"Flat-Out Anti-Immigrant Fearmongering"

Joe Klein is unhappy with CNN:

Lou Demagogue, by Joe Klein: ...I've got to wonder why [CNN] allows Lou Dobbs to continue spewing false, inflammatory nonsense under the guise of objective journalism. Here is his latest confrontation with Paul Waldman of Media Matters about the fictional NAFTA superhighway. Indeed, the Washington Post's Fact Checker gave the NAFTA Superhighway myth four Pinocchios. Now, I know that Dobbs brings in some serious ratings. And he is certainly entitled to his own opinion. But he is not entitled to his own facts--especially not on a network that makes a real effort to separate truth from falsehood and represent all sides of the political debate. Shouldn't someone be editing this swill? Doesn't CNN have a responsibility to tell its viewers that, in this case, one of their presenters is engaged in flat-out anti-immigrant fearmongering? Perhaps the network could employ a simple superimposed title--THIS IS NOT TRUE...or LOU HAS JUMPED THE SHARK ON THIS ONE--whenever Dobbs pretends that there is such a thing as the NAFTA Superhighway. This sort of thing diminishes the credibility and hard work of the other journalists on the network. (And no, I do not count the execrable Glenn Beck as a journalist.)

I don't mean to include every individual in a sweeping statement, but Joe Klein's baseline opinion of CNN appears to be higher than mine. I agree, though, that Lou Dobbs is a downward drag from whatever starting point is assumed.

Markets find a way to work no matter how hard governments work to stop them (see drugs), and with the difference in opportunity as large as it is between the US and Mexico, illegal immigration will continue to be a problem. Sure, we can get tough and reduce the flow of illegal workers, crack down on employers, put illegal workers in jail, but for those who are still engaged in the activity it will become more brutal, more violent, and those who make it here to work will be subjected to much worse working conditions than they already are as people work as hard as they can to conceal their activity. The bigger the penalties if they are caught, the more they will be willing to do to prevent discovery and it will be the workers trying to escape poverty who will bear the brunt of the effort to keep things underground. I'm not saying we shouldn't enforce immigration law, but we need to recognize the consequences of intensified enforcement, and do our best to make the punishment fit the crime of trying to escape from difficult conditions at home.

The only long-term solution is for opportunity to increase in Mexico, for Mexico to develop economically. That's the only thing that, ultimately, will substantially reduce the flow of illegal workers without draconian measures. That means, in part, accepting that some companies will need to move to Mexico, it means building highways between the US and Mexico, etc. The politics of such a policy aren't easy, but we have to do more to help Mexico develop economically if we want to solve this problem - it's in the long-run interest of both countries that we do so. Thus, this needs to be on our political agenda - what will we do to help Mexico to develop? How can we help them to help themselves? Instead of spending money building fences, why not spend it helping to create opportunity for Mexicans in Mexico? Instead of working so hard to keep people out, why not focus more of our efforts on giving them an economic incentive to stay home? We'll all be better off if we do that.

Comments

[evagrius]

Why not look at the oligarchies that benefit from the situation as it is.

Mexico will not "develop" as long as its oligarchy benefits from the present situation.

The U.S. will not be of any help as long as its oligarchy continues to benefit from the present situation.

One can talk one's self blue about aid and development but it really doesn't mean much at present.

And...let's not forget that the situation doesn't just concern Mexico. The recent mass arrest and imprisonment of
illegals was of Guatamalans, not Mexicans.

[Bruce Wilder]

If we had secured the rule of law in the United States, we might be in a position to support the rule of law in Mexico. I guess we can't help there, though.

The Right is afraid the Rule of Law will prevent ruthlessly expedient and corrupt practices -- Torture-R-US -- and the Left is busy with a nightmare, where law enforcement is draconian and incubates further lawlessness.

[Freedom]

I don't see the point of limiting immigration of people who don't commit violent/property crimes. All honest Mexican citizens should be free to move to the US, and all honest US citizens should be free to move to Mexico. Tear down the fence. We are allies.

says...

