf, but about our dishonesty.
Coming from him and his circumstances I'm listening, you?

[Denis Drew]

The 12 million illegals present now would present little downside to American wages if they were paid well -- which they would be if America were a sector-wide labor contract country* (or had some equivalent*) like almost all the well paying OECD world.

In our present defenseless (allows anything to happen to it) labor economy, illegals definitely allow wages to drop (fast food became an almost exclusively Mexican job at $5.15/hr). In an adequately unionized (adequate can only mean sector-wide negotiating these days*) illegals would merely make for a larger overall economy (okay there might be some small weakening of bargaining power on the low end, but Mexicans have to live too; anyway we all came from somewhere sometime).

Specifically to Mexicans: there are only 100 million Mexicans left in Mexico; polls show fewer than half want to move here (46% in one Pew poll); if a third actually show up that will represent all of an 11% increase in our population -- and they are all mostly honest and hard working, so what's the big deal. (Maybe we could insist on trading some land for people -- there is a historical precedent with Mexico. :-])

[* http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2007/12/
could-french-canadian-labor-setup-be.html ]

says...

>> OK, I'll say it. Come one, come all.

Pretty ignorant response especially at an economist blog.

David Ricardo - "The price of labor is a function of the supply of labor"

Come one come all means wages go down.

This is such an simple comcept that it's amazing it has to pointed out to some people.

[2slugbaits]

Andrew Samwick's rebuttal kind of misses the main point. Kinsley's argument isn't that you cannot manufacture the kind of rational sounding arguments against illegal immigration that Samwick offers. Kinsley's point is that those kinds of arguments tend to be after-the-fact rationalizations rather than actual reasons. Samwick's arguments are unlikely to explain the kind of visceral reaction we commonly see when politicians talk about illegal immigration. In other words, Samwick's response is a kind of false consciousness about illegal immigration. Samwick is fooling himself if he really believes what he is saying.

[save_the_rustbelt]

If one of my children used a fake/stolen SS number, fake/stolen ID, and failed to file federal/state/city income tax returns they would be considered criminals.

After a year of research I have discovered the following:

1. one segment of illegals, the day labor sector, are in are an underground economy where the employers evade taxes and employment laws and the illegals evade taxes

2. another segment of illegals work for employers who do collect taxes and sometimes keep the tax money because the IRS and SSA cannot reconcile the accounts

3. Most employers of illegals do not appear to follow OSHA, pay workers comp or unemployment taxes, but the data is shaky.

There is plenty of info on this from 2006 Congressional testimony and some very fine work by the SSA Inspector General.

In response to FOIA requests, both the IRS and DOJ tell me they never thought to track crimes by illegals - duh.

SSA is wrestling with an annual data dump containing millions of stolen and fake SS numbers, which is costing a great deal of administrative time and money.

The use of stolen SSNs is causing immense problems for a great many innocent Americans.

[Bob]

Remember all that BS about how "big business might be corrupt but the small businessman is different".

Yeah there was quite a lot of propaganda thrown around about the nobility of the small entrepeneur and how he was the personification of what makes the system great.

Where i live (near NYC) many , many of these small businessmen are economic traitors. They actually get a bit of a kick telling american workers they don't need them.

Landscapers, restaurants, building contractors, nurserys ect ect.

The world of business is obviously one of the most corrupting environments you'll run across.

[anne]

Where then is the research, where then are the precise references for all the research? Where are the precise data pools? Do show off the research.

[Robinia]

At the risk of marking myself a geezer (which, by Calmo's chronological definition, I'm not), the meditation on the word "gumption" in relation to immigration has some interesting potential. It is sure as sure that the drive that brought my grandparents here included some cross-the-line behaviors. My Irish side was legal to Canada, but the jobs were in Boston. My Italian side had their eldest daughter's coat marked with an "x" coming through Ellis Island, which they removed with spit and hard rubbing (turns out she was not "mentally deficient" as the "x" would have it... doubtless, just a very frightened teenager). These stories, in my family, are told as examples of gumption-- stick-to-itiveness, drive, entrepreneurialism, daring. The things that make immigrants so productive.

On my husband's side of the family, the tale of gumption is about internal migration. They were going from Tennessee to the newly-opened territory (stolen from Native peoples, as it turns out, but, that is a different story... one that defines unthinkable cruelty as "legal"). Those who "jumped the gun" had "gumption"-- and, were called Sooners because they got there, well, sooner than those who waited in line. They have given their legacy to the people of Oklahoma, who now use that term to refer to the residents of their state, and their sports teams.

It is a narrative of drive and determination, of overcoming difficult odds, and of perilous journeys. It is the narrative of our polyglot peoples, represented by our symbol, Lady Liberty. Long may she welcome the huddled masses, yearning to be free. It is what has made this country great. Am I for immigration? Oh, yeah. "Build ports not walls." The immigrants will build the new jobs that more immigration will require-- as they always have-- because they have the drive to make new paths in the economy that the rent-seeking, comfortable, security-minded nativists lack.

[lonesome moderate]

Rustbelt - I don't think that anyone could reasonably expect these kinds of things not to happen if we focus our efforts solely on enforcement, giving these people no options other than (a) scrape by any way they can, or (b) go home. Whenever you crack down harder, then some people will go home, and some people will move further out onto the fringes of society. Moving out to the fringes means more of the kinds problems you list.

Most immigrants have little knowledge of, or interest in, the abstractions behind things like taxes, OHSA regulations, or social security numbers. They want to know two things: first, how can I get a decent job and living situation? Second, how can I avoid getting deported? If we create a situation where they can stay in this country and stay within the law, then most of them will. If we create a situation where they will be deported as soon as the law finds out about them, then they will stay as far away from the law as possible.

[Richard A.]

Illegals are the least educated foreigners coming to the US.
How about if we have an immigration policy tilted toward those immigrants with a good middle class education?

[lonesome moderate]

To me this is a battle of bogus talking points. When I listen to the arguments of the hard-liners on this issue, what I hear usually has very little to do do either with their illegality (their own bogus characterization of the issue), or racism/xenophobia (the usual counterargument). It's simply the sheer numbers that worry people, with the stresses that would put on our housing and labor markets, along with an increasing fear of Latino gangs. To me, to the extent that these fears are justified, the best way to address them is clearly through some kind of path-to-citizenship program somewhat along the lines that Bush was proposing (I had problems with a lot of the particulars, but the general idea was right). When you have tens of millions of people living marginal existences at the bottom of society, then of course you will create the kinds of problems that always go with a permanent underclass.

[hari]

The details and background to illegal immigration to US is well documented on Borjas blog.

However the fundamental question which concerns the public, I'd suspect, is why US Congress is unable to deal with such an explosive issue.

If Congress is unable/unwilling to get involved with the details/background of this political issue - who will?

The commentators are useless because they neither know and/or understand what's "illegal" with immigration.

The dept of immigration and naturalization knows exactly what's holding up the solution. And that solution is rather
simple...

No self-respecting citizen will understand how you can physically "export" +12m illegals!

Result/conclusion: let them in!

And then get serious about how you protect the boarder. STOP the nonsense!

[robertdfeinman]

Since this is an economics blog let's ignore the obvious jingoism that is behind much of the opposition to immigration. This has a long tradition in the US from "No Irish need apply" to restrictions on Chinese immigrants.

The economic argument goes something like this:
Immigrants are willing to work for less money than those already here and thus they drive down the wages of residents. Undocumented immigrants do so even more. In addition undocumented immigrants use social services at a higher rate than residents and don't pay for them via taxes. In other words they are freeloaders just like the "welfare moms" of the Reagan era.

What are the facts?
There is some indication that undocumented immigrants push down wages in certain low skill sectors like farming and meat processing. Is this because of the increased competition or because the existing workers are not able to protect their interests since they are not unionized? GM workers have given back a lot in wages and benefits and there is no competition from immigrants.

How about social services? Once again the picture is mixed. A study in Texas found immigrants provided something like $12 billion in increased economic activity, but did impact some local communities in terms of health costs. As many have noted before, Social security is getting about 7% of its income from those with false ID's.They will never have to pay these people back in benefits.

Combine jingoism with economic insecurity such as seen in the auto sector and you get anti-immigration sentiment. The Nazis used such false connections to great effect. The same thing happened in Rwanda. It's a perennial favorite, blame the ills of society on the weakest group.

For those who haven't seen it before, I have a short essay (mostly graphs) which shows the effect of immigration on wages and compares it to other factors like NAFTA and the decline in unionization.

