Elitist Fools and Hopeless Blowhards

A failed attempt to change Lou Dobbs mind on immigration:

Broken Borders and Dover Sole: My Lunch With Lou Dobbs, by Lawrence Downes, Commentary, NY Times: So I was having lunch ... with Lou Dobbs..., locked in disagreement over who cared more about working people, him or me.

Him: CNN host, biggest and loudest gun in the battle for tougher immigration policies, leader of a nightly crusade to expose the misdeeds of those he views as elitist fools and scoundrels.

Me: editorial writer whose views on immigration qualify, to Mr. Dobbs and many others on his side of the debate, as elitist, foolish and scoundrelly. ...

Among people whose immigration views I admire, Mr. Dobbs has a reputation as a hopeless blowhard. I did not dwell on that...  I was looking for something better than an argument. I wanted to convert him.

An honest person must concede a lot when arguing immigration with Mr. Dobbs: Yes, the borders and ports are insecure... Yes, illegal immigration hurts some Americans, globalization causes many global problems and big corporations love to stick it to the little guy.

My point to Mr. Dobbs was that the little-little guy — the “illegal alien” crossing our “broken borders” — was the wrong target. His overriding emphasis on solving globalization’s many ills by urgently sealing the borders strikes me as populism gone astray.

First, it’s ineffective, because the country will never be ziplocked as tightly as he wants it to be. The price of trying is too high, and it ignores the millions who enter the country legally but overstay. Most shamefully, it does nothing to resolve the fates of the 12 million undocumented already here.

Second, the obsession with enforcement dovetails with the agendas of some nasty people: the nativists for whom immigration is a simple case of brown and white...

Third, it does too little to attack the evil corporate elites that are Mr. Dobbs’s sworn enemy. What makes illegal immigrants so delectable to big, bad business is their illegality — their willingness to work cheap and under the table. So why not legalize and tax them? Assimilate the good guys, as this country has always done, and save law enforcement for the bad ones.

The idea is to confront abusive corporate power with worker power. If day laborers end up in our suburbs, where the money and jobs are, then give them safe places to gather and help them work together to keep from driving wages and working conditions down. If companies take advantage of workers, empower the workers to fight back: as union members, legal residents, citizens.

But that’s “amnesty,” a Dobbsian expletive. It’s the opposite of the crackdowns endorsed by him and the hard-liners he praises, like the Minutemen.

Mr. Dobbs listened graciously and budged not. He said he respected immigrants, even illegal ones... He reminded me of his fondness for Cesar Chavez.

Then he repeated his immigration credo. It went like this: the 1986 immigration law was an amnesty promoted by corporate interests waging war on the middle class. Thus the 2006 and 2007 reforms were also amnesty, pushed by the same self-serving plutocrats. So nothing they want is worth doing — at least not until the border is sealed.

That could be a long time. While we wait, I am going to keep trying to convince Mr. Dobbs that a comprehensive solution — enforcement plus assimilation — is the best expression of the populism he espouses.

Mr. Dobbs admits that mass deportation would never work, although if you press him on what to do about the 12 million, he has no answer. He wants to hold that question “in abeyance” until the border is sealed. I find that oddly passive for someone so convinced of the dangers from the aliens in our midst.

I told him that, and he smiled. The lunch was over. ...

Fences don't stop economic forces from working. I think the only viable long-run solution to the immigration problem is to reduce the economic distance between Mexico and the U.S. Obviously, we don't want to do that by reducing our income, so we need to do what we can to help Mexico develop and raise its standard of living. In that regard, I would like to hear more from the presidential candidates on how the U.S. might help to promote business and job development in Mexico. Proposing a tax credit to companies willing to invest in Mexico would be political suicide - tax breaks to U.S. companies willing to move jobs to Mexico probably wouldn't go over well - but if we are going to solve this problem we will have to realize that such investment must take place. If nobody from the outside ever locates in Mexico, if we wait for development to spontaneously erupt on its own from within, it could be a long wait with a high fence repair bill. But tax breaks are but one small part of the government's arsenal, and I would like to know what the candidates plan to do to promote economic development in Mexico. So I checked their websites to see if they say anything about this (in each case I clicked on issues, then immigration):

Obama: "Work with Mexico: Obama believes we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration."

Clinton: Doesn't explicitly say anything about development, closest statement is "greater cross-cooperation with our neighbors."

McCain: "Recognize the importance of building strong allies in Mexico and Latin America who reject the siren call of authoritarians like Hugo Chavez, support freedom and democracy, and seek strong domestic economies with abundant economic opportunities for their citizens."

I have to give this one to Obama. I have no problem with promoting free market policies, but McCain is essentially adopting the Washington Consensus as a development strategy and that's not what I had in mind, and it's not a strategy that has been successful. Clinton doesn't mention development in Mexico as a means of stemming illegal immigration - I'm sure she'd give the right answer if asked but it's not on her website - and only Obama makes the clear link between the U.S. helping Mexico to develop and decreases in illegal immigration.

Comments

[reason]

Mark,
surely the correct answer is to prosecute people who employ illegal immigrants, not to try to keep them out. Not that trying to keep them out is not worth doing, it is just that it won't work.

[hari]

First, doesn't Dobbs understand his name reveals his origin from some Dutch or other immigrants or not?

Second, Mark is right to think positive and push for development and trade with Mexico. The question is, what will US do when mainland China takes-on a more aggressive bilateral policy framework to facilitate economic and trade development south of the Rio Grande?

[anne]

John McCain:

"Recognize the importance of building strong allies in Mexico and Latin America who reject the siren call of authoritarians like Hugo Chavez, support freedom and democracy, and seek strong domestic economies with abundant economic opportunities for their citizens."

What makes Hugo Chavez, who has been elected President under conditions judged fair by international observers, who abides by legislative decisions, who has only been threatened by an illegal forcible attempt to remove him from office, what makes Chavez authoritarian? Why has the essence of American international relations so often been vilifying, and when will this change?

[F. Frederson]

The single most important thing America could do help Mexico is to legalize/medicalize narcotics, so as to eliminate the basis for the quasi-narco states of northern Mexico.

[pgl]

Well give McCain credit for at least not wanting to declare war on Mexico. It would seem Dobbs and Lou Buchanan might just want to do that.

[James Kroeger]

Reason:Mark, surely the correct answer is to prosecute people who employ illegal immigrants, not to try to keep them out. Not that trying to keep them out is not worth doing, it is just that it won't work.I'd like to elaborate a bit on why Reason is right on this. While it is true that Barack Obama has emphasized cracking down on employers of illegal immigrants, I'm not sure if even he realizes just how completely and thoroughly this would solve the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico.

If the executive branch were to actually bring an end to the hiring of illegal aliens, then the entire problem would be pretty much solve itself. This is because word would quickly get back to relatives in Mexico that there are no longer any jobs up here they can obtain because all employers have begun to obey the laws that forbid them to hire those who are in America illegally.

This type of 'law enforcement' would be far more effective in bringing a halt to the illegal immigration than building a trillion dollar wall. Republicans like to blame the illegal immigration problem on the 'law-breaking' activity of the immigrants; the actual problem is the 'law-breaking' activity of American employers that the Republicans have winked at while they have been in charge of the government. (Yes, some of them yell "Deportation!" while others, e.g., GWB, make sure that they lift not a finger to fix the problem)

The bottom line reality is that there is no need to use law enforcement and the courts to solve the problem of illegal immigration in insensitive ways. No need to round up the illegals and deport them on cattle cars. Indeed, there is no need to spend any money at all on such efforts if the hiring of illegal immigrants is brought to a screeching halt. All those immigrants who came looking for work would simply make their way back to Mexico because their chances of getting a job would actually be much greater in Mexico.

Yes, it would be a good idea for America to use it's influence to create more jobs in Mexico for the people who are tempted to cross the border illegally, but the only way the Mexican government will be able to do that is by taxing the hell out of Mexico's richest citizens and then spending the money on massive investments in the Mexican infrastructure, something I suspect they need rather desperately.

[groucho]

Mark, since the US economy is in stall mode. Why not kill 2 birds and have the congress pass a new stimulus bill.

The illegal immigrant "Bounty Bill". For every illegal turned in each person would receive say 10k.

This will stimulate the economy, 10k X 12M, and give the proper incentives to US citizens to uphold the law.

The executive, congress, and supreme court should lead the way by turning their illegal nannies, groundskeepers and other illegals they currently higher.

[reason]

Yes and as for relying on mexican economic growth, well you are assuming that mexico is and will remain the only potential source of immigrants. I thought large numbers merely pass through Mexico from other latin american countries. Yes the world could remove all barriers if there were not large differences in wealth between countries. Unfortunately that bird has already flown and a solution is not likely for at least a century.

[Len]

I commend you for even trying to have a serious discussion with Mr.Dobbs.
He's the man who left his high paying job as a television commentator to invest his savings in a venture to commercialize space travel.
How much credabilty should we give someone that would think that the ecomomics of such a venture are worth pursuing?

[save_the_rustbelt]

American citizens and taxpayers are expected to obey the law and pay their taxes, and are subject to strict enforcement standards.

Illegals and their employers need not fuss with the law, because what they are doing might be good for some parts of the economy, and is helpful to the Mexican economy.