1. I can't tell whether Freedom is serious, or is joking. That's not the first time that's happened with commenters here. But, in case he's serious there are other issues to consider such as PoliticalPower. Namely, that tends to follow nationals around so, should we allow millions more Mexicans to move here, that would give their home country even more power inside our country. And, those of us who are familiar with this topic realize just how dangerous that would be.

2. Regarding the Time post, see my comments there under this same name. I hope that my comments hurt Klein's little remaining credibility. Thankfully he was dumb enough not to read the comments on the links he provided that show he's lying.

3. Which brings me to the best solution for illegal immigration: discrediting those who promote it. Powerful forces will still push it, but without spokesmodels willing to put their careers on the line it's going to be fairly difficult.

[NoMoreBlatherDotCom]

For some reason it's not showing that the previous comment is from NoMoreBlatherDotCom. Do a find for that at the Time link.

[Bruce Wilder]

Ratings for Thursday, May 22
7PM - P2+ (25-54)
Fox Report w/ Shepard Smith – 1,251,000 viewers (287,000)
Lou Dobbs – 1,051,000 viewers (280,000)
Hardball – 807,000 viewers (312,000)
Kudlow & Company- 172,000 viewers (67,000)
Glenn Beck – 434,000 viewers (152,000)

When you consider the company he keeps, it is hard to know how one distinguishes Lou Dobbs stupid from all the other brands of Stupid.

(Really, it is hard, sometimes, to know how to distinguish Lou Dobbs Stupid from Joe Klein's brand of Stupid as the Time Magazine domesticated pseudo-liberal.)

Is the market for cable news working? Is the market for news and opinion working?

[mrrunangun]

Employers want workers with good attitudes and work ethics who will work for what the employer can pay. The Latin immigrant fills that bill abut the native-born American often does not. The Latin immigrant needs an opportunity to supply the needs of his family here and back home. Does this arragement put downward pressure on wages and working conditions for native-born Americans? It would be contrary to the laws of economics if it doesn't. Those American workers are not politically organized, tending not to be unionized or otherwise represented as a group that can pressure the political system, so they get screwed. The Right's organized business clientele likes the cheap labor. The Left's organized Chicano wing likes illegal immigration and amnesty which expand its power. So we have what we have regardless of its fairness to the native population or to the immigrants themselves.

[robertdfeinman]

The economy of Mexico has been ruined in good part by NAFTA and the continual seeking of manufacturers to the lowest labor environments.

NAFTA has allowed the US to dump low cost corn on the Mexican market thus eliminating the economic viability of many subsistence farmers. They have moved north, into the cities in both Mexico and into the US. The interests that profit from the corn exports are not those affected by immigration. Corn production is not a labor intensive activity.

The US forced Mexico to set up favorable conditions for manufacturing which bypassed environmental and labor laws and now many of these plants have shut down and moved to Asia. The result is a peasant class that was lured away from rural life and now is at loose ends. Once again a supply of people for immigration.

As to politicians (never mind pundits) promoting things which are totally inconsistent, here's a sample from today NY Times Long Island section:

Legislator Sees No Race Card: Just Fairness
He is the force behind Suffolk’s new worker-status bill, which, amplifying a law espoused by County Executive Steve Levy in October 2006 that mandates all 6,000 businesses with county contracts ensure that they have no illegal immigrants on the payroll, extends the stricture to the county’s roughly 17,000 licensed contractors. His aim, Mr. Beedenbender says, is to level an uneven economic playing field, not to play bad cop against undocumented workers.
...
“This is not about people, it’s about a situation, an economic inequity, and since when do we reward somebody for breaking the law?” he asks. “To make this a bill about race turns it into two camps: If you’re against it, you’re compassionate and progressive, and if you’re for it, you’re a racist bigot.”

If it is impossible for the undocumented immigrants to get work then what does he expect them to do? Usually a group that is discriminated against this way (think the Roma in Europe) turns to crime, or black market activities. Perhaps he is hoping that the immigrants will all move elsewhere. If so then who does he think will be mowing the lawns of the estates in the Hamptons and working in the kitchens?