Immigration Facts Debunked

[donna]

A friend of mine lives in the rich part of town, was telling me last night how her kid got picked up by the cops smoking marijuana, got a talking to by the cop who thought it smelled like "good stuff" and joked around with my friend's son, and taken home.

My neighbor's kids, in the not so ritzy part of town, once got picked up smoking marijuana, taken to jail, and released to their parents.

The young hispanic woman my friend works with was smoking marijuana, and got a month in jail.

It's not about legal vs. illegal. It's about societal rank and privilege.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Anne:

When I get the first draft up on SSRN I'll send a link. It would help if you used your real e-mail.

For quick reference, there are transcripts of House hearings in 2006, if you care to Google. Testimony of IRS Commissioner and SSA Inspector General are most enlightening.

I have about 1200 pages and some more FOIA requests pending. Interesting reading.

[qwerty]

I want to say Thanks! to the above poster. Very enlightening!

[Dickeylee]

If we do go into a recession in '08, look for this issue to be more important than Iraq next fall. And all prejudice's aside, the vast majority will vote to kick 'em out, build the wall, etc...probably giving us another 4 years of Republican rule. Where do HRC, Obama, Biden, Edwards, Richardson, and pals stand?

[Peter Schaeffer]

"As many have noted before, Social security is getting about 7% of its income from those with false ID's.They will never have to pay these people back in benefits."

Illegals account for around 5% of the labor force and just 2% of the wages paid in the US. 7% isn't a remotely plausible estimate of the illegal contribution to Social Security.

In fact, the Heritage study that showed a $2.5 trillion cost to Amnesty was heavily weighted by the future burden of providing Social Security to Amnestied illegals.

The study also showed that each low income immigrant family costs the taxpayer over $20,000 per year. No one doubts that native poor people are a burden on taxpayers. Why should imported poor people be any different?

says...

Heritage is not a credible source of information. Anyone who thinks it is (or passes the info along) is being taken for a fool's ride.

What a bunch of bigots. It's interesting to see all the arguments that used to be applied to blacks (welfare, etc.) now be used against illegal aliens. You can fool yourselves all you want that this is based on economics, or other worries, but it's not.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Says ...,

If you don't like the Heritage numbers, try to find a flaw in them. They were based on very standard Census department data.

AS for poor native-born blacks (and whites and Hispanics), that is exactly the point I was making above. Poor people are large net burden on the taxpayer. Importing them doesn't change that. Nor does it make any sense.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Hari,

How do you export 12 million illegals? Actually it is not even hard. Eisenhower removed between 1-2 million illegals back in 1953 with just 1,075 federal agents. More recently, Israel, Malaysia, and the UAE have conducted successful removal operations. The Malaysian operation was on roughly the same scale as the US if you adjust for population.

In the US, one approach would be as follows. First, take away the jobs. This will cause 50-65% of the illegals to leave. Then start interior enforcement. The US has around 700,000 police officers. Each police can easily arrest 1 illegal per month. Since 3-4 illegals will leave for each one deported, the rest of the illegal population will be gone in 3-4 months.

The bottom line is this. Once the US government makes it clear that illegals are no longer welcome in the US, the vast majority will pack up and leave. The rest will require a modest effort to remove.

Of course, the best way to stop future illegals from entering the US is to remove the ones we have. It demonstrates that the US is serious.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Robertdfeinman,

I find it encouraging that you admit that wages have been crushed in meat packing and other fields by illegal aliens (not immigrants by the way, immigrants are legal residents of the US). However, you are missing the point about unions. Without a revolving door supply of illegals, the unions would still be there.

As for blaming the “weakest group”, the last time I checked illegal employers were quite powerful in the US and still bleating for more cheap labor.

[lonesome moderate]

Peter SchaefferThe US has around 700,000 police officers. Each police can easily arrest 1 illegal per month. Since 3-4 illegals will leave for each one deported, the rest of the illegal population will be gone in 3-4 months.

I don't think there's a single police department in the country that wants to be deputized as immigration enforcers. Most of them realize that is counterproductive for illegal immigrants to believe that any call to the police department leads to automatic deportation, thereby creating a large window for crime both by and against illegals.

By the way, http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/immigrant defines an immigrant as "a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence". I know of no dictionary that defines the word in terms of its legality.

[Bruce Wilder]

Yes, Michael Kinsley, the illegality bothers me a lot.

As a country, if we cannot or will not enforce the law, then we have no capacity to operate as a democratcy.

It is no doubt true, that for a lot of people, who oppose illegal immigration most passionately, racism forms part of the motive, and it is the immigration, itself, which is the "real" issue. But, as Michael Kinsley points out, everyone should be opposed to illegal immigration.

I actually think American immigration law, as it stands, is pretty sensible. It does not bar immigration. It is not racist in design or intent. But, it is inoperative, and that's a problem, which seriously undermines the rule of law and democracy, at a time when both are under assault.

And, yes, the sheer, unregulated volume of immigration bothers me. But, that's not a mask for racism. That's a recognition that political solidarity is necessary to the functioning of a political community. That's a recognition that many collective economic investments, made through political institutions, can be threatened by the erosion of political solidarity. The same wide-open immigration, which functions as a political safety valve for central American regimes, which should be wiped out by the discontented, but, instead, survive, because the discontented are in Southern California doing lawn maintenance, also becomes an issue that enable Lou Dobbs to be do his part for the Fascist State project of the plutocracy he loves so well.

That's another aspect of the illegality. The illegality, per se, is frustrating and outrageous. And, politically, it is extremely dangerous to our democracy, as a time, when one Party has been actively building a fascist State, and the other Party appears only haltingly aware of the threat.

If our Democracy were to decide on immigration policy through the legislative process, there would have to be a political struggle against racist intent. Welcome to democracy. Human beings operate from mixed motives.

Yelling "racist" may be accurate, but it doesn't put you on the side of the angels, and it doesn't make you right. It just allows you to avoid confronting the aspect of the issue, which is most difficult and troubling.

Put the racism aside, put the laissez faire "open borders" nonsense in the trashbin, and you are left with a big mess, with no nice, easy ideal solutions. You are left with a failed immigration policy and 12+ million illegal residents, and a bunch of ineffective institutions -- an ineffective Congress, an ineffective ICE and police, and so on.

There's no "good" way out of this situation, which does not acknowledge and provide for building effective mechanisms of institutional control of immigration.

Right now, one "side" wants symbolic, but cruel and ineffective mechanisms of institutional control of immigration. And, the other "side" appears to oppose, or think unnecessary, effective means of control. That's the "dilemma" that ought to concern us -- that we've divided politically in a way that leaves us without the critical element of democratic politics, a basis for a good compromise.

[Icarus]

No one is going to export US illegals. They are a strategic asset.

The US wants/needs a second class labour force, who live in the shadows. It's not only the US; many economies rely on second class labour forces.

The illegal "problem" is a toothless battle between ideologies which have no capacity to effect real change. We can't legalize illegal immigration (regardless of what la raza, or other uber-leftist orgs want), and, we won't deport 12 million people (who will clean our houses and cook our burgers?).

The only real 'problem' is what to do with the school/hospital services which any population requires. If we repeal the 14th amendment component which creates anchor babies, deny any hospital service with costs over $50,000 to those without insurance, and give cities the right to place limits on tenancy in housing units...we'd get far in limiting the costs of that second class citizenry we use.

The US needs to embrace a guest worker program which allows people to come in and work, but, makes no claim to want their family. (Japan/Singapore style) The only way to do it is to destroy the incentives which cause migrants to 'settle' here, as opposed to just 'work' here.

[barry payne - economist]

The GAO reports illegal immigration flow in the annual range of 400k-700k since 1992. Where was the Minuteman crowd then?

As 2slugbaits points out, how can the same "supply and demand" forces used to bring them in illegally then be used to deport them legally now?

And notice the absence of MSM reports on the "illegal problem" particularly prior to Katrina and the fall of Bush in the polls in 2005. The first numbers coming across frantically on the airwaves were above 10 million - like the illegals had just been discovered.

For an interesting take on the political strategy behind immigration, see the following paragraph by James Pinkerton

(full article, "Divide and Rule" at http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_06_04/article.html)

"So back to Bush and his crew. American blacks don’t vote Republican? The “Divide and Conquer” chapter provides a solution: bring in 10 or 20 million Hispanics and suddenly blacks are no longer the biggest racial minority. When those Hispanics arrive, praise their “strong family values” and get as many as possible into jobs that displace blacks. (As a side benefit, get those macho men into the military because Uncle Sam needs more forraje de canon —for wars such as Iraq—than native-stock mothers are willing to offer up.) Bush & Co. can hope that the Nuevos Americanos become Republicans—surely these proud working folk will shun Democrats as the party of lower-down blacks."