I would like to hear more from presidential candidates on how to build the economies and job bases of Michigan and Ohio, then we can talk about Mexico.

I have no problem with helping to develop the economy of Mexico, perhaps the Obama approach would work, although I really doubt he cares much about securing the border.

Dobbs is a windbag, but he understands that illegal and legal immigration are different, which apparently makes him way smarter than many highly educated people.

[bob]

As a far left winger i would vote for Dobbs in a heart beat if he were running.

Why ? Becuse of the work of David Recardo who said - "The price of labor is a function of the supply of labor vs the demand for labor"

>> I think the only viable long-run solution to the immigration problem is to reduce the economic distance between Mexico and the U.S.

100% wrong.

Go after the economic traitors that should be UNDER the jail i.e. the illegal employers. Many of these people are SMALL BUSINESSMEN. So lets stop all this propaganda about how great they are. They have shown they will sell their own communities down the river

Heath Schuler's (D-NC) SAVE bill goes after illegal employers.

Tell your congress people to support it.

says...

If you think there is big support for illegal immigrants in the Dem party i have one word for you.

Spitzer.

His approval fell to about 25% in a very brief period of time after he tried to give drivers licenses to illegals IN THE HEAVILY DEM STATE OF NY.

says...

>> Mr. Dobbs admits that mass deportation would never worK

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Then how did it work in the past.

I believe there were 2 mass depotations in the 20th century they worked just fine.

One by Wilson and one by Eisenhower.

[ken melvin]

I'm with reason and James Kroeger.

Card carrying 60s Berkeley Liberal, I walked precincts for George McGovern; as good as man as ever stood for president; saw another good man I supported, Walter Mondale, blown away by Ronnie; then there was Michael Dukakis. Commonality? None of them were able to get the core, under $30k then, dem constituency. If GWB thought that the people thought that LGBT, immigrant rights, ... were the most important issues facing America, he'd of gladly kissed a long line of 'progressive' arses. If the dems think they can win without the core under $50k dems in 2008, there as wrong as we were in 1972, and John McCain will win by a landslide. Something has to done about the illegal immigrant and the working class dems know this. I think Dean Baker's right in that we all share responsibility for those who are here in that we let it happen. But, we're going to have to start enforcing the laws and sending those who are taking advantage of the illegals (and screwing America's working class) to the stony lonesome.

[Jas Jain]

--
Ignoramuses like Lou Dobbs don't know about free market, or free borders, for labor and not just goods and services that Adam Smith championed to increase wealth of nations.

Lou Dobbs may be a racist in disguise. Unfortunately, the propaganda has gained support from most of Americans I know, liberals as well as conservatives, Jews as well as Gentiles. No other issue unites more Americans than the crusade against "illegal" immigration.

The real reason is the economic decline facing America from which there is no escape. Expect massive group violence during the depression that would begin no later than 2009. Hate is the most powerful uniting force, according to Hungarian-born American historian Lukacs (spelling?).

An econ-crank,

Jas

[wimpie]

"I believe there were 2 mass depotations in the 20th century they worked just fine."

There have been many deportations throughout history. Ethnic(slavery, "cleansing"), religious(exodus,holocaust)and economic(debtor deportation).

Deportation of current illegals in the US would be a "triple play". Ethnic(Hispanic), Religious(Catholic)and Economic(unsustainable welfare abuse)

[Worker]

How could you consider either Obama or Hillary as promoting development of Mexico given their current competitive bashing of NAFTA?

Or should we assume that this is just posturing that will be tossed aside after the election (likely)?

And if we are supporting development in Mexico as a solution to immigration, what about a free trade agreement with Columbia and other SA countries?

says...

Ceaser Chavez (left winger like myself) held protest marches against illegal immigrants.

I believe that Mondale joined him in those marchs.

I guess they were both hopeless blowhards too.

******************************

The rich man has played some liberals for fools. They walked into his trap. The rich man knew he could rely on them to level phony charges of racism to silence the critics of his scab importation plan.

Scabs have always been a bad thing to the american worker. The fact of their nationality doesn't change that.

[bob]

You can listen to the very liberal Thom Hartmann on air america at noon.

He's also against illegal immigrants cause he undertands they are nothing more than a tool of the rich man used to drive wages down for americans.

[groucho]

"Scabs have always been a bad thing to the american worker. The fact of their nationality doesn't change that."

Interesting perspective on illegals. Unions are already busted, how do you drive wages down further? Bring in the illegals...............ouch!

[robertdfeinman]

If you don't mind a bit of self promotion.
The most popular essay on my web site:

Immigration "Facts" Debunked

For the impatient I argue (with associated charts) that the immigration flow from Mexico is due in good part to the destruction of the subsistence farming economy because of NAFTA's effect on corn production.

I also demonstrate that some other well known "facts" aren't borne out by the data.

Notice that Dobbs is big on outrage, but has nothing to say when asked to suggest some workable immigration policies. This is the same technique used by all demagogues. Keep up the outrage but never work for a solution, because solving an issue would mean the end of one's power to control the mob.

[Denis Drew]

The way I figure it:
There are only 100 million Mexicans left in Mexico.
Polls show fewer than half want to move here (46% in a Pew poll).
If 33% actually make it that will only make an 11% increase in our population -- and they are mostly all honest and hard working. What's the problem?

The thing is:
We've got to make a land-for-people deal now -- while we still have some bargaining leverage; before they get here; they are going to get here anyway.
And I don't mean land in the sand. I mean land along the coasts: Acapulco, e.g.
And don't fall for any of this "We didn't cross the border; the border crossed us" stuff. That was just European v. European; true Native Americans were just as unhappy with either of us.

[eh]

First, doesn't Dobbs understand his name reveals his origin from some Dutch or other immigrants or not?

I am so sick of reading tired cliches like this -- the 'nation of immigrants' crap. As if at this point in time there is still no such thing as an American. As if the heritage of America as a majority white nation should be just thrown on the scrapheap of history as something with no value, or not enough value to be worth preserving.

It's a fact that most illegals are Hispanic, and about Hispanics as a demographic group all you need to know is this: they are significantly and disproportionately 1) criminal (e.g. about 4x as likely as Whites to be imprisoned), and 2) academic failures. And since in many regions of the country they are bringing unwanted demographic change, i.e. are practically a replacement population, I'd like to hear an explanation of how that can possibly be economically beneficial in the long term. The most obvious thing that is happening is this: We are importing a new ethnic underclass.

Californians' per capita income will drop 11 percent over the first two decades of this century unless the state closes the educational gap of its expanding Latino population, a nonpartisan research center forecast in a report released today... Latinos are the fastest-growing segment of the state's population and work force, and among the least-educated, said the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education...
According to 2000 census figures, in the 25-to-64 age group, 52 percent of Latinos lacked a high school diploma, compared with 8 percent of non-Latino whites, and 12 percent of Latinos had a college degree, compared with 46 percent of whites... If those rates persist as the population continues to change, the report said, the state's average educational level will decline through 2020 and drag down per capita income.

Fences don't stop economic forces from working.

What demagogic nonsense. As if there is no such thing as orderly, mutually beneficial cross-border trade without attendant human migration and all the problems it brings.

Newsflash: The biggest reason Mexico is a corrupt and economically backward nation that its citizens flee in large numbers, even if that means entering the US illegally, is...wait for it...it is full of Mexicans.

[bob]

There is nothing inherently wrong with latinos.

They are just the latest tool used by economic elites to drive down wages.

Racism will doom the struggle against illegal employers and illegal immigrants so we have to make sure we never stray into it.

Plus the fact is that racism is wrong.

[anne]

"It's a fact that most -------- are --------, and about --------- as a demographic group all you need to know is this...."

Shameful vile prejudice; dripping lie on lie on lie, through rotten hateful prejuidce.

[Lafayette]

Dontcha just love intellectuals when they get into a pissing contest? Isn’t it amazing that they get paid for such tomfoolery?

Why in heavens name was this guy trying to “convert” Lou Dobbs? That’s like selling a freezer to an Eskimo.

Downes: First, it’s ineffective, because the country will never be ziplocked as tightly as he wants it to be.

Yes, ok, but it’s still a whole helluva lot better than the sieve it is today. Besides, ours is a sovereign nation and a sovereign nation chooses who enters - it does not submit to uncontrolled immigration.

Downes: Most shamefully, it does nothing to resolve the fates of the 12 million undocumented already here.

Yes, well, if they get hired by someone, that someone goes to jail or is fined. Why should we subsidize the Health Care of those who don’t pay for it, but work? We have enough of a challenge subsidizing those who do work but can’t afford Health Care?

Downes: Second, the obsession with enforcement dovetails with the agendas of some nasty people

Mine, too. Yep, nasty me, and I am the son of an immigrant. And, I know a great many second generation people who are against unbridled immigration, but immigration. My parents waited, got their visas and went to work immediately to put me through college.

They met all the requirements one could reasonably expect of an immigrant who seeks permission to enter through legal channels.

Downes: What makes illegal immigrants so delectable to big, bad business is their illegality — their willingness to work cheap and under the table.

Agreed, so let’s stop it as I suggested above. Third fine and you’re in jail as well. Don’t tell me that such dissuasion is not going to make such tricksters think a bit first. Especially if it's a Corporate Captain, who could easily lose his/her job as a result.