A town in NJ prohibited landlords from renting to undocumented immigrants. The results were dramatic, they moved away, their ethnic businesses closed and so did many of the general purpose stores in the area. The town went into economic shock. It's now trying to fix this.

Be careful what you wish for...

[2slugbaits]

Mark Thoma said:

"I'm not saying we shouldn't enforce immigration law..."

Mark might not be willing to say, but I am. We shouldn't enforce the immigration law; or at least the one we currently have. I'd like to encourage as much immigration as possible. Basically, if you not a felon and you don't have a communicable disease, welcome brother, welcome.

As to Lou Dobbs. I have this piece of Made-in-China technology that helps me deal idiots like Lou Dobbs. It's called a remote.

[Bruce Wilder]

2slugbaits: "We shouldn't enforce the immigration law . . . I'd like to encourage as much immigration as possible."

Such an extreme view just seems wildly impractical to me.

I know lots of people think Lou Dobbs is an expression, simply, of racism, but I think Dobbs is more about exasperation with views like those of 2slugbaits or, even, Mark Thoma.

I really dislike Dobbs and his demagoguery, but I also can see that he expresses the views of a lot of people, who feel abused by negligent elites.

I don't even want to engage in a discussion with someone, who thinks we don't need regulation of immigration, or that it is not possible. Even as devil's advocacy, it is silly. And, as a serious policy doctrine, it reveals a bankrupt and barren worldview.

[methinks]

says...., says:
"Which brings me to the best solution for illegal immigration: discrediting those who promote it."

Brilliant; why didn't I think of that? I was thinking more of a modern-day Maginot Line,
mined and electrified, of course. If the budget allows, we could also deploy heat-seeking missiles. We can't be too careful for the enemy is shrewd, they have been known to cross deserts in search of the promised land.

[2slugbaits]

Bruce,

"...who feel abused by negligent elites."

And how do you think Mexicans feel about American elites like Lou Dobbs? I don't hear Lou Dobbs ranting about immigrants from Canada or Britain. And did Lou Dobbs' ancestors come here legally? Some of mine didn't. Lou Dobbs represents a view that I normally attribute to Republicans; a philosophy of talking a lot about equality to those above you on the economic scale and then pulling up the ladder to make sure those below you don't pass you by.

[2slugbaits]

robertfeinman said:

" Corn production is not a labor intensive activity."

Corn production in the US is very sensitive to wage costs. According to this recent study the own price elasticity of demand for wages in corn production is a very inelastic -3.38.

www.ag.ncat.edu/centers/int-trade/docs/5.%20Energy%20Substitute%20Paper.ppt

I don't have any reason to believe that corn production in Mexico would be any different since we are talking about the same technology.

[2slugbaits]

correction..."elastic -3.38"

[Robert Oak]

Yada, yada. Corporations are just quite pissed that they cannot get their US Chamber of Commerce, guest worker Visa laden bills passed, due to Lou Dobbs and his reporting.

I'm shocked you can't see through the brew ha ha to realize that.

Joining in on an active, corporate generated campaign to try to shut down a show in order to pass their cheap labor legislation is truly not digging into the economic realities of this situation or the actual bills.

Are you now going to write about the brazen campaign putting out false reports trying to spin EVERYTHING on this issue as racist xenophobe? Now there is some false journalism.

[Jim D]

From the original post: "The bigger the penalties if they are caught, the more they will be willing to do to prevent discovery"

Or, possibly, the less they will be willing to come over. If you make it generally unprofitable to come here to work, few will come - that's just Econ 101, isn't it? Yes, those that will, will resort to more and more unsavory practices. Criminals are like that.

[Robert Oak]

You might also check the facts, beyond WaPo just claiming this isn't true. Really be useful if some "watchdog" group bothered to read bills, administration plans and so on as well.
While the conspiracies are obviously questionable and the title "Superhighway" or "12 lanes" is funky, the reality is this is a known construction project, plans, funds. It's called I-69.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-69

[2slugbaits]

Robert Oak,

If corporations want to hire immigrants and if Mexicans want to come to this country to work, just what exactly is the economic rationale for a policy that makes both parties worse off? If Mexico had a surplus of machinery, would you be opposed to machinery coming across the border to be operated in US manufacturing?

says...