For economic strategy, see Dean Baker's "The Conservative Nanny State" on how low skilled labor is kept competitive while maintaining barriers to competition for the professional class.

[lonesome moderate]

Peter Schaeffer:How do you export 12 million illegals? Actually it is not even hard. Eisenhower removed between 1-2 million illegals back in 1953 with just 1,075 federal agents.

I assume this is a reference to "Operation Wetback" in 1954, a common example cited by immigration hardliners. As a result of this program about 200,000 people were sent back to Mexico, and another million or so are said to have "fled". The mid-fifties, however, were the height of the bracero program, when hundreds of thousands of Mexicans a year were admitted to the United States as guest workers (admissions peaked in 1956, at 442,500). It seems obvious that many, if not most, of the people who "fled" were doing so because they decided that they had a better chance of working in the United States by leaving voluntarily, then applying to come back through legal channels.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Lonesome moderate,

Actually, the US already has a program where state and local law enforcement are deputized as immigration enforcement officers. It is called 287(g). According to ICE the following agencies have signed up

“Alabama Department of Public Safety/State Police, the Arizona Department of Corrections and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. ICE also has MOAs with the county sheriff’s departments in Maricopa County, Ariz.; Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, Calif.; Cobb County, Ga.; Alamance, Gaston and Mecklenburg counties, N.C.; and Davidson County, Tenn.”

However, the police don’t need to be deputized to enforce immigration law. Irving, Texas has been running a quite successful program that checks the immigration status of each person arrested for some time now.

As for people fearing to call the police because they are illegal, you are missing the point. I am proposing pro-active law enforcement, not checking phone calls. Moreover, with no illegals left in the US, no one will have any reason to fear calling the police.

Under US law, an “immigrant’ is a person who has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence in the United States. As a consequence the phrase “illegal immigrant” has no meaning. You can not be an immigrant and be illegal. See “Spotlight on Legal Immigration to the United States” (http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?id=651#1).

[cm]

Denis Drew: You may want to consider that who you call "Mexicans" are in many cases not actually from Mexico, but larger areas of Middle and South America.

[save_the_rustbelt]

If we set a precedent that that law can be ignored wholesale because it is to the economic advantage of some class of persons (I can't say citizens) why will the rest of the citizenry feel any obligation to obey the law?

Slippery slope.

[Bruce Webb]

Back in the 70's and 80's large parts of the construction trades on the East Coast were heavily infiltrated by illegal immigrants who spoke with funny accents and had a habit of hanging around their own bars often decorated with flags from their home country. Were American's outraged? Did they insist in a chain across Boston harbor?

No somehow it was different when the bar is named Brennan's, the illegal customer O'Conner, and the flag Irish. Yet on the surface the issues were exactly the same, foreigners taking American jobs by undercutting wages. The day they will convince me this isn't in origin racial is the day that stop coding their language in racial terms and stop using blatant double standards. Has anyone in this country ever complained about someone speaking Italian in an Italian restaurant in any Little Italy anywhere? Somehow I doubt it.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/08/opinion/08herbert.html

December 8, 2007

Spies Like You and Me
By BOB HERBERT

Let the witch hunt begin. Are you now or have you ever been an illegal immigrant?

Are any of your friends illegal? Relatives?

The last place you'd expect to encounter a chilling moment is at a presidential debate sponsored by National Public Radio. But on Tuesday, there was the NPR moderator, Steve Inskeep, asking the Democratic candidates whether American citizens have an obligation to turn in people they suspect are illegal immigrants.

It was not just a question asked in passing. Mr. Inskeep pressed the issue. He asked Senator Chris Dodd, for example, about the hypothetical situation of a "citizen" interviewing for a nanny.

"You interview a number of applicants," Mr. Inskeep said. "They all seem very nice. They seem like they would take care of the kids. But it would appear that their documents may not be in order. What would you want an American to do?"

Their documents may not be in order.

Mr. Inskeep didn't make clear what should trigger the suspicions of such oh-so-solidly American parents, causing them to scrutinize an applicant's papers with a thoroughness worthy of Sherlock Holmes. Might it be a skin tone darker than Paris Hilton's? Or maybe an accent, like that of my Aunt Lottie, who came here from Barbados?

You wouldn't have wanted to face my family if you were some rat who tried to turn in my Aunt Lottie.

I have no idea how Mr. Inskeep feels about this issue. He was just asking questions. But the last thing in the world that the United States needs is a signal from presidential wannabes that it's a good idea to turn ordinary American citizens into immigrant-hunting busybodies.

The Democrats did not rise to the bait. Senator Hillary Clinton was especially good. Mr. Inskeep said to her, "If a citizen witnessed some other kind of crime, wouldn't you want them to report it?"

Senator Clinton replied: "It's a very clever question, Steve, but I think it really begs the question, because what we're looking at here is 12 to 14 million people. They live in our neighborhoods, they take care of our elderly parents, they probably made the beds in the hotels that some of us stayed in last night. They are embedded in our society."

She warned that listening to the "demagogues and the calls for us to begin to try to round up people and turn every American into a suspicious vigilante" would do grave harm "to the fabric of our nation."

She couldn't have been more correct. Enlisting ordinary Americans in a nationwide hunt for so-called illegals is a recipe for violence and hysteria, a guarantee of tragedy.

We've already got radio-active talk show hosts spewing anti-immigrant venom from one coast to another....

says...

Many "economists" try to make an economic case for IllegalImmigration or MassiveImmigration, and by doing they reveal that they're unable to think things through (or they're intentionally being misleading because they're paid hacks).

Those "economists" always forget to mention the non-financial costs of what they support, which includes increased PoliticalCorruption. If our pols were doing their jobs, there wouldn't be millions of IllegalAliens here. They refuse to do their jobs because they're on the take in one way or another. That PoliticalCorruption has a cost, yet the hacks consistently refuse to include that in their calculations.

Another non-financial cost is giving foreign governments PoliticalPower inside the U.S. The MexicanGovernment yesterday explicitly stated that they're going to be using U.S. nonprofits to push their agenda. Giving foreign governments PoliticalPower inside the U.S. is yet another cost that the hacks never mention.

[Peter Schaeffer]

If I see a drunk driver, I call the police. If I see a burglary in progress, I call the police. If I see illegal aliens in front of Home Depot, I call ICE. Actually, I don't because ICE won't do anything about it. If they would, I would call. So would most Americans.

Crime is crime. Enforce the law.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Bruce Webb,

I know Italian and Irish (and Israeli and Chinese) immigrants to America. They are legal. They aren't trying to impose their language on our nation. They aren't claiming "the border crossed us". They want to speak the language of the United States and be Americans.

These aren't hard distinctions to understand.

[anne]

"If I see illegal aliens in front of Home Depot, I call ICE."

Always crazed prejudiced monstrousness all the time; remind me to shop more at Home Depot, speaking French I think.

[anne]

"Giving foreign governments Political Power inside the U.S. is yet another cost that the hacks never mention."

Always idiocy, all the time; always fear-mongering hate-mongering deceiving idiocy.

[anne]

"I know Italian and Irish (and Israeli and Chinese) immigrants to America."

These are the good immigrants, the best of the good immigrants, the best of the best good immigrants. Sort of makes me ashamed to be Irish, though. I would prefer to be a despised immigrant, carrying a knife to force you Americans to speak Russian. Funny, we have a Russian language reading room in our public library. Soon knife carrying Russians will be after our English speaking women. Say what?

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/29/specials/baldwin-english.html

July 29, 1979

If Black English Isn't a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?
By JAMES BALDWIN

St. Paul de Vence, France--The argument concerning the use, or the status, or the reality, of black English is rooted in American history and has absolutely nothing to do with the question the argument supposes itself to be posing. The argument has nothing to do with language itself but with the role of language. Language, incontestably, reveals the speaker. Language, also, far more dubiously, is meant to define the other--and, in this case, the other is refusing to be defined by a language that has never been able to recognize him.

People evolve a language in order to describe and thus control their circumstances, or in order not to be submerged by a reality that they cannot articulate. (And, if they cannot articulate it, they are submerged.) A Frenchman living in Paris speaks a subtly and crucially different language from that of the man living in Marseilles; neither sounds very much like a man living in Quebec; and they would all have great difficulty in apprehending what the man from Guadeloupe, or Martinique, is saying, to say nothing of the man from Senegal--although the "common" language of all these areas is French. But each has paid, and is paying, a different price for this "common" language, in which, as it turns out, they are not saying, and cannot be saying, the same things: They each have very different realities to articulate, or control.