Downes: If day labourers end up in our suburbs, where the money and jobs are, then give them safe places to gather and help them work together to keep from driving wages and working conditions down.

Yes, with this kind of nonsense, Dobbs probably has good reason to froth at the mouth.

Noble intent, just not doable. The immigrants won’t buy into any such scheme for fear that it is a government trap.

And, since immigrants learn that there IS a way to be legalized once in the country, they will keep coming. The permission to enter MUST be given in the country of origin -- against an authorized cap-level by skill and ethnicity.

Immigrants must understand that there is a way to immigrate and a way not to immigrate (by being deported and blacklisted for life).

Let the immigrants line up at the American embassy and make application for immigration and let a lottery decide who gets in and where they go for a job. And, they should be under the responsibility for a period of time of an American citizen. Skip the job before the end date and they become outlaws who, when caught, are blacklisted for life. And, their permanent residence should be delivered in their home country.

Downes: I am going to keep trying to convince Mr. Dobbs that a comprehensive solution — enforcement plus assimilation — is the best expression of the populism he espouses.

Then the journalist should think one up, because the twaddle he’s venting here is just that, twaddle.

Having said the above, it is hypocritical of America to have a anti-abortion policy and not fund abortion clinics in the poor country. It is a surplus population that wants to immigrate. Foreign development aid should be tied to funding contraception as well.

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

Anyone who does not recognize Lou Dobbs for, his profession, and his audience, is missing the entire story. Lawrence Downs should have eaten lunch with Mr. Joe Sixpack, not Lou Dobbs,

How about that John McCain and that saucy lobbyist. Ieeee Caramba....!

She's pretty hot....

Econolicious

[Peter Schaeffer]

As is usually the case, Lou Dobbs gets his facts and arguments better than his critics. Why? Because Lou Dobbs is willing to look at the world honestly and free from the elite globalist bias that controls so many public debates in the United States (and elsewhere). A few useful points:

1. The idea that Dobbs focuses solely on immigration is simply not true. He is a relentless opponent of corporate trade policies as well. Take a look at his book, “War on the Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on the American Dream and How to Fight Back”. Two chapters are devoted to “The Exorbitant Cost of Free Tree” and “Exporting America”. One chapter covers “Broken Borders”.

2. The idea that this country can not be “ziplocked” is not true. Before the 1960s, we had immigration laws and we enforced them. Eisenhower resolved an immigration crisis in the early 1950s by removing 1-2 million illegals. Illegal immigration wasn’t zero, but it wasn’t out of control either.

3. We don’t have to “resolve the fates of the 12 million undocumented” by giving them Amnesty. The first point is obvious, they are illegal aliens, not “undocumented’. They didn’t accidentally drop their paper while sneaking into the US. They choose to illegally violate our borders. That is their problem.

If we don’t find a mechanism for sending them home, we can ignore them. Over time they will grow old and die like everyone else. Their children will have US citizenship. We gain nothing via Amnesty and loose a great deal. What do we loose? Amnesty will attract a new tidal wave of illegals. Indeed, the prospect already has. See “Following the Amnesty Trail - Leo W. Banks follows one of Arizona's most popular illegal alien crossing routes and finds piles of garbage, trampled public lands, angry residents and the suspected presence of a vicious gang”(http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid:92554) .

Worse, Amnesty will give illegals the right to import the rest of their families triggering a new gigantic wave of legal and inevitably illegal immigration. The time has come for this nation to stop mass immigration into the US, not accelerate it.

Of course, Amnesty will also massively increase the cost of immigration, legal and illegal. The Heritage Foundation found that the 2007 Amnesty bill would cost the American taxpayer at least $2.6 trillion. See “Amnesty Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion” (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1490.cfm). Why? Because once you make illegal aliens, legal. They can and will increase their use of welfare, food stamps, public hospitals, schools, etc. Careful studies have shown that each low-skill immigrant family costs the American people at least $20,000 per year. Even this number is probably understated because of the burden of ESL (English as a Second Language) in public schools and the immigration burden on the criminal justice system.

One study found that illegal immigrants cost the US taxpayers $84 billion per year. See “legal Immigrants Cost America $84 Billion per Year Because of Crime” (http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2007/06/30/illegal-immigrants-cost-america-84year-because-of-crime/#more-1673). This number may not be correct. However, the crime costs of illegal immigration are clearly very large. The GAO found that 10% of US prisoners are illegals (versus 4% of the population).

None of these numbers should surprise anyone. No one pretends that out own poor people aren’t a burden on taxpayers. Why should imported poor people be any different? Why does it make any sense at all to import poor people? How crazy is this?

The bottom line is that Amnesty is a social and economic disaster for the United States and there is no compelling reason to consider it. The advocates of Amnesty say we have do “something” about the illegals (other than send them home). If they had shown 1/100 the energy in opposing illegal immigration over the years, the pro-Amnesty folks might have some creditability. In fact, they have invariably strong opposed all immigration enforcement and promoted illegal immigration.

4. The nativist accusation is a fraud in many ways. First, Lou Dobb’s wife is a Mexican-American and doesn’t appreciate the accusations of bigotry directed against her husband and the farther of their two children. Second, Hispanic Americans are strongly opposed to illegal immigration and generally oppose mass immigration. Note that 46% of Hispanics in Arizona voted for the recent (and successful) crackdown on illegal employers in the state. The border counties of Arizona were overwhelmingly in favor.

5. The idea that it is illegality that makes illegals so attractive to corporations is wrong, both empirically and logically. First, every Amnesty bill has had the overwhelming support of corporate America starting with the Wall Street Journal, the Chamber of Commerce. Take a look at the Board of Directors of the pro-Amnesty National Immigration Forum. Who is the chairman? John Gay who is also the chairman of the National Restaurant Association. Second, illegals drive down wages because they are here, not because they are illegal. Supply and demand 101. However, Amnesty will make the situation worse for American workers. Amnesty will enable illegals to spread into more sectors of the economy displacing American workers across the board.

If you don’t think corporate America supports Amnesty, you have to believe that the WSJ is actually anti-business publication. I guess that makes sense.

As for enabling workers to organize via Amnesty, that’s a bad joke. As stated above, Amnesty will bring a new tsunami of illegals crushing all attempts to improve wages and working conditions.

6. The idea that mass deportation won’t work is belied by the history of the United States (Eisenhower did it) and many other countries more recently (Malaysia, Israel, the UAE). However, we don’t need mass deportation to deal with the existing illegals. Just take away the jobs and resume interior enforcement. The vast majority will go home on their own.

Indeed, it is already working. Arizona, Oklahoma, and Georgia have passed laws cracking down on illegal employers. They are firing their illegal workers and the illegals are leaving, in very large number. The same approach would remove the preponderance of illegals from the US in a year or two. The benefits to Americans from lower taxes, crime, higher wages, less congestion, lower prices (particularly for housing), etc. would be vast.

7. Fences may not stop economic forces. However, they do stop illegal immigration. The Israeli fence have been essentaily 100% effective in stopping terrorists. Given that sucide bombers are presumably more motivated than illegals, a fence should be even more effective at stopping them. See “Fences What America can learn from Israel's West Bank security barrier” (http://www.slate.com/id/2143104/). A useful quote

“Here's one lesson Americans can definitely draw from the Israeli experience of building a fence to separate them from the Palestinians: High fences don't always make good neighbors. It didn't happen in the West Bank, and it probably won't happen in Texas. The country that builds the fence buys a sense of security, but the people prevented from getting to work, or shopping, or marrying someone on the other side will not be thankful for it. And the reason is pretty obvious: Fences work.”

Indeed, fences are already working on our borders. See “Fence's presence felt” (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5271756.html). A few illuminating quotes

"Residents on both sides of one border crossing say barrier is doing what it was intended to do"

"You hear it all the time: Fences don't work. Fences don't work," said Mark Winder, a transplanted New Englander and part-time deputy sheriff who lives on a small ranch outside Columbus, N.M., where a 3-mile stretch of wall was completed in August. "I live 2½ miles from the border, and the fence is working."

Many merchants agree in Palomas, once a sleepy farm town, now a booming haven for smugglers.

"The fence has destroyed the economy here," said Fabiola Cuellar, a hardware-store clerk on the main street of Palomas who used to sell supplies to the throngs heading north from here. "Things are going back to the way they were before."

"But here, where the rampart is now part of the landscape, it tends to elicit satisfied nods from Americans and resigned shrugs from Mexicans."

8. The idea that the economic gap between Mexico and the United States is responsible for illegal immigration is wrong as is the notion that we can’t stop illegal immigration without closing the gap. The ratio of per-capita GDP between the US and Mexico has been roughly unchanged for at least 100 years. However, mass immigration is a post 1970 phenomina. Why? Because immigration is typically a chain based and before 1970 we didn’t allow mass illegal immigration to start.

However, even if economics was the driver, there are billions of people in countries poorer than Mexico. The US must restore the integrity of its borders irrespective of what happens in Mexico.

Beyond that Mexico already has the economic means to take care of its own people. Mexico is a middle-income country with a GDP of over $1 trillion. It is also one of the most unequal nations on earth (of course, the US is becoming more like Mexico in this respect via mass immigration). The Mexican people have the resources to solve their own problems. The time has come for the US to stop bailing out Mexico’s elites via Open Borders.