"If corporations want to hire immigrants and if Mexicans want to come to this country to work, just what exactly is the economic rationale for a policy that makes both parties worse off? If Mexico had a surplus of machinery, would you be opposed to machinery coming across the border to be operated in US manufacturing?"

Why is it just for Mexicans and Hispanics? Shouldn't poor Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, Ethiopians, Morrocans have a shot at the American dream? You have to have competition and equal access for these people. I think they'll work just a hard.

[2slugbaits]

"Shouldn't poor Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, Ethiopians, Morrocans have a shot at the American dream?"

Fine by me. I agree.

[ken melvin]

Ronnie was a master at platitudes and axioms. Some here are not too shabby. On Muni last week a lady originally from Singapore sang me the praises of having servants. Earlier the same day, on the bus, two 'designers' for developers were discussing what they paid their nannies. Then someone here tries to tell us that all us are of lineage no different the illegals crossing the border today, or that we are trying to pull up the ladder, and we all know that we need the labor as we have little or no unemployment, no homeless and wages are real good. Tomorrow, I'll go over to the Presidio and tell the folks lying their that any and all they did didn't amount to squat, that the nation wasn't theirs to leave, that it belonged to whomever could come and work the cheapest or out hustle the native-borns. That wars protect only the rights of the rich. That the race to the bottom they knew and loved is back in vogue. That we again have a social class that lives far above the rest and that again opportunities for their progeny are few and far between. That Alabama was right all along and that all is again right with the world.

says...

"Shouldn't poor Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, Ethiopians, Morrocans have a shot at the American dream?"

"Fine by me. I agree."

Somehow I don't think the Chicano lobby is going to push for this anytime soon.

[Robert Oak]

2slugbaits:

Often labor economics 101 is put upside down on this issue, but labor economics 101, the law of supply, demand stand, as does the overall history of wages and global migration. When you increase, especially corporate controlled global migration, you put the labor supply in a place with little restrictions in terms of mobility, which in turn lowers wages and workers rights on a global scale. One can flood or move labor into any nation-state just for the purposes of flooding that labor market or per some corporations desire to hunt the globe for cheap labor. That is where the phrase race to the bottom originates. Giving employers, or multinational corporations even further control over workers is also yet another method to wage repress, worker repress and erode further workers power and rights. This in essence gives now two elements of economies to corporations: 1. the ability to move capital, factories, the means of production around and globe and 2. the ability to force workers to be where ever they want them to be, where it is advantageous for their profits or needs.

So, this is a "lose-lose" for workers on both sides of the border. It's econ 101 when one increases labor supply that wages, especially for natives (economics terms, those already here) will be repressed.

So, if you want solutions firstly the power must be put in the hands of the workers themselves and secondly controlled through government policies which puts it's nation-state's workers first. Mexico is notoriously corrupt and does nothing for it's poorer citizens. NAFTA/WTO has greatly negatively affected workers, wages, jobs in Mexico.

Analyzing this, objectively, through real statistics is more what I expect on an economics site, the name calling stuff is well, it's a fact repression/spin campaign. The spin on this issue is so bad, I believe it should be presented as an alternative energy source....lots of hot air.

[Adan Lerma]

it's sad to read and see and hear much of this

as usual, i didn't notice any mention of our country's tried and true and appropriate response to when someone doesn't like a particular current law:

"it's a free country...organize and change the law...."

what i often see in response to the above idea, from many people who whole-heartedly support mr dobb's views, is shock, usually followed by reasons why the law should not change or the law is well enough as is

ie, the question in their minds isn't really about legal or illegal immigration, but rather support for the status quo (of current levels of racial / ethnic ratios)

beyond the lawful entitled attempt to change the law regarding current levels of immigration, which, as i understand, like most our laws, is an organic living changing rule, i have no other suggestions

people in the countries south or north of us, people in our own states and cities and counties, if and when faced with seeing their families suffer when others so near-by have so much, won't and don't care much what the current law is; the moral imperative is too great

thank you much

[Barkley Rosser]

2slugbaits,

In fact traditional corn production on the ejidos in Mexico was very labor intensive, certainly compared to the US. NAFTA was supposed to be the "develop Mexico" strategy advocated by Mark Thoma, and there has been a lot of growth in export industries. But the asymmetric treatment of the corn sectors in the two countries ended up trashing the corn sector in Mexico, pushing lots of workers into the industrial labor force and pushing down wages, thereby exacerbating the inequality with the US and the tendency to want to migrate.