What joins all languages, and all men, is the necessity to confront life, in order, not inconceivably, to outwit death: The price for this is the acceptance, and achievement, of one's temporal identity. So that, for example, thought it is not taught in the schools (and this has the potential of becoming a political issue) the south of France still clings to its ancient and musical ProvenÁal, which resists being described as a "dialect." And much of the tension in the Basque countries, and in Wales, is due to the Basque and Welsh determination not to allow their languages to be destroyed. This determination also feeds the flames in Ireland for many indignities the Irish have been forced to undergo at English hands is the English contempt for their language.

It goes without saying, then, that language is also a political instrument, means, and proof of power. It is the most vivid and crucial key to identify: It reveals the private identity, and connects one with, or divorces one from, the larger, public, or communal identity. There have been, and are, times, and places, when to speak a certain language could be dangerous, even fatal. Or, one may speak the same language, but in such a way that one's antecedents are revealed, or (one hopes) hidden. This is true in France, and is absolutely true in England: The range (and reign) of accents on that damp little island make England coherent for the English and totally incomprehensible for everyone else. To open your mouth in England is (if I may use black English) to "put your business in the street": You have confessed your parents, your youth, your school, your salary, your self-esteem, and, alas, your future.

Now, I do not know what white Americans would sound like if there had never been any black people in the United States, but they would not sound the way they sound. Jazz, for example, is a very specific sexual term, as in jazz me, baby, but white people purified it into the Jazz Age....

[anne]

There now we have Jimmy Baldwin, gone just 20 years this months, writing from France no less and writing of sex of all things, jazz sex, all things come down to sex I suppose. Jimmy Baldwin writing from France about English, probably writing from a Home Depot pretending to be French. They let the guy in? Sort of makes me think again about "all that jazz."

They don't want our language, it's women they're after. Eek.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/29/specials/baldwin-english.html

People evolve a language in order to describe and thus control their circumstances, or in order not to be submerged by a reality that they cannot articulate. (And, if they cannot articulate it, they are submerged.) A Frenchman living in Paris speaks a subtly and crucially different language from that of the man living in Marseilles; neither sounds very much like a man living in Quebec; and they would all have great difficulty in apprehending what the man from Guadeloupe, or Martinique, is saying, to say nothing of the man from Senegal--although the "common" language of all these areas is French. But each has paid, and is paying, a different price for this "common" language, in which, as it turns out, they are not saying, and cannot be saying, the same things: They each have very different realities to articulate, or control....

And, all that jazz, Jimmy....

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30712FA3A5A0C728EDDAB0994D9404482

1961

Totem

I must hide in the intimate depths of my veins
The Ancestor storm-dark skinned, shot with lightning and thunder
And my guardian animal, I must hide him
Lest I smash through the boom of scandal.
He is my faithful blood and demands fidelity
Protecting my naked pride against
Myself and all the insolence of lucky races.

Léopold Senghor

[dissent]

I'm amazed at this discussion. Don't you folks care about American citizens who are low wage workers?

I suspect most of you are in an income bracket where you can take advantage of house cleaners and child care workers who are illegal immigrants. Bully for you. That doesn't mean that the issues of the collapse of social well being and employment among, say poor American black men, is not something worth careful consideration.

My take is the following. Illegal immigration should be controlled through severe employer sanctions. Legal immigration should be calibrated to the tightness of the labor market. If the labor market has slack, no immigration.

We should maintain a certain tightness in the labor market, even if it causes some inflation. This business of stagnant wages has got to stop.

[Bruce Webb]

Peter S. Many of the Irish working in construction were in fact illegal, many having simply jumped their visitor visa's.

I must be channelling Anne. Because the following is rubbish.
I know Italian and Irish (and Israeli and Chinese) immigrants to America. They are legal. They aren't trying to impose their language on our nation. They aren't claiming "the border crossed us". They want to speak the language of the United States and be Americans. First all you are hallucinating if you think this country does not have a large population of illegal Chinese immigrants. They may not be out in front of Home Depot, but they are in the kitchens of the restaurant in the strip mall. Nor are many of them particularly interested in earning English. In past rounds of immigration it was totally common for older generations to not speak English. New York had a huge circulation of foreign language newspapers, first generation immigrants often had no time to learn English, instead their kids picked it up at school. This is still true here where I live, our area has a large influx of Russian workers, many of whom had to bring their kids to translate while they submitted for permits. Nobody seems to have any problem with this.

I don't doubt that most current Irish immigrants are legal, economic conditions in Ireland are dramatically improved over where they were and since they speak English to start with that never becomes an issue. But it wasn't true back in the day.

As for Italians and Israelis, I suspect that most are University trained or picked up enough English in school. Whether an occasional guy is slipped in by freighter from Sicily like the old days is an open question.

But as to your Aztlan thing. Mexicans aren't trying to impose Spanish on this country any more than that Chinese cook is trying to impose Chinese. It is a matter of courtesy to provide government materials and yes even voting materials in foreign languages wherever you have a large enough foreign population. Americans accept the presence of signs in English, taxi drivers who speak English, waitresses who speak English pretty much anywhere they travel through the world as if by right. And God help you if you told two American's working in Brussels that they couldn't speak English in the break room, that it was French or Flemish or nothing.

As to "the border crossed us" that is a pretty good description of the Mexican War. It was a simple war of aggression aimed at taking land and resources away from another country. It was not any different in kind then Saddam's taking of Kuwait, we had no real justification for it, we did it essentially because we could.

My point remains. When it comes to illegals America has had two standards, one for Mexicans and one for almost everyone else. We hand out treatment to Mexicans that we would never tolerate if hired to work in Mexico and it is hard to find any plausible reason beyond simple racism to explain why this is so

[save_the_rustbelt]

Anne is Irish?

We let the Irish in and things have been going downhill every since.

Reminds me of one of the better scenes in Blazing Saddles.

[ken melvin]

There was a time when America needed immigrants and opened her arms. There were other times when employers needed immigrants to keep labor in its place, and, being that business owned government, immigrants were allowed in. Microsoft’s H1Bs aren’t here because America needs them, America would be better off without them, they are here because Gates can make more money hiring them instead of US citizens. Thought those who hire illegal nannies, maid servants, dishwashers, … are advocates and like to have illegals working here, I’ve yet to hear one of these who’ve given up their job or taken a pay cut advocate for more of the same. Seems it’s OK for these illegals to take jobs away from lower income Americans, or cause their wages to fall. If it’s OK, what do we tell those lower income Americans who fought and died for America (they did so in greater numbers than those who are well off)? Is this like after WWI & WWII, where we tell black citizens who fought that their rights now belong to the illegals?

Finally, in re the plaintive for data and research, I remind the plaintive that data is the abstract of reality, and, that research is only as good as the data and is subject to the bias of the researcher. It’s foolish to deny reality on the basis of a perceived lack of evidence.

[ken melvin]

They come by the millions per year by the most arduous of routes. If they can’t find work, they will drive home. Maybe, once there, they will set about to clean up the governmental corruption that underlies this mess.

My calling for an end to the hiring of illegals doesn’t make me a bigot, racist, immoral, or anti anything other the advantage being taken of working class Americans. The real scoundrels are those who advocate for the illegals because they directly or indirectly benefit from the cheap labor, and the Churches who harbor them while ignoring the plight of America’s poor (how much more hypocritical can one be?).

[lonesome moderate]

They aren't trying to impose their language on our nation. They aren't claiming "the border crossed us". They want to speak the language of the United States and be Americans.

Although you will hear a small minority of Latino immigrants engage in this kind of trash talk, in fact they assimilate as fast or faster as other immigrant groups historically have. Most second generation Latinos, and virtually all of the third generation, either speak English only, or speak it better than Spanish.

[lonesome moderate]

Microsoft’s H1Bs aren’t here because America needs them, America would be better off without them, they are here because Gates can make more money hiring them instead of US citizens.

Actually it's neither, they're here because, if Microsoft could not bring them here, it would send the jobs to someplace else. In fact, they have already done that to some extent, locating some projects in Canada to take advantage of the greater flexibility of Canadian immigration lawas. The ability to bring in talent from abroad is a large part of what built the American tech industry in the first place.

[anne]

There is every reason to argue about immigration and trade policy, and that does not bother me. We need however not to fall prey to prejudice in so doing, which is my firmest stance on the issues so far. That modification is needed, I completely agree.

Though I suggested James Baldwin's essay on language, because I was reading Baldwin by coincidence. But, the language essay is quite remarkable and I do suggest reading the rest.