The bottom line is that we already know what works and what doesn’t in dealing with illegal immigration. Amnesty fails because you don’t stop criminal activity by massively rewarding it. Enforcement works. Taking away the jobs works and induces the illegals to go home. It also raises wages for American workers. Fences work and work very well.

[Peter Schaeffer]

As is usually the case, Lou Dobbs gets his facts and arguments better than his critics. Why? Because Lou Dobbs is willing to look at the world honestly and free from the elite globalist bias that controls so many public debates in the United States (and elsewhere). A few useful points:

1. The idea that Dobbs focuses solely on immigration is simply not true. He is a relentless opponent of corporate trade policies as well. Take a look at his book, “War on the Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on the American Dream and How to Fight Back”. Two chapters are devoted to “The Exorbitant Cost of Free Tree” and “Exporting America”. One chapter covers “Broken Borders”.

2. The idea that this country can not be “ziplocked” is not true. Before the 1960s, we had immigration laws and we enforced them. Eisenhower resolved an immigration crisis in the early 1950s by removing 1-2 million illegals. Illegal immigration wasn’t zero, but it wasn’t out of control either.

3. We don’t have to “resolve the fates of the 12 million undocumented” by giving them Amnesty. The first point is obvious, they are illegal aliens, not “undocumented’. They didn’t accidentally drop their paper while sneaking into the US. They choose to illegally violate our borders. That is their problem.

If we don’t find a mechanism for sending them home, we can ignore them. Over time they will grow old and die like everyone else. Their children will have US citizenship. We gain nothing via Amnesty and loose a great deal. What do we loose? Amnesty will attract a new tidal wave of illegals. Indeed, the prospect already has. See “Following the Amnesty Trail - Leo W. Banks follows one of Arizona's most popular illegal alien crossing routes and finds piles of garbage, trampled public lands, angry residents and the suspected presence of a vicious gang”(http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid:92554) .

Worse, Amnesty will give illegals the right to import the rest of their families triggering a new gigantic wave of legal and inevitably illegal immigration. The time has come for this nation to stop mass immigration into the US, not accelerate it.

Of course, Amnesty will also massively increase the cost of immigration, legal and illegal. The Heritage Foundation found that the 2007 Amnesty bill would cost the American taxpayer at least $2.6 trillion. See “Amnesty Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion” (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1490.cfm). Why? Because once you make illegal aliens, legal. They can and will increase their use of welfare, food stamps, public hospitals, schools, etc. Careful studies have shown that each low-skill immigrant family costs the American people at least $20,000 per year. Even this number is probably understated because of the burden of ESL (English as a Second Language) in public schools and the immigration burden on the criminal justice system.

One study found that illegal immigrants cost the US taxpayers $84 billion per year. See “legal Immigrants Cost America $84 Billion per Year Because of Crime” (http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2007/06/30/illegal-immigrants-cost-america-84year-because-of-crime/#more-1673). This number may not be correct. However, the crime costs of illegal immigration are clearly very large. The GAO found that 10% of US prisoners are illegals (versus 4% of the population).

None of these numbers should surprise anyone. No one pretends that out own poor people aren’t a burden on taxpayers. Why should imported poor people be any different? Why does it make any sense at all to import poor people? How crazy is this?

The bottom line is that Amnesty is a social and economic disaster for the United States and there is no compelling reason to consider it. The advocates of Amnesty say we have do “something” about the illegals (other than send them home). If they had shown 1/100 the energy in opposing illegal immigration over the years, the pro-Amnesty folks might have some creditability. In fact, they have invariably strong opposed all immigration enforcement and promoted illegal immigration.

4. The nativist accusation is a fraud in many ways. First, Lou Dobb’s wife is a Mexican-American and doesn’t appreciate the accusations of bigotry directed against her husband and the farther of their two children. Second, Hispanic Americans are strongly opposed to illegal immigration and generally oppose mass immigration. Note that 46% of Hispanics in Arizona voted for the recent (and successful) crackdown on illegal employers in the state. The border counties of Arizona were overwhelmingly in favor.

[Peter Schaeffer]

5. The idea that it is illegality that makes illegals so attractive to corporations is wrong, both empirically and logically. First, every Amnesty bill has had the overwhelming support of corporate America starting with the Wall Street Journal, the Chamber of Commerce. Take a look at the Board of Directors of the pro-Amnesty National Immigration Forum. Who is the chairman? John Gay who is also the chairman of the National Restaurant Association. Second, illegals drive down wages because they are here, not because they are illegal. Supply and demand 101. However, Amnesty will make the situation worse for American workers. Amnesty will enable illegals to spread into more sectors of the economy displacing American workers across the board.

If you don’t think corporate America supports Amnesty, you have to believe that the WSJ is actually anti-business publication. I guess that makes sense.

As for enabling workers to organize via Amnesty, that’s a bad joke. As stated above, Amnesty will bring a new tsunami of illegals crushing all attempts to improve wages and working conditions.

6. The idea that mass deportation won’t work is belied by the history of the United States (Eisenhower did it) and many other countries more recently (Malaysia, Israel, the UAE). However, we don’t need mass deportation to deal with the existing illegals. Just take away the jobs and resume interior enforcement. The vast majority will go home on their own.

Indeed, it is already working. Arizona, Oklahoma, and Georgia have passed laws cracking down on illegal employers. They are firing their illegal workers and the illegals are leaving, in very large number. The same approach would remove the preponderance of illegals from the US in a year or two. The benefits to Americans from lower taxes, crime, higher wages, less congestion, lower prices (particularly for housing), etc. would be vast.

7. Fences may not stop economic forces. However, they do stop illegal immigration. The Israeli fence have been essentaily 100% effective in stopping terrorists. Given that sucide bombers are presumably more motivated than illegals, a fence should be even more effective at stopping them. See “Fences What America can learn from Israel's West Bank security barrier” (http://www.slate.com/id/2143104/). A useful quote

“Here's one lesson Americans can definitely draw from the Israeli experience of building a fence to separate them from the Palestinians: High fences don't always make good neighbors. It didn't happen in the West Bank, and it probably won't happen in Texas. The country that builds the fence buys a sense of security, but the people prevented from getting to work, or shopping, or marrying someone on the other side will not be thankful for it. And the reason is pretty obvious: Fences work.”

Indeed, fences are already working on our borders. See “Fence's presence felt” (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5271756.html). A few illuminating quotes

"Residents on both sides of one border crossing say barrier is doing what it was intended to do"

"You hear it all the time: Fences don't work. Fences don't work," said Mark Winder, a transplanted New Englander and part-time deputy sheriff who lives on a small ranch outside Columbus, N.M., where a 3-mile stretch of wall was completed in August. "I live 2½ miles from the border, and the fence is working."

Many merchants agree in Palomas, once a sleepy farm town, now a booming haven for smugglers.

"The fence has destroyed the economy here," said Fabiola Cuellar, a hardware-store clerk on the main street of Palomas who used to sell supplies to the throngs heading north from here. "Things are going back to the way they were before."

"But here, where the rampart is now part of the landscape, it tends to elicit satisfied nods from Americans and resigned shrugs from Mexicans."

8. The idea that the economic gap between Mexico and the United States is responsible for illegal immigration is wrong as is the notion that we can’t stop illegal immigration without closing the gap. The ratio of per-capita GDP between the US and Mexico has been roughly unchanged for at least 100 years. However, mass immigration is a post 1970 phenomina. Why? Because immigration is typically a chain based and before 1970 we didn’t allow mass illegal immigration to start.

However, even if economics was the driver, there are billions of people in countries poorer than Mexico. The US must restore the integrity of its borders irrespective of what happens in Mexico.

Beyond that Mexico already has the economic means to take care of its own people. Mexico is a middle-income country with a GDP of over $1 trillion. It is also one of the most unequal nations on earth (of course, the US is becoming more like Mexico in this respect via mass immigration). The Mexican people have the resources to solve their own problems. The time has come for the US to stop bailing out Mexico’s elites via Open Borders.

The bottom line is that we already know what works and what doesn’t in dealing with illegal immigration. Amnesty fails because you don’t stop criminal activity by massively rewarding it. Enforcement works. Taking away the jobs works and induces the illegals to go home. It also raises wages for American workers. Fences work and work very well.

[donna]

Isn't our food getting expensive enough without attempting to crack down on illegals? We ought to be grateful to them for keeping our food prices low.

[donna]

And eh, I'll be sure and pass your comments along to my Hispanic college professor friends.

Idiot.

[jean]

It seems like two things come into play here; responsibility and greed. We more or less lured people here with the promise of jobs and money, people whose country and life were devastated by NAFTA, our NAFTA. They are here and we are responsible. We (the national 'we') keep hiring these unfortunate people, creating the siren song of a better life. It's the same with the 'War on Drugs', WE are their biggest market. Talk about the free market. Here it is. We just think it's illegal. I don't think Americans really realize how arrogant they (we) are.

[donna]

Yeah, I love how all the "free market" folks are against "illegal" immigration and "illegal" drugs, Jean!

C'mon you're either for the free market, or you're not.... you don't get to pick and choose. ;^)

[Peter Schaeffer]

Donna,

The consumer savings from cheap labor immigration is virtually nil. If wages were doubled or even tripled to attract American workers (including legal immigrants), the consumer impact would never be noticed. Philip Martin, an agricultural economist at UC Davis has written extensively on this subject. Here is a quote from “Farm Labor Shortages: How Real? What Response?” (http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back907.html)

“For a typical consumer unit, a 40 percent increase in farm wages would raise spending on fresh fruits and vegetables by $8 a year, from $357 to $366 – about the cost of a movie ticket. However, for a seasonal farm worker, annual earnings would rise from $9,000 for 1,000 hours of work to $12,600, from below the federal poverty line for an individual to above it.”

Of course, the taxpayer savings from eliminating illegal aliens in agriculture would be much larger than any increase in food prices? Why? Because if you include the $20,000 a year net taxpayer cost, cheap illegal alien labor is very expensive. The concept here is "negative externalities".

[Peter Schaeffer]

Donna,

Of course, much of the agricultural work will be promptly mechanized. Quote from Barry R. Chiswick “The Worker Next Door” (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/03/opinion/03chiswick.html)

“Employers facing higher labor costs for low-skilled workers would raise their prices, and to some extent they would change the way they operate their businesses. A farmer who grows winter iceberg lettuce in Yuma County, Ariz., was asked on the ABC program "Nightline" in April what he would do if it were more difficult to find the low-skilled hand harvesters who work on his farm, many of whom are undocumented workers. He replied that he would mechanize the harvest. Such technology exists, but it is not used because of the abundance of low-wage laborers. In their absence, mechanical harvesters — and the higher skilled (and higher wage) workers to operate them — would replace low-skilled, low-wage workers”

Note that harvesting machines don't impose massive costs on taxpayers.

[ken melvin]

The numbers are on this order: More than twelve million illegals are here, some one-third of American citizens have been adversely effected by the hiring of same said illegals, perhaps as many as a couple million American businesses have benefited from the cheap labor. I know these people, talk to these people, and have given them food and shelter. They know that the ever increasing supply is the reason wages are so low that even they can't afford to work for them. I can take you today to see them hopelessly standing in line along our city streets waiting for day labor jobs. They are cold, wet, and half sick. This is the Grapes of Wrath, but wasn't wrath then nor now. It is the grapes of greed.

[ken melvin]

The farm labor is small potatoes.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Ken Melvin,

You should write a book, "The Grapes of Greed". The time has come for such an effort.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Ken Melvin,

"The farm labor is small potatoes."

Quite true. I was responding to Donna.

[Alex Tolley]

MT: "Fences don't stop economic forces from working. I think the only viable long-run solution to the immigration problem is to reduce the economic distance between Mexico and the U.S. Obviously, we don't want to do that by reducing our income, so we need to do what we can to help Mexico develop and raise its standard of living. In that regard, I would like to hear more from the presidential candidates on how the U.S. might help to promote business and job development in Mexico."

But wasn't that what we were doing with NAFTA and the maquilladora area south of the border? And didn't jobs subsequently move from Mexico to China, following the path of lowest labor cost?

To get Mexico, and other S. American countries, a higher standard of living is not going to be easy. You are talking about not just economic growth, but a changes in the political systems of these places. The US typically makes a mess of the latter, and arguably we are fighting for that in the US too.

[Cynthia]

Turning our borders into a military zone is not only a waste of money, it's an eyesore, too! Where is Lady Bird when we need her most!

[Patricia Shannon]

Mexico's leaders want the U.S. to allow large-scale immigration from their country to avoid unrest there. As long as this is allowed, there is no pressure on the Mexican ruling class to make reforms for their own people.

I saw comments acknowledging the adverse effect on U.S. wages caused by large-scale immigration, but I didn't notice a problem that I encountered around here. Many low-paying jobs, such as waiters and cashier in convenience stores, now require the job applicant to be bi-lingual in English and Spanish. So most U.S. citizens are not eligible for these jobs.

And not all harmful effects to lower-income Americans from immigrants are economic. I have heard nobody in power, here or in Mexico, willing to tell Mexican immigrants that they shouldn't play their powerful boomboxes with powerful bass real loud. Those who have been here a little while know it is not acceptable, but they don't care. This is not a sign of desirable neighbors. It does not incline people to care about them. It is a source of great stress to most people. It must also be a factor in the poor academic record of Mexican children, both directly from the effect of noise on children's ability to learn, and because of the effects of loss of hearing from exposure to such loud noises.

[ken melvin]

Not sure that NAFTA deserves all the blame its getting. I've read that the Mexican government meant to displace the subsistence farmer as a way of forcing the society to become modern.

[dissent]

I just find it curious that Thoma's original post and discussion did not even mention the strategy of sanctioning employers. This omission seems to me to set up a straw dog argument with the anti-illegal immigration folks. Obviously a fence won't work and will be too expensive. Duh. But why ignore the only policy that will work, employer sanctions? The policy is even now on the way to being implemented in Arizona. It's not even hypothetical anymore: policy-wise, it's the latest thing. AND it appears to be working in Arizona, before it has even gotten off the ground, because illegals are leaving in droves, school enrollments are dropping, etc.

Honestly, flawed discussions like this really support the notion of biased and out of touch elites.

[lerxst]

Obama also has the best "website" answer on the importance of the safety net with respect to those dislocated due to trade as I posted at Economists for Obama ...though I'd like to see him go farther.

[oops]

peter schaeffer-

what was the answer to my question last month? you remember. the one where i asked what the difference was between sending a job to china or hiring an illegal alien that will consume housing, food, clothing ect...to do the job here.

i can't wait to see that arizona law decrease the demand for housing in phoenix where the whole city's market is in virtual collapse. that one's gonna be great. increase labor cost and decrease demand. HA!

[Winston]

If the government were to crack down on companies hiring illegal immigrants, then many illegal immigrants would just move to underground industries, like the illicit drug trade. For many, it would still beat returning to Mexico. In other words, they would go from illegal immigrants working in legal industries to illegal immigrants working in illegal industries. The result would thus be an increase in crime, not a reduction of the number of illegals in the country. That is why the best solution is to assimilate illegal immigrants rather than incentivize them to leave the country.

I still don't understand the argument against legalizing illegal immigrants, by the way. It would almost certainly mitigate the economic hardship on blue-collar workers that liberal-populists complain about, while also effecting a more tolerant nation -- also something that liberals tend to value.

[Winston]

AND it appears to be working in Arizona, before it has even gotten off the ground, because illegals are leaving in droves, school enrollments are dropping, etc.

Employer sanctions in Arizona are different than employer sanctions across all 50 states. An illegal immigrant would be more than willing to move to another state in the union, but perhaps not as willing to leave the country if this policy was enacted nationally.

[piglet]

Mark: "McCain is essentially adopting the Washington Consensus as a development strategy and that's not what I had in mind, and it's not a strategy that has been successful."

Thanks for acknowledging this, even in an understated way ;-)

[piglet]

rdf: good work, thanks.

[ken melvin]

RDF - The official unemployment rate is completely disconnected from reality.

[billy]

They know that the ever increasing supply is the reason wages are so low that even they can't afford to work for them

So rig the market. Restrict supply and drive up prices -of everything. And who is going to pay these prices?

When are the people in this country going to wake up and demand that those who control production, give up their pricing power? This power instituted by various monopoly grants by govt laws written to benefit them?

That is unacceptable isn't it. That is not the aim. The aim is to get the corporations to share the loot only with locals. The looting must continue. Yes.

We should all go back to the days of the white mans burden, Of course through corporations rather than outright colonial govts. Through arm-twisting third-world countries into unfair trade agreements. Bribing dictators into selling out their nations interests. Then we can farm out the looting to the corporations and local native satraps and sit back in our gated community and enjoy our high paid jobs serving the barons in the gated world.

All looting indirectly, so that we can all still pretend that we are democratic and Christian and egalitarian and apple pie and the light of the world. The brutality is six-degree separated.

The riff-raff in the foreign countries, must of course put up with the looting and live there itself. No way should they follow the profits and the money. No sir, that money and profit is for the chosen people.

It is for people like you that Orwell wrote (http://gaslight.mtroyal.ab.ca/Orwell-B.htm)

All left-wing parties in the highly industrialized countries are at bottom a sham, because they make it their business to fight against something which they do not really wish to destroy. They have internationalist aims, and at the same time they struggle to keep up a standard of life with which those aims are incompatible. We all live by robbing Asiatic coolies, and those of us who are "enlightened" all maintain that those coolies ought to be set free; but our standard of living, and hence our "enlightenment," demands that the robbery shall continue. A humanitarian is always a hypocrite, and Kipling's understanding of this is perhaps the central secret of his power to create telling phrases. It would be difficult to hit off the one-eyed pacifism of the English in fewer words than in the phrase, "making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep." It is true that Kipling does not understand the economic aspect of the relationship between the highbrow and the blimp. He does not see that the map is painted red chiefly in order that the coolie may be exploited. Instead of the coolie he sees the Indian Civil Servant; but even on that plane his grasp of function, of who protects whom, is very sound. He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them.