[cm]

dissent, ken melvin: Also note that the commenter who raised the question who will clean our houses apparently didn't consider the option of cleaning his house himself, like most people in situations or in places where cheap service labor is not available to them.

[James Killus]

If one of my children used a fake/stolen SS number, fake/stolen ID, and failed to file federal/state/city income tax returns they would be considered criminals. - STR

The law in its infinite majesty forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread. - Anatole France.

It's easier for people to leave when they know they can come back just as easily. It's easier for people to stand up for their rights and to bargain effectively with employers when the employer cannot threaten them with deportation. I'm with zinc.

The economic data on the effects of immigrants on local wage conditions is, at best, equivocal. Y'all might at least consider the hypothesis that your opinions are a function of your emotional leanings. Me, I've mostly liked the immigrants that I've known, and I haven't paid much attention to their legal status. They came here by choice. What did we ever do, get born? Yeah, there's a virtue for you.

[calmo]

Layers of irony there, James,Me, I've mostly liked the immigrants that I've known, and I haven't paid much attention to their legal status. They came here by choice. What did we ever do, get born? Yeah, there's a virtue for you.
Your heart (not your formidable mind especially)[which cannot be trusted on such delicate matters] is in the right place with your note that virtue is tied to doing, to effort, socially recognized effort: work...not with birthright privileges. [Which is why w is not virtuous and why he needs to tell us his administration is "working, working hard"...such is the scarcity of virtue in the WH.]
But most (all?) nations recognize origin of birth as a sufficient condition for citizenship, no matter how un-virtuous. Most (all?) nations recognize wealth as a sufficient condition for citizenship provided it aligns with the nation's government, no matter how un-virtuous.
I used to have a warm feeling about citizenship, but now that you have led me to this national framework of citizenship, I am anxious to discard it for something else: human compassion? The artifice, nation building, allows us to disregard the work, the effort of "the underprivileged" (the First Lady in referring to Katrina victims, --but here ~10% of the labor force) and label these undocumented workers "illegal aliens"...making those employers (with birth certificates), captains of industry and more, quite subprime human beings IMO.
I'm not sure I unearthed those layers of irony JK, but thanks for stimulating this old horse enough to try.

[ken melvin]

cm- cheap labor is one advantage of living in a third world country.

[wjd123]

What you oppose is illegal immigration.

This formula is not very helpful.

We all oppose breaking the law, or we ought to. Saying that you oppose illegal immigration is like saying you oppose illegal drug use or illegal speeding. Of course you do, or should. The question is whether you think the law draws the line in the right place. Should using marijuana be illegal? Should the speed limit be raised--or lowered? The fact that you believe in obeying the law reveals nothing about what you think the law ought to be, or why.--Kinsley

I oppose illegal immigration because not to do so would be inviting more people to come here illegally. I'm for strict enforcement of the laws because politicians have been very lax in enforcing laws against those who come here illegally. I believe that politicians who have allowed this to happen have done this against the will of the American people. Laxness in enforcing our immigration laws was to have ended 20 years ago with the last amnesty. I see no reason why those interest who found loopholes in the law then won't find loopholes in any new amnesty, and I see no reason to believe that politicians won't once again be the willing enablers of the loophole finders.

Before I would even consider any charity toward those who came here illegally, I want to see that the law can and will be enforced. First enforcement then charity. I have no faith in our politicians who are calling for a comprehensive solution. I don't want any more promises. I have not faith in those politicians who want to build a wall and allow employers the freedom to continue hiring illegals. I don't want any more ineffective solutions.

I think our immigration laws should be enforced. They are obviously not being obeyed.

The visceral reaction is against politicians who don't enforce the law or merely offer up new laws and proposals that are more pap than substance.

The question isn't whether you think that the law draws the line in the right place but whether you think that any line that is drawn will be enforced. The problem to be solved is one of confidence. The question isn't about what ought to be but about what will be.

Since the problem is a crisis of confidence, it's a problem that only those who believe in open borders can escape by drawing a line in the right place because for them there would simply be no line.

If the only way that voters will believe that the law will be enforced in the spirit it was passed is for it to be enforced, then candidates running for president have a huge problem. They can't say that they don't believe in enforcing the law since they are running for the position of law enforcer. And if they say that they will enforce the law after a comprehensive immigration bill is passed, why should voters believe them.

It's a Catch 22 situation for illegal immigrants and politicians alike. But the anger is more directed at politicians than illegals. Illegals broke the law because they could, and they could because politicians let them by not enforcing the law or changing it.

When it comes to illegal immigration neither political party has shown much respect for the law. However it is the Republican party that will reap the political capital from this issue because they have tough talk even though they have no effective solution to actually stop illegal immigration. The Democratic party may have a more reasonable approach and even a more effective one, but since the crises is one of confidence, tough talk wins.

It's not easy for politicians to admit that they are the ones who created this crisis by not doing their duty. Denying the problem by redefining it--in this case the Kinsley way-- won't help. (Nor will the efforts by economist to show that it's not that big of an economic problem, help.) Neither attempt gets at the heart of the problem.

Voters want illegal immigration stopped, but they don't trust politicians to do it. That's another Catch 22, only this time for voters.

[Real Person from the Real World]

When it comes to Mexicans, people are crossing invisible borders that are really just lines on a map in an atlas. This is NOT the same as someone who comes here legally on a visa, then "disappears." We have a border with Mexico as well as Canada, and I am sure populations mix. Legally importing people from overseas to vend them here is a problem for technology. At the bottom end, for brawn jobs.... well, part of the problem is that we have lost manufacturing jobs long ago, so now the low hanging comodity jobs are even more geared towards even cheaper labor snd "illegals" who traditionally started in those jobs are now competing with our own people in a downward spiral of regressive social mobility, and companies keep chopping down wages til they can chop no more. Used to be, immigrants started at the bottom and worked up, NO MORE. Now we just bring em in, and slot them in at some of the best wages, while those born here just lose ground and the red herring brigade sees that everyone is misdirected toward "illegals" usually meaning Mexicans, using up medical resources and taking (bottom rung)jobs.

[Michael Cain]

My largest concern with immigration (either legal or illegal) involves resource usage. Water is a growing concern. The electric grid is being strained. Supplies of transportation and heating fuels are increasingly tight. It goes without saying that immigrants consume resources here rather than there. But immigrants to the US will, in almost all cases, use more of these resources here than they did where they lived before. It's not particularly their fault; it's just that the housing stock we've built, the way we produce our food, the entire infrastructure that we've built up simply requires it. This seems to be particularly true for energy in general and fossil fuels in particular.

[save_the_rustbelt]

James:

I've picked tomatoes with Mexican immigrants and like them very much.

But I don't think we can have two systems of law because the US Chamber of Commerce wants cheap labor.

Undocumented workers are regularly cheated and abused by employers. Is this your ideal?

A robust program of legal immigration is fine - after we clean up the current mess.

says...

Bruce Webb says: "Mexicans aren't trying to impose Spanish on this country any more than that Chinese cook is trying to impose Chinese."

You fail to note the differences between leaders and potential followers. A Hispanic leader (NativoLopez) has explicitly stated he wants to make Spanish the primary language of California; he got some pushback from potential followers, but given enough bodies he might be able to push his goal. Others with similar ideas have put forth legislation. A few of the speeches of these leaders verge on something you might have heard in a German sports stadium many years ago.

For one that's relatively milder, here's L.A.'s mayor: youtube.com/watch?v=3jwqQ8DtlPQ Try to understand the impact of what "we're here and we're not going" means, when he says it, in Spanish, to illegal aliens. And, of course, see the first-ever UnivisionSpanishLanguage debates.

What we're witnessing is a power-grab by far-left racial demagogues, aided and abetted by corrupt forces - including "libertarians" - that refuse to acknowledge the full costs of their demand for cheap labor.

As for providing "voting materials in foreign languages wherever you have a large enough foreign population", you gave the game away: anyone who can (legally) vote is not "foreign". They should be American, but obviously some people have a different take.

And, I really think you should read up on Mexico's various imm. policies and their handling of foreign agitators: vdare.com/awall/expulsion.htm

[cm]

Real person: Immigration was always mixed by skill, part of the immigrants were always "brought in", and what has changed are perhaps only region-of-origin allocations (if you get my drift), scale (if at all), and the relative mix of "targeted" professions, but the latter is perhaps only a mirror image of what part of business is currently being commoditized.

There is also another consideration at least in the skill dimension -- that of immigration substituting for and accommodating present and past underinvestment in domestic education and job training. That's cause as well as effect.

I cannot say whether this "strip mining" of social infrastructure and making up for the decay by imports is a relatively recent phenomenon, but it appears so. Perhaps in earlier times the scale of the accommodation schemes was limited by a smaller transnational transportation and communication infrastructure.

[cm]

"" @ December 09, 2007 at 12:06 PM: You would have a good case if English were the exclusive official language of the US (or of the respective states), but I'm not sure that's so.

[notsneaky]

"If I see illegal aliens in front of Home Depot, I call ICE."

Yes, and how will you know that they are in fact 'illegal aliens' without talking to them, checking their id's, etc.? Oh, right, because they "look illegal", or in other words "Mexican". No, no racism here at all.

As far as the fact that there are like, 2, people among the millions of immigrants from Mexico who might talk crazy talk about making California Mexican again - well, folks used to assume - WRONGLY - that every Irishman was a member of the IRA and every Italian was in the Mafia. And those stereotypes were probably true to a greater (though still small) extent then the whole 'reconquista' thing.

[anne]

"A few of the speeches of these leaders verge on something you might have heard in a German sports stadium many years ago."

The deceiving comment of a prejudiced lunatic.

[ken melvin]

Not to mention any names, but a few could use a little refreshing course on CA and TX history. Many/most of the 'Mexicans' that were in CA were of Spanish decent and almost all supported CA becoming a US state,i.e., there was noo opposition (CA's indigenous included a great number of tribes, few if any of which were 'Mexican'). A similar mixture of allegiance and heritage prevailed in Texas. And, what of preceding claims?

I am quite sure that if large numbers of foreign nationals invaded the US and began appropriating property, the nation would rise up and expel them, no matter the cost. Similarly, I believe that if a large number of foreign doctors, lawyers, CPAs, Professors, ... invaded the US and began replacing all the existing doctors, lawyers, CPAs, Professors, ... every possible means of precluding this take over would soon be brought to bear. But, it seems it fine for hoards of illegals to come take the livelihoods of working class Americans. This bothersome. this classism.

[anne]

"Many/most of the 'Mexicans' that were in CA were of Spanish decent...."

I would strongly guess that "Spanish" descent through the territories of Mexico through the centuries would mean Spanish-Indian-African descent.

[ken melvin]

Wrong state.

[cm]

There are at least two aspects of the "illegals" debate:

(1) Un/semi-documented residence
(2) Un/semi-documented labor arrangements

Much of the contention and debate here seems to center around the latter.

I'm wondering what people's take is on "natives" who work under the table and/or conduct shadow-economy business while presumably using public infrastructure, and how does that differ from illegal immigrants doing the same?

[Peter Schaeffer]

cm,

For the natives, shadow-economy activity is relatively rare. Drug dealing would be an exception.

[anne]

I would strongly guess that "Spanish" descent through the territories of Mexico or to what is now California through the centuries would mean Spanish-Indian-African descent. Duh.

[Icarus]

Ken Melvin...

The reason that there's no furor over the loss of low wage jobs to 'illegals' is that the consuming classes prefer their dollar buying more labour. It's really that simple. The consuming classes could care less about "real americans", and, are quite happy to applaud the hard work and determination of 'illegals' who offer their wage labour at lower rates.

The inherent message is that low wage labour isn't worth what the american lower middle class expects it to be, and once had it as.

If I'm buying lunch, buying low wage services, buying construction labour, and a host of other things...I would prefer to pay the lowest price possible, given an equal quality of product/service. I don't care about that wage labourer's family, personal life, angst, etc. I just want their labour.

[Real Person from the Real World]

We may be facing a recession, or worse. Unfortunately, those who are in a position to demand and get high wages, get high wages, while the rest of us scramble to survive. What needs to change is the attitude of "I got mine, screw you." There is more to a business model than rape your customers. May take some really tough times for this lesson to sink in, if ever.

Meanwhile, since the 1840's we've had Mexicans crossing the border, and probably Canadian too. They came, and sometimes were abused, but they made enough to send home or they stayed and because citizens. Immigrants from elsewhere cames, from Ireland and Italy and wherever, endured, and became citizens and prospered. Everyone moved up the same employment and social ladders.

Late 1980's - tech rules. Some visa guy gets the bright idea that if Microsoft will hire techies from back home, he can vend guys from back home to the smaller US companies. These guys get their entry level experience from all over, then they are brought here where US companies can't be bothered to train or hire our own new grads, but need someone to "hit the ground running."

These vendors then made a small fortune selling guys from back home (where schooling was subsidized by the gov't and there is fov't health care) at $30/hr markups, and soon there are thousands more vendors selling their imported techies, but now the profits isn't always so lush, $5 to $10/hr markups and pay under the table to get your guys in over some other vendor's guys. These are NOT unique technologies, SAP, .NET, J2SE, but these foreign technies are brought here on visa after initial gigs elsewhere to compete with our own grads just out of school.

So, who is winning here? Companies get the low end of market rates, and save what.... pennies. The visa guys who are the selfs get paid shit.... but get more experience, while our own people in school, under heavy debt, drop out of technology.

Companies offer heath care to those at some of the highest salary rates ($80k on up to 5 figures) who often foreign guys who lasted out to get that magic green card. Some of these guys don't care about the healthcare.... they can and do go home for health care there, meanwhile, US companies feel they cannot afford to provide healthcare to those in the flunky level of jobs.

In the past, was there ever a spread of the skill level? Maybe, a few PhDs, perhaps a rocket engineer or something.... few and far between, compared to the plane loads now. It used to mean starting at the bottom and integrating into society and the "melting pot" - becoming Americans, that incidently had roots.... now they come and by the plane load and you get women walking around in burkas and a multiculturist strain advocating maintaining their separatist culture and language, while a few nuts rant about 'illegal' Mexicans taking jobs cutting lawns and busing tables.

[getting older]

Demographics will win in the end

The bottom line is that aging baby boomers will need caretakers, whether in nursing homes or home care situations. The reality is that native-born Americans will not change diapers in nursing homes. I guarantee you would find no takers at any wages the system could support and precious few even at $ 20/hour. Ask yourself whether you would do that work? Or your kids? If you think you would, go visit a nursing home and you will change your mind very quickly.

Same for agricultural work. My wife teaches at a school in the Hudson Valley (NY) surrounded by apple orchards. We have gotten to know one family who runs a medium size orchard-their pickers are all legal Jamaicans, some of whom are seasonal and some year-round. The owner tried to recruit local kids to work in the orchard. Even at $ 10/hour + incentive pay, he got one kid who worked until lunch and then quit. The local kids will work in the stand selling to customers, but not in the fields.

The reality is with an aging population labor shortages will become more and more of an issue, and immigration more and more necessary. That said, legal immigration is far preferable to illegal. But I am still waiting to hear any of the Lou Dobbs crowd come out and say they want to INCREASE LEGAL IMMIGARTION. Until I hear that I have to suspect their motives.

[ken melvin]

Anne - I looked at Wiki after my curt to your query; I'm sticking with my story.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Michael Cain,

Resources and immigration are a far from trivial issue. Although the connection is almost never mentioned… PC silences the left. The right can’t admit to any limits less than infinity. Hence, no discussion.

This blog is full of articles about natural resource constraints of one kind or another. Current and future energy shortages and/or rising prices are mentioned with considerable frequency. The grave consequences of greenhouse gases are a recurring theme.

However, once the subject becomes immigration somehow America instantly becomes a nation of unlimited resources and no past, present, or future environmental problems.

It should be obvious that a nation facing every more severe natural resource barriers can’t afford to have its population double by 2050 and quadruple by 2100, all via immigration.

Indeed, the founders of the environmental movement in the US made these points decades ago. Gaylord Nelsen, the founder of Earth Day made the following statement back in 2001

“Q. What is the number one environmental problem facing the earth today?

A. If you had to choose just one, it would have to be population. . . . The bigger the population gets, the more serious the problems become. . . . We have to address the population issue. The United Nations, with the U.S. supporting it, took the position in Cairo in 1994 that every country was responsible for stabilizing its own population. It can be done. But in this country, it's phony to say "I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration." It's just a fact that we can't take all the people who want to come here. And you don't have to be a racist to realize that. However, the subject has been driven out of public discussion because everybody is afraid of being called racist if they say they want any limits on immigration.”

[Peter Schaeffer]

ken melvin,

Please post your Wiki links.

[anne]

The Spanish were colonists in the southwest and what is now Mexico for hundreds of years along with both Indian and African peoples, so I would be amazed if a careful study were not to find a high degree, possibly a very high degree, of inter-racial "Spaniards." Eventually we will come on a recent anthropological study of the matter, but nothing else is sensible in such circumstances. This would hold for any set of peoples in such long-term circumstances.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Here is what Lou Dobbs actually says about legal versus illegal immigration

"Well I have to say that what I resent here on the part of the Census Bureau and the center is this conflation again of immigrants and illegal immigrants. Frankly, as we bring in people lawfully into this country, as a matter of public policy, I don't think any of us should care one way or the other about their education level, any of that, or the number of programs, social programs that are being employed.