Future generations will look at your immigration nuttery and will treat you with the same contempt that todays generation looks back at the one that condoned slavery. And I would say it wont be contempt enough.

[bob]

>> But why ignore the only policy that will work, employer sanctions? The policy is even now on the way to being implemented in Arizona. It's not even hypothetical anymore:
policy-wise, it's the latest thing. AND it appears to be working in Arizona

And it's working in Oklahoma.

I heard america construction workers are starting to get called back to work in that state. Matter of fact i heard they are working 6 days a week after years of unemployment.

[bob]

Peter

>> The consumer savings from cheap labor immigration is virtually nil.

*****************************

Yes you saw the same article i did i believe. I think they said that a very minor increase in produce prices (like 50 bucks a year) would make picker jobs pay a modest middle-class wage.

The idea that without illegals we are gonna pay 5 bucks for a head of lettuce is a lie.

[Lafayette]

Vox populi

PS: Why does it make any sense at all to import poor people? How crazy is this?

People can be poor, but if they are smart or have skills, we probably need them. Damn few Americans have a problem with a good Doctor sporting a Latin name, or Indian, or etc.

The point being made is this: (1) Yes, let's stop mass, uncontrolled immigration AND (2) yes, let's instate controlled immigration based upon selection of necessary talents. If the latter are required for farming, so be it.

But, the system needs Migration control. An immigrant is a nationalized migrant who has the right of permanent residence given by nationalization. Migrants return to their country of origin and, can even come back in a migrants.

As I outlined above, no visa nor work permit can be obtained inside the US. It must be delivered externally. The work permit must tie the migrant to a particular job that pays at least the minimum wage as well as benefits. No migrant should be able to change jobs without permission from a supervising authority. If they want, however, they should be able to change employers. No migrant should be indentured. All migrants should be required to re-register periodically.

Any migrant found entering or illegally on the job, should be deported and, in the latter case, it is imperative that the hirer be fined (and sent to jail if caught recurrently hiring illegal migrants).

State/local police should have the power to detain illegal immigrants until Federal authorities deport them.

Why wont the above happen? Because both Dem and Rep politicians are spineless wonders who let the problem fester for fear of a Latino vote backlash.

When a country splits so evenly along political fault lines, the king-makers are the fence-sitters who can swing an election. No one wants to offend them.

This sort of gridlock is established within a representative democracy in a two-party system that is evenly divided into halves. Had we referendum voting on some national issues, a well-reasoned immigration policy would likely be voted by the electorate.

Electorates don't give a damn about keeping a cushy, rather well paid job in Washington. They just want results.

Vox populi.

[Lafayette]

Welcome to the 21st Century

bob: And it's working in Oklahoma.

It's been working in Europe for decades.

Employment is a contractual matter within a legal framework. One has the right to work, that right is codified and the contractual basis is regulated. In Europe.

This means that you cannot be employed without a signed contract between parties. And, if you have no contract, then you are working illegally. Contractually, therefore, BOTH parties, the employee and the employer, have entered into an illegal agreement. The employee is deported and the employer is penalized a stiff fine.

It works in Europe, which has signed the International Declaration of Human Rights. Since 1947, the America Senate has repeatedly delayed the signing of the treaty.

Welcome to the 21st Century, Oklahoma ...

[oops]

lafayette- you are entitled to a contract in the u.s. also.

says...

If fences don't work why did we get our undies in a bundle over the Berlin wall.

Give me a break.

A fence is low tech. Patch the holes and it can't help but work.

[bob]

>> If fences don't work why did we get our undies in a bundle over the Berlin wall.

I guess prisons won't be built with fences around them any more since they don't work

[oops]

berlin wall and prisons are bad examples. there were plenty of guards in a small space. nothing like the border with mexico. the guards can shoot. that's not happening either. get real.

[groucho]

"And didn't jobs subsequently move from Mexico to China, following the path of lowest labor cost?"

Alex,

not just labor. With globalism, think all types of Capital arbitrage. China does have cheap labor, but it has also been able to capitalize on infrastructure development, regulation(or lack of) as well as finance development and manipulation.(exchange rate/vendor financing)
Mexico, on the other hand has done little to promote development that would give it's citizens any competitive advantages. The political status quo of Mexico's bureaucracy even with a change of parties is the main culprit.

Mexico needs a total revamp of it's Federal bureaucracy to get any traction. It is a travesty.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Patricia Shannon,

Folks are aware of the problems you write about. A quote from “Two Steps Toward a Sensible Immigration Policy” (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/opinion/14brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

“He's no racist. Many of his favorite neighbors are kind, neat and hard-working Latinos. But his neighborhood now has homes with five cars rotting in the front yard and 12 single men living in one house. Now there are loud parties until 2 a.m. and gang graffiti on the walls. He read in the local paper last week that Anglos are now a minority in Texas and wonders if anybody is in charge of this social experiment.”

And from “Bringing Diversity to the Debate” (http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/mskoped082707.html)

““Most Americans are less worried about immigrants having proper documents or being able to answer questions about American history and politics than their behaving like responsible members of the community. Are immigrants making too much noise? Are they attempting to communicate in English? Are they parking their cars where there is supposed to be grass? Are they crowding too many people into their living quarters? Are they cluttering the neighborhood with abandoned shopping carts or cars? In sum, we believe that when Americans complain about immigrants, their concern is less about immigrants failing to be good citizens than about their failing to be good neighbors.”

Of course, they haven’t done anything about them. It wouldn’t be PC. Predictably David Brooks supports Amnesty. I really can’t imagine the New York Times allowing anyone who supports immigration enforcement to grace its pages.

Dissent,

Punishing illegal employers is the dirty secret of immigration enforcement. It works and it works rather well. Some Republicans can’t bear to betray business interests. The Democrats are the “we love illegals” party. As a consequence little has been done so far to punish criminal employers. As Arizona and Oklahoma show, that is changing.

Oops,

Hiring a worker in China is a vastly better deal for the US than an illegal here at home. Why? No massive ($20,000+ per year) burdens on taxpayers. No ravaged public schools. No gridlock on freeways. No unaffordable housing. No illegal alien crime. No social and cultural problems from mass immigration.

Of course, workers in China are cheaper too. However, the real point is that trade doesn’t impose massive negative externalities on Americans.

Yes, illegals spend some money in the US. However, the housing and food they consume don’t come free. These goods have to be produced. In other words, the money illegals spend in the US isn’t a gain to Americans. However, the externalities are definitely a huge loss.

Let’s assume you are correct about Arizona. Stated differently, let’s hope you are correct about Arizona. Wages go up and housing costs and taxes go down. Sounds like a win, win, win for Americans.

Winston,

12 million illegal aliens are going to start selling drugs. Given that illegals dominate the drug trade in many parts of the US, I don’t think the incremental market is that large.

I have outlined above how Amnesty would massively hurt ordinary Americans. See points 1 through 8.

Billy,

The impact of higher wages on prices is likely to be small. Zero in many cases via lower rents (in the Ricardo sense of the word). Workers will come far ahead. Note that before mass immigration resumed around 1970, wages rose steadily in real terms and inflation was modest. Stated differently, mass immigration shifts income from workers to employers, it doesn’t lower prices. Indeed, mass immigration is massively inflationary once you take into account housing costs. Look at California.

says...

If picker jobs paid a decent wage I'd take one myself. I've done plenty of hard labor in my life and it doesn't bother me .

I like working outdoors much better than indoors anyway. I remember in the late 60's my brother picked apples to pay his tuition.

[bob]

^ me

[anne]

Remember, what is important, always important, always critically important is to show just how vile prejudice can be.

"Are they attempting to communicate in English?"

Sort of makes me ashamed to be caught speaking English.

[donna]

Ah, Patricia, the "Hispanics are noisy and rude" argument.

I'll let Carlos Santana know. Perhaps you've heard his music?

[Patricia Shannon]

Peter,
I don't blame immigrants for living in such crowded conditions. It's caused by a lack of affordable housing. I would say better than how poor Americans cope, which is moving out or getting evicted every so often, when they can't afford to pay their rent. This attitude towards them seems to me to be an example of how social and legal pressures are put on people to spend beyond their means.

[Patricia Shannon]

Donna,

I didn't refer to "Hispanics". I referred to Mexicans. I know about Mexican neighbors by personal experience. In the last few years, my mobile home park has been taken over by Mexican immigrants. All the people on my block except me and the next-door neighbors on one side, are Mexican immigrants. I don't know whether Hispanic in general are so loud. If a lot of people complain about a certain group being loud, did it ever occur to you it might be because they are loud. Lockstep liberals are just as irrational as lockstep conservatives.

How many Mexican immigrant neighbors do you have, that you are such an expert? The remark about a particular musician was just silly and didn't make any sense. I don't turn my car radio on as loud as it will go and go in my house to listen to it. I don't turn on the stereo in my home so loud it rattles the neighbors windows.

I read an article within the past few months, that I believe was posted in this blog, where a poor Mexican woman was telling about her life. It was obviously designed to elicit sympathy. (Their poverty is dreadful). And she stated that one of the dreams of her and her neighbors was to buy powerful stereos.