The issue here is illegal immigration. This government, this federal government, and each of its agencies refuses to deal with the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants and we should never be a part of that conflation and that purposeful obfuscation on the part of those who are pro-amnesty, pro-open borders and pro-massive illegal immigration at any cost to the United States."

I don't agree with Lou Dobbs. I favor limiting immigration to highly educated folks who won't burden the taxpayer. However, Lou Dobb's views should be misrepresented.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Getting Older,

The idea that there are jobs “Americans won’t do” is just a fraud perpetrated by the cheap labor lobby. A few points.

1. After each recent immigration crackdown, Americans have lined up for the jobs (in meatpacking for example), that they supposedly “won’t do”.

2. The Pew Hispanic center has shown that illegals account for a small fraction of the workers in every field, including agriculture. Americans are doing these jobs and would be glad to do more of them.

3. Philip Martin, the leading agricultural economist in the US has demonstrated that removing illegal aliens with machines and legal workers might cost a typical household $8 a year. This may be a substantial overestimate.

4. Numerous recent studies in the Northeast, the Carolinas, and Georgia have found large scale displacement of American workers by immigrants (legal and illegal) since 2000. These are jobs Americans were doing until they were taken away.

5. Black median family income has fallen 8% since Bush took office, far more than any other group. I know of no plausible explanation other than immigration for this massive fall.

6. If you take the time to visit the part of this country that haven’t been overwhelmed by illegals, you will find that that the grass gets cut, burgers cooked, and floors cleaned. By Americans no less.

7. Any review of the educational performance of US schools shows that we have a more than adequate supply of unskilled labor here at home. In Los Angeles half the kids dropout and half of the “graduates” have below basic reading and math skills. Don’t believe me? Check the NAEP data.

Like it or not these young people need jobs and they don’t need to be part of an immigrant driven race to the bottom.

The idea that Americans won’t do any job for a fair wage and decent working condition is a myth spread by those who find fair wages and decent working conditions to be an unbearable thought (or worse economic burden).

[cm]

getting older: I cannot answer the question but I can ask it -- why will the owner not offer more than $10 (plus whatever surcharges) to the local "kids"? Perhaps with the current workforce, $10 is "enough". If the owner, and all other owners they have to compete with (and that is an important part), would have to offer let's say $15 or $20, how would that translate into final consumer price?

I'd think they won't increase twofold. Some along the (supply) chain would probably have to take a cut in their margins, but probably not (just) the grower.

In my recent Christmas shopping I saw one particular identical item in two stores at a larger than 2X price difference. In the higher priced store somebody must be making more (gross) margin. Perhaps at higher operating cost for a smaller net margin, but still.

Why should the people who do the actual work enabling the whole tower of markups have to suffer a pay cut/limit, while all markers-up can point to the requirement that their business be "profitable"?

[barry payne - economist]

It seems an unrealistic stretch to assign an incremental cost on resources in general to illegals, for three reasons.

First is the current mispricing of many resources related to cost that already distort optimal use.

Take water, which is grossly underpriced in most places and results in massive overconsumption, way past its marginal cost, particularly for commercial and industrial use. Adding 13 million illegal residential consumers to total water consumption barely makes a blip in the overall problem either way - so removing them does nothing either.

Second, consider the current excess capacity in the housing market and concern for lack of demand to soak it up. How is removing 13 million residents going to improve rather than harm that situation?

Third, and most broadly, assume for convenience that indeed, everything is at full capacity at the margin and the marginal social cost (includes all private cost) of adding one more person to society is rising fast.

In that case, that means everyone is equally causing, and therefore responsible for, the same incremental cost imposed at the margin on all public and private costs.

At first glance, one's reaction in the third case may be to restrict or remove the illegals in order to push everyone else further down on the rising cost curve, i.e. a "falling tide of illegals floats the remaining boats in cheaper water."

Maybe so, but just for kicks, try this. If it's really that bad, calculate the value of the "full incremental cost of illegals" to society, then pick some number below that and divide it by 13 million.

In the spirit of free markets and auctions, offer those individual amounts to ANYONE as a legal bribe to leave the U.S. for X years or whenever Pat Buchanan stops bellyaching about the declining birth rate of Anglo-Saxons, whichever comes first.

If there's 13 million takers then the dilemma has been solved with a master stroke of Pareto Optimization - some, possibly all, are better off and no one is worse off, regardless of who left and who stayed.

[getting older]

Peter Schaeffer

I can't respond to most of your points because they pertain to illegal immigrants. I thought I made very clear that immigrants should be LEGAL, so that they compete with native workers on a fair and equal basis. Unfortunately, I never hear the anti-illegal crowd proposing to make legal immigration simpler and fairer.

Look, the labor shortages have not hit yet, because the first boomers are only beginning to retire. If you look at population demographices, labor shortages are more likely 10 years from now than labor surplus. As for black wages under Bush, I think that offshoring of manufacturing jobs is far more significant than immigration (legal or illegal). The real competition is not the Chinese immigrant but the factory in China, not the Indian engineer, but the Indian outsourcing company. As for the inadequate education in many schools, that is a very serious problem. However, if I am ever in the situation where I need care, I hope I get one of the many excellent graduates of the excellent Nursing programs in The Phillippines (among many countries) rather than some illiterate graduate or dropout.

cm Look it's all very well to say that growers should pay $ 20/hour. They never have and never will because their business can't support it. They grow apples in China, Chile and several other countries around the world. I happen to think our New York apples are the best and gladly pay more for them, but many people will not and even I have my limits.

Besides, believe it or not, picking apples without damaging them requires skill to do quickly. That is why this grower has the same crew from Jamaica come back year after year. When one gets retires or can't come for some reason, they are usually replaced by a family member. In case I wasn't clear they are all here legally.

Finally, these agricultural jobs are seasonal. Once the apples are picked it ends. No American is going to quit his job to pick apples for 2 months, even at $ 20/hr. As for the unemployed, believe it or not, there really aren't that many. Most of them are looking for permanent work if they spend their days picking apples that will amke it very difficult to find a permanent job.

[agricanto]

Quiero descartar la idea ridícula propuesta por algunos en este blog que nosotros los inmigrantes latinos, buscamos imponer nuestra lengua castellana en su cultura anglo-sajona. ¡Todo lo contrario! Queremos que el inglés sea la segunda lengua de uso oficial en el territorio re-conquistado de Norte-América, luego del español. A propósito del concepto de un país denominado Aztlán, no pretendemos darle al territorio de la re-conquista tal nombre. De hecho suena más Náhuatl que Español. Lo llamaremos La Gran California.

No te preocupes gringo, te trataremos con mayor dignidad que lo que parece ser el plan de ustedes aquí en este blog. No contemplamos evacuaciones ni expropiaciones de terrenos y propiedades. Pero si insistimos que el territorio ocupado por ustedes desde 1824 es nuestro.

Por lo pronto sugiero que se calmen un poco. Todavía no llegamos a la cifra de gatillo que desatará la guerra de re-conquista. Para eso, tendríamos que hacer explotar nuestra presencia demográfica en este país, lo cual esperamos en los próximos cinco años. Llegando a los veinte millones, nos lanzaremos al proyecto de liberación para agrandar nuestro territorio caribe-latino-americano. Ya contamos con fondos de la Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela, y asesoría militar de la Republica Socialista de Cuba. Las tropas provendrán de México, Nicaragua, Colombia (luego de derrocar a Uribe) y Argentina. Esperamos controlar los siete estados del oeste de los EEUU de A (CA, NV, AZ, NM, TX, CO y UT) y esperamos construir nuestra capital en lo que ahora es la cuidad de Moab, UT, la cual llamaremos CD. Guevara en honor del Che.

Con todo respeto,
Gral. de División, Fidel Chávez Morales de la Espina
Gran Ejercito de Liberación de la Gran California
Cuartel Clandestino en Territorio Ocupado Gabacho
Dirección desconocida.

[oops]

i'd really like to see the gov't open up a speeding hotline or allow people to purchase a radar gun w/camera and allow people that want to report illegals to start issuing speeding tickets via electronic reporting. anyone think they'd be as anti-speeding as they are anti-illegal immigrant?

yeah its just about enforcing the law. kinsley is right.

unemployment is 4 and change percent. what a non-issue. a company outsources to low wage chinese we lose the gdp. hire an immigrant and we keep the gdp as well as their consumption. they pay the 7% illegal alien tax that is matched by thier employer. do that 11 million times and tell me the matching of funds by the employer doesn't matter also.

where's your radar gun PS?