In a recent article in this blog, I believe about the effects of poverty on children, it mentioned one of the common stressors on the poor is noise. Noise has been shown to increase the rate of heart attacks and decrease children's learning ability. It is used as a form of torture. It is used by some cultures to rev up people to go to war. It's easy to be uncaring about the noise a poor neighborhood might have to endure when you don't have to live there yourself.

[Carlos]

Patricia, if you move to MEXICO, that should take care of all your problems. All of the Mexicans that like loud music and make loud noise have been kicked out. They now live in El Norte, in beautiful trailer parks.

Carlos S.

[ddt]

I spent a few weeks in jersey city living under hispanic neighbors. I found the pounding reggaeton kind of relaxing, maybe because every beat is pretty much exactly the same and I don't understand any of the lyrics. At any rate, it's better than living next to someone who uses a leafblower.

[Patricia Shannon]

ddt,
So if leaf blowers didn't bother the people in the apartment besides yours, you think think they should be allowed to run 5 leaf blowers at one time in their apartment?

[donna]

Patricia, I live in San Diego. While we have our share of bigots here, I'm rather proud of the diversity around me. I welcome people of all races creeds and colors into my world, thanks.

Oh, and, for the record, I'm a registered Libertarian. ;^)

[ddt]

If they're not breaking any bylaws, then sure.

The point is that noise pollution isn't really a hispanic issue, and that music is pretty low on my list of concerns with noise pollution.

[Patricia Shannon]

Donna,
I am happy with diversity. I find loud noise torturous, not matter who the perpetrators are.
Your assumption that my objection to my neighbors noise is racist is itself a bigoted stereotype.

[anne]

Consideration of neighbors is always called for everywhere, and it is the responsibility, or should be, of city officials to have such consideration monitored. There are minor nuisances when students mix and when students and borader community mix, but matters such as noise are readily attended to both by campus and municipal officers.

I always understand and am sympathetic to such an issue.

[Patricia Shannon]

The situation I am talking about is where people have powerful bass. The bass travels long distances,so that's all you hear. One day, someone must have been playing CDs by a musician who used the same setting on a drum machine for all his songs, because for more than 6 hours, I had to listen to the same 2 or 3 bars of a drum machine. I don't consider that "music".

[anne]

http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Carlos-Santana/Africa-Bamba.html

1999

Ella Baila la Portugueza
By Carlos Santana

Estoy llamando a todas las morenas
Y las llamada la viene da la luz
Con calma se baila esta danza
Y con amor canto yo esta cancion
Africa bamba ase a un lado a la tristeza
Y otra mas dulce no la podras encontrar

Oye eso te va sentir feliz
Ella, ella, baila portuguesa
Africa yo te estoy llamando a ti
Oye Puerto Rico adonde estas
Levanta las manos Colombia
Oye donde estas Peruanos
Venezuela yo te quiero
China, China yo te quiero tambien
Japon, Japon, Japon que rico Japon
Japon baila con Santana
No se olviden Mexico, Mexico, mi Mexico
Mi Mexico

[anne]

Sorry, that was not meant to tease you, Patricia.

Noise however musical needs to be limited among neighbors. I completely sympathize, but that should be subject to a local ordinance that is easily and politely dealt with. I like Sanatana, though.

[ddt]

"Patricia Shannon says...
The situation I am talking about is where people have powerful bass. The bass travels long distances,so that's all you hear. One day, someone must have been playing CDs by a musician who used the same setting on a drum machine for all his songs, because for more than 6 hours, I had to listen to the same 2 or 3 bars of a drum machine. I don't consider that "music"."

Yeah that's reggaeton. There are actually lots of producers, they all just choose to use the exact same drum pattern for some reason. I can see how it could be irritating.

As far as it not being music, I'd say that's entirely subjective. Remember that classical music is used to drive youths out of public spaces and that American pop music is used to torture in Guantanamo. Just because hispanic music personally irritates you, I don't think that it is fair to dismiss it as sub-musical.

[oops]

Peter-
"No massive ($20,000+ per year) burdens on taxpayers. No ravaged public schools. No gridlock on freeways. No unaffordable housing. No illegal alien crime. No social and cultural problems from mass immigration."

you are so wrong on this.

ravaged public schools? as long as these childeren assimilate and become productive their education is as worthwile of an investment in human capital as that of any other child.

no gridlock on freeways? you can't seriously be saying that they cause gridlock. if they are commuting to jobs that would otherwise be held by someone else then these other people that get the jobs after the illegals are gone are going to be on the road at the same time. hell, when i go to the soccer field and the team we're playing is mexican illegals all 15 show up and pile out of single freakin van.

no unaffordable housing? yeah poor people caused housing to become unaffordable.

you obviously misread what i said about arizona. housing values drop while labor costs increase. consumtion drops as does revenue from consumption and property taxes. lower property valuation and the housing bust are why the state is facing a billion dollar deficit.

tarrifs didn't work in the great depression and the labor market equivalent won't do arizona any good.

my personal favorite: "Yes, illegals spend some money in the US. However, the housing and food they consume don’t come free. These goods have to be produced." Thanks Billy Madison we're all now dumber. yes they produce a lot of food and housing if all of you guys are right.

let's do it your way- the illegality of hiring them makes them all leave. 11 million people leave. they stop consuming. this is made up for by a 10% wage increase.

= you are wrong. illegals use fewer social services than equal pay legals. they try to fly under the radar so that they can continue make much more here than at home.

try heading over to the "younotsneaky" blog and typing "illegal" into the search. learn something from some real research from a labor economist instead of the b.s. cost only crap you spew here.

i think you guys need to calculate the cost of oxygen they consume and waste treatment too. you know those mexicans drink a lot of beer and we have to process it in our treatment plants. it really stresses the system a lot. get your cost only guys on that one too.

trade ain't zero sum buddy. quit your pretending economist routine- ricardo quotes and all. compare apples to apples. for any given low skill job an illegal uses fewer services than a legal worker. many more single males with no kids in school than with low skill legal workers. more likely to carpool. you name it you lose and america wins with illegals.

just to make this post even longer i'll point out that you in no way take into account retiring boomers and the need to pay their health care (so we need more labor supply) or the fact that capital is increasingly mobile. jack up labor costs in the low wage end of the service sector and watch the capital flow out.

[notsneaky]

Why do you people even bother responding to these morons?

Like Patricia Shannon. The others we've seen around enough in one guise or another.

[Denis Drew]

I suspect Shannon is putting us on. Mexicans, because of the often illegal status (or their associates' illegal status) tend to be excruciatingly careful not to be offensive -- wouldn't you be? There were often 25 Mexican men on the street outside my mother's apartment but you had to look out the window to know it -- you couldn't hear them. Think that would be the case with -- any -- group of 25 American men?

[notsneaky]

Yeah I do wonder if some of these comments are actually jokes.

[Lafayette]

"as long as"

oops: ... as long as these childeren assimilate and become productive their education is as worthwile of an investment in human capital as that of any other child.

Big, little words, "as long as". The problem is they don't assimilate. They just get angry and vicious.

Europe has been "immigrating" its manufacturing force since post-war -- that's over sixty years. The suburban ghettoes are marred by violence, both civic (burning cars and public libraries) and personal (the rape of young girls). Much of this is attributed to the children of immigrant families.

Oh, yes, the government tries to be Politically Correct, by never identifying the names of the culprits to "protect their identity". But, when you watch the evening news footage of the trials, the identity of this youth cannot escape you.

France's President, just this week, suggested that the school system teach children not only the 3R"s, but the national anthem, who is Marianne (the equivalent of Uncle Sam) and educate them on certain "Republican Values".

This last term is Big Ticket item in France. It defines certain basic cultural traits of the French people, such as The belief in representative democracy, respect for law and order, civil obedience, polite civic behaviour in general, etc., etc.

If these are not taught, don't expect children to learn them by osmosis. Cuz it ain't gonna happin.

Do Americans think that republican values (of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) are being inculcated in American youth? Then why they are shooting one another in such a regularly dismal manner. Where is the respect for human life? (Sorry, boys and girls -- yes, the same can happen in Europe, but no where near the frequency as in the US. )

We've built a Rambo-mentality into them. Thank you, Hollywood. Now, kindly sink into sea and disappear, please. Just go away with your Klaptrap Kulture of Make-a-megabuck Violence and Celebrity Stardom that has hypnotized our youth.

[Lafayette]

Our Culture

DD: Mexicans, because of the often illegal status (or their associates' illegal status) tend to be excruciatingly careful not to be offensive -- wouldn't you be?

Your talking about Latinos. The root word is "Latin". The Latin cultures speak a language of which the root is the Latin language.

There are, count 'em, a number of such peoples: Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Romania. These root languages are all European and many, many American have such roots. Me included.

There are one or two more salient attributes of the Latin cultures, aside from Roman Catholicisms religious values. First, they are a talkative people. That is, they make contact by talk in a touchy-feely way. English Victorians derided them as the "chattering classes", since these classes did not observe the rules of Victorian etiquette. (Lack of respect for one's "social class", which put them at the bottom of a long ladder that was not terribly upwards mobile.)

Another attribute, amongst the males, is "machismo". It remains pronounced, but is a dieing characteristic of European Latin peoples. In South and Latin America it is still an important part of their cultural values.

It takes just one generation for that root to diminish to ... just the name. Wash an individual's brain of inculcated values and all that is left as an identifier is their name. An individual very rapidly loses the identity of their country of birth - not entirely, but mostly. Their children, never having assimilated their parents cultural attributes, will assume those of the culture in which they mature. In fact, the transformation is so complete, it is difficult to go back. (So many of your values change, they morph your own personality.)

The other cultural roots of the American people are Anglo-Saxon-Germanic, Slavic, African and, finally, Asiatic. The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) dominated American culture, because of historical reasons. They were the first to arrive in mass to populate the colonies. (Had France not been defeated by the British in Canada, American's would likely be speaking French today.)

The miracle of America is that the Melting Pot makes of all these cultures "Americans". What a great many people, me included, wonder is this: Just what IS the American culture in terms of values, aspirations, identity?

Does anyone know? Because no one really ever talks about it in the US. (And, in Europe, the debate about "national culture" is practically endless.) Do politicians ever mention the "American Culture"? Or, do they call it "My vision of America"?

Culture is more than swelling up with pride, singing the American anthem with Ole Betsy flapping in the wind. That is an image and is indistinguishable from country to country. National pride is a common attribute of most peoples.

So, what is Our Culture? What are its Values? Besides a firm belief in democracy, what is so vitally important to our nation that we must inculcate those virtues (or values) from generation to generation?

Is it the pursuit of happiness defined by the individual accumulation of riches? Is there no commonality of identity amongst us besides the quest for wealt? Or, is our society a free-for-all where the strongest/smartest not only survive but survive best?

And, if it is not that at all -- I am prepared to accept that I may be wrong -- then what is it?

[Lafayette]

ns: Why do you people even bother responding to these morons?

And, by this inanity, I guess you mean that you are not-a-moron? Thanks for clarifying.

Labeling posters rarely furthers the debate. And, it is a sure-fire way of being labeled. As in SOB (that is, Scroll On By).

[anne]

The racism, the ethnic prejudice, the deceiving use of perverse statistics, for the purpose of vilifying other people is simply horrid; but vilifying, repeated vilifying, is for some the whole matter in immigration discussions.

[oops]

Lafayette-

I'll tell you the same thing i told peter last month on this same topic.

If you don't think that mexicans assimilate then the next time the u.s. and mexico are playing a soccer game against each other get a ticket and go. get there early and talk to the mexicans there. you'll be quite suprised i think. they are more than happy to tell you if they are first or second generation.

one other note: 26th street in chicago (mexican area) is second only to michigan avenue in sales tax revenue for the city. they are becoming big shoppers- just like the rest of the population.

[Lafayette]

anne: The racism, the ethnic prejudice

You cannot talk about immigration and not mention race. So, to be Politically Correct and try to avoid mentioning race is a non-starter in any debate regarding immigration.

Besides, because I write of blacks or Muslims does not make necessarily prejudiced. It what I actually say that might make me prejudiced.

Those young urban males who are raping young girls in the Paris suburbs and torching local sub-libraries to get a Saturday night high are mostly, but not exclusively, black and Arab. Why?

Not because blacks and Arabs are particularly more induced to vandalism/delinquency but because they live in neighborhoods where the unemployment rate is close to 35%. A black and a white, from the same apartment block in a suburban housing project (aka "ghetto") can apply for a job pushing a palette around a warehouse floor at the minimum wage. Which do you think will get that job?

You betcha. The white boy.

A black in a Ferrari is twice as apt as a white to be stopped in Paris to have an identity check. So, the problems are no different from LA to Paris, France.

Only the solutions differ. The ultimate solution, as with all people, is to have two clear paths on which to proceed. One which leads to a decent and enriching lifestyle and the other that leads to the hell of incarceration for illegal activity. People will chose.

But, we will always have an incarcerated population. The trick is to understand how to minimize it. France does not glorify the rich and famous. In fact, they are so heavily taxed that they go live abroad.

I suggest the US take the same tack. The exaggeratedly large difference in wealth, between those who have not and those who have-too-much must inevitably lead to social disharmony and, yes, even violence. The only proven way to reduce it is Human/Social Capital expenditures that give people at least the chance of a decent lifestyle -- meaning, ordinary but livable.

As Janis Joplin used to sing, "Freedom is nothing left to lose". In our day and age, that "freedom" is the freedom to get very angry indeed. When you are poor, that "nothing left to lose" is simply too little, too late.

[ken melvin]

Patricia brings a much needed dose of reality.

[WASP]

"hell, when i go to the soccer field and the team we're playing is mexican illegals all 15 show up and pile out of single freakin van."

oops, Have you tried using reportillegals.com yet? At 15 per clip you will probably qualify for a Congressional Medal of Honor for Patriotic Duty. Good luck in patriotic endeavor.

[Patricia Shannon]

ddt,
I didn't know that Spanish music consists only of a VERY, VERY LOUD bass part.
I don't like any kind of very loud "music". After a certain level, it is not music, because the sound is distorted. I would hate it if someone were playing "Sound of Silence" as loud as my neighbors play their radios. I always carry ear plugs with me. When I go to concerts, I often have to wear them.

Since you are so tolerant, I guess you wouldn't mind someone spraying concentrated skunk scent around your apartment, because they liked the smell of it.

Donna, I notice you couldn't claim to have any Mexican immigrants as neighbors. You didn't even make it clear if your own neighborhood is "diverse". If it is, and they are considerate, that just shows that it is not too much to expect that Mexicans be considerate. But I don't expect you will change your stereotype thinking any more than Lou Dobbs will change his.

In the past, when I made the occasional loud Anglo keep their sound down, my neighbors said I was a "hero".

[ddt]

"I didn't know that Spanish music consists only of a VERY, VERY LOUD bass part."

The music you were almost certainly referring to is actually Puerto Rican, and yes, loud bass is an integral part of the music, just as it is with reggae.

"Since you are so tolerant, I guess you wouldn't mind someone spraying concentrated skunk scent around your apartment, because they liked the smell of it."

An absurd argument. The whole point that you are completely missing is that being a nuisance to your neighbors whether through loud music or fumes is a legal matter, and if your neighbors are not breaking any laws, then you have no right to tell them anything. Living in any community means making compromises. If you have a problem with that, you can go join a gated community with all the other uptight people.

[evagrius]

Interesting comments.

Illegal immigrants are such fine scapegoats for the economic woes of the U.S.

I'm surprised that there isn't a business that imports scapegoats. They could do quite well in the U.S.

[Patricia Shannon]

I rarely buy new clothes. In addition to environmental and financial reasons, most things are made in China, and I hate to support a dictatorship which oppresses its people. But a few weeks ago, I saw the sweatshirt with a pretty design on it, that I'm wearing right now, at a drugstore. I looked at the label. It was made in Mexico. So I bought it, because I'm glad to support our neighbor country, which is a democracy, although not perfect, but then neither is our democracy.

[Patricia Shannon]

ddt,
the laws against noise in this county only apply between 11pm and 7am.

What is "absurd" about my argument? You went on to seem to agree that subjecting neighbors to either unpleasant noise or fumes is not good.

You say "Living in any community means making compromises." Why does that apply only to me, who has lived in this neighborhood since 1993, when it was quiet, and not to my neighbors. Are you so contemptuous of people from Mexico that you don't think they are capable of learning new ways? I believe they are as capable as anybody else of learning and adapting, if they want to.

When Americans go to other countries, do you think we should be respectful of their cultures? I do, and I expect the same the other way.

[bob]

Jeeze all Patricia said is they play their music too loud.

I've heard people at other websites say the same thing.

I believe she wants them to turn down the music and i think just about any other reasonable person would too.

What are we suppose to pretend that they have no flaws.

Everybody has em.

[oops]

wasp-

you are talking to the wrong guy when it comes to reporting illegals and you are belittling the country's highest honor.

why don't you head over to wikipedia and search "hispanic medal of honor winners". marcario garcia, alfredo gonzales, david m. gonzales all look to me like they could easily have been illegals or within a generation or two of illegals.

here's my favorite(ww2)-
Lopez was raised by his mother Candida Lopez in Veracruz, Mexico. As a young boy he helped his mother sell clothes that she made as a seamstress in the city. However, his time with his mother was cut short due to an illness which took her life when Lopez was only eight years old. Lopez then relocated to Brownsville, Texas to live with his uncle's family.

here's another-(ww2)
Herrera was born in the Mexican city of Camargo, Chihuahua, and not, as he once believed, in El Paso, Texas. His parents died when he was only a year old, and the man he had always thought was his father was really an uncle who had brought the 18-month old Herrera to El Paso to provide him with a better way of life in the United States. This fact was unknown to him until he was 27 years old.

i grew up in texas with many illegals or illegals' children whose parents were hard working, made their kids do their homework and most made their kids speak english to each other so they could get higher paying jobs than they had.

you're entitled to your opinion on immigration but acting like reporting illegals is somehow patriotic and deserving of the county's highest honor is pathetic.

you want to be a patriot deserving of a medal? head to your local recruiting office.

[evagrius]

To stop annoying loud music is fairly simple;

Just obtain an LP or CD of a Scottish bagpie band and play it very loud.

The keening sound of the pipes cuts through any other sound.

I've used this technique a number of times when neighbors played their music too loudly. The neighbors quickly learned to lower their music.