[oops]

PS- first of all your definition af an invasion must be different from mine. crossing a border to supply labor may be your definition of invasion. it is not mine. it is emotional b.s.

please explain how econ 101 shows that sending a job overseas to china and then importing the output is better than importing the labor and the consumption that goes with it. go ahead and explain this. the labor supplied in either case is low skilled. have at it econ guru.

[Peter Schaeffer]

oops,

Please read the comments of agricanto and the get back to me.

[oops]

PS- maybe you let crap like that bother you. i find it hilarious. the best thing that could happen to the average mexican in mexico would be for us to invade and make them a state(s). do you really think that mexico would welcome them as a state if they did take over? this guy can call himself an army member but his army exists in his mind. show me their training, arms, equipment ect...he's got nothing. his b.s. army is nothing and any attempt to take land from the united states of america will end in his failure and likely death. call when you have some footage of their training and their ability to actually field and pay their pretend army. until then it is like the guys in the south that say "the south's gonna rise again". a nice fun fantasy for some. ditto for the jackass above. as soon as he starts target practice he's gonna find himself across a barbed wire fence from his beloved fidel- in gitmo, strapped to a waterboard.

and lest you think this in any way answers my question about about outsourcing versus importing labor let me point out that these chinese have many more old timers with actual combat training that fantastically believe they can take on the u.s. not to mention a client state named north korea that they have armed with nuclear weapons. they would also be wrong to think they can take on the united states military. nice try but china can easily trump clownito's fantasy army.

so back to the question. how is outsourcing to a rising trained military power different from importing the low skilled labor that is consuming and producing here while entertaining fantasies that will have him joining "el che'" in death.

[oops]

increased consumption and investment here. and having grown up around illegal aliens i've yet to meet a militant one. the guy above is about as common as an idaho militia member.

PS- next time the u.s. and mexico soccer teams play buy a ticket and talk to some mexican people around you. then tell me they are any different than previous immigrant groups that assimilated within a generation or two. you'll likely be pleasantly suprised if you allow yourself to be.

[Icarus]

So Oops,

What is it you want? No borders? No legality regarding immigration? Just let anyone apply for any job? Should that person also get civic services, such as ER care, schooling for children, etc?

[getting older]

Icarus

I can't speak for oops, but for me, it is clear that people come illegally mostly because it is virtually impossible for them to come legally. About the only way a Mexican citizen can get is a visa is through marrying a US citizen or having a close family member sponsoring them. Absolutely, legal immigration is preferable in every way to illegal. So, instead of pretending otherwise, we need to face the fact that there is a coming labor shortage as the baby boomers age. The idea that there is some mythical army of unemployed American who will care for the elderly at any salary that real world economic constraints can support is very simply fiction. Structural unemployement is low, and even in recessions goes up much less than it used to, because companies are already operating very lean and mean. Go into any store and try and get waited on these days. Try to get a contractor to come to your home even to look at a job, never mind do it.

So, since we have a need for workers and will have a much greater one in 5-10 years, then we need to significantly increase legal immigration. You want to increase border enforcement-fine, but combine that with giving Mexicans (and others) a reasonable chance to get a legal visa. For those illegals already here, those that are working and paying taxes should be legalized, so we know who they are and they compete with native-born and legal immigrants on an equal basis.

As for schools and emergency rooms, since the immigrants will be legal, and therefore paying taxes like everyone else, they are fully entitled to have their kids educated. As far as ERs, I am one of those who believes everyone should have health insurance (public or private), and that would include immigrants, so that they and their employers pay into the system.

[Real Person from the Real World]

I agree with Peter Schaeffer. The idea that we need immigrants to do jobs that Americans won't do, for a fair wage is right on. Also, a low wage immigrant or illegal can be just as resentful at a less than pleasant job as an American. Years back, when I had to put my dad in a nursing home, the immigrants were less than dutiful, as were the low paid housing staff. The only compassionate people were some African Americans working at the home. If you want jobs done well, you pay a fair living wage, and don't brow beat. Most of my frustration at work with my immigrant, now American Citizen (became one to get in on the gov't jobs bonanza) is that he is suspicious and browbeating, and a micro-manager. The stakes for get-rich selling serfs are getting higher.

[lonesome moderate]

Por lo pronto sugiero que se calmen un poco. Todavía no llegamos a la cifra de gatillo que desatará la guerra de re-conquista. Para eso, tendríamos que hacer explotar nuestra presencia demográfica en este país, lo cual esperamos en los próximos cinco años. Llegando a los veinte millones, nos lanzaremos al proyecto de liberación para agrandar nuestro territorio caribe-latino-americano.

General Chavez, you are friggin' awesome! I mean, who wouldn't want to spend the night getting wasted on tequila (or maybe it was Corona?) with your dorm buddies, and then planning the great Bolivarian reconquest of the lost territories? Damn, I wish I was nineteen again.

[cm]

Real person: Aside from considerations of what is a "fair" wage for a job there is also the less publicized what is a "fair" rate of return, profit margin, or cut-percentage, to be in a business. The presumption appears to be that only the former is up for downward revision/prescription.

You yourself have often enough described the "value add" chain in your business that exists only because the pay differentials enable it.

When there is no ample supply of cheap labor, businesses have to and will adjust. Just as now workers are expected to take pay cuts to maintain income, businesses (and their owners) will accept lower margins. For the same reason -- what will they do when they close shop?

For some jobs the market will fail to clear, and they won't get done. Whether that's precisely nursing care I'm not convinced. When all the dollars are there, people will move there, or so the free market advocates are telling us.

[cm]

And whenever I hear how many workers the funds spent on a particular business sector will support, I have to point out that in many (established) organizations that I have seen the people who do the bulk of the actual work are only in a simple majority (50%+). Admittedly those were mostly office environments, but there is a varying ratio of fluff everywhere, and this fluff usually makes more than the worker bees.

[agricanto]

lonsome moderate,
Thank you very much for your reply to Gen. Chavez, whose e-mail I was asked to post by agents of the illegal alien conspiracy to take over this great nation of ours. While I do not agree with their goals, I thought giving them a voice here can only help our cause of keeping America for Americans. Don't worry about being too young or immature. He tells me the average age of the Bolivarian troops is 19. The General loves to drink Scotch by the way.

I think the general was prompted by Peter Schaeffer's ethnic cleansing program. I haven't seen the general so miffed since the Minute Men organized against immigrant rights marches in California. So the general was eager to show that he and his army of illegals harbor no special dislike to their host's language and culture. They just want to make some cartographic corrections on the map of the US. And who doesn’t? We have states shaped like rectangles, and a southern border that seems as arbitrary as a parallel line drawn from a parallel line.

I told my contacts that I would post his message intact with no comment. I hope he will send me more as things transpire and we approach the 2008 election where this issue will play a major role in debates. I for one I'm glad the cat is out of the bag and that the Latin American plot to re-capture the southwest US has been outed.

In a recent conspiracy meeting the experts at Illegal Central gave us some talking points to coddle liberals with. They told us to remind the gringos that the demographics for Latin America are good for us and that “sending” young people is a win-win for us (they love American hackneys down there, same page, at the end of the day, win-win, etc). But they reminded us with some embarrassment that their economies are too small to provide jobs for the population so they lose their youngest, most entrepreneurial and risk-taking eager workers to… US! (cool, or what?)

Every young illegal will walk here through desert and the Valley of Death to work for sub-wages (criminal, I know) will pay into social security and unemployment and will pay taxes, none of which they can collect, and most of all will work hard at real bad jobs. As the median age in some of our cities is approaching 35, our ageing population will benefit from this criminal element for many decades and we will all have clean toilets, bright dishes, and newly vacuumed carpets.

I am glad that Peter has a plan to remove them after they have committed the unspeakable act of walking and working for the prosperity of this great nation. I hope he times the mass deportations with the eventual privatization of social security and introduction of robots for all the work done by the criminal workers. My only worry (and I agree with the general here) is that Peter will organize a mass deportation with a forced long march through the desert where up to 12 million will be forced back to the border. That could look ugly. Makes us look bad.

[agricanto]

oops, you are so gullible!
You and Peter need a talk show.

[anne]

Agricanto is terrific; and if I weren't sworn against tequila I would surely enlist. Like George says to Jerry, "if Selma, Alabama were in Long Island, I'd be there marching." Tequila? Never again, well, never anyway.