As for Lou Dobbs, he would look more serious if he ever talked about anything else. Of course he is still arguably not as bad as Glenn Beck or Nancy Grace.

[2slugbaits]

Barkley Rosser,

It was robertfeinman who said corn production was not labor intensive. My response was that it is very sensitive to the own price elasticity of wage demand. That US policies might have served to effectively undercut NAFTA does not strike me as an argument against NAFTA.

Robert Oak,

You want to give workers more power against employers, but at the same time you come out opposing every practical tool that workers have for gaining that kind of power. You oppose worker mobility rights. You stand against giving Mexican workers the chance to improve their lot by coming here. And then you tell us that you want to shift power away from corporations and instead put it in the hands of the same government that in the very next sentence you accused of being "notoriously corrupt." You'll forgive me when I tell you that I find this a bit confusing.

There is one common thread that comes across in all this NAFTA bashing and that is this belief that American workers are somehow special. The doctrine of American Exceptionalism is an ugly foreign policy and an equally ugly basis for trade protectionism. In the World According to Lou Dobbs Mexicans are supposed to sell cheap oil to US consumers to fuel American SUVs, but God forbid that they also sell the labor to manufacture those SUVs.

[Robert Oak]

2slugbaits:

They did make the SUVs in such poverty conditions they had to live in makeshift cardboard boxes.

I also do not appreciate your accusations when I have not posted any particular policy solution except to state that open borders is absolutely not it. I bothered to come over here because a blog supposedly on economics posted some fluff piece full of misinformation.

[NoMoreBlatherDotCom]

Regarding robertdfeinman's recitation of far-left talking points, what he offers might be an explanation, but it isn't a justification. Allowing millions of people to come here due to NAFTA makes the situation worse for all concerned, so that's not in any way good public policy.

And, when discussing this topic it's always a good idea to search at my main site first since I have literally thousands of posts about the general topic. For instance, robertdfeinman discusses Levy's actions. Now, consider this quote:

"They are my friends and they have done a fantastic job in defending the day laborers,"

The person speaking is then-Mexican consul and now ambassador ArturoSarukhan, offering yet another example of his country using non-profits and others to meddle in our internal affairs in order to make money.

says...

"Shouldn't poor Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, Ethiopians, Morrocans have a shot at the American dream?"

What about Canadians? Don't we have oligations to them?

Is there no obligation to Americans who do not have jobs? If the plight of "average" Americans doesn't get you exited then focus on poor Americans. Do good there.

[mikx]

If it is impossible for the undocumented immigrants to get work then what does he expect them to do?

Did undocumented immigrants lost they documents somehow?
Mexico has more consulates in US than any country in any other country, a Mexican consulate is always just around the corner.

Undocumented immigrant can walk there and restore his documents.

Of course his new documents will not help as he is in the US illegally.

Perhaps retracing his steps back to his country will be acceptable solution for everybody involved.

[mikx]

Markets find a way to work no matter how hard governments work to stop them (see drugs), and with the difference in opportunity as large as it is between the US and Mexico, illegal immigration will continue to be a problem.

True, as long as the difference in opportunity is large.

Illegal immigration will continue to be a problem as long as opportunity for a Mexican in US is significantly larger than opportunity for a Mexican in Mexico.

But why assume that nothing can be done to equalize those opportunities?

I don't understand how a professional economist with interests in immigration policy cannot see a scenario where
opportunity for a Mexican in US is significantly reduced by penalizing employers.

Say $10K fine and suspended sentence after the first violation, $100K and month in jail after the second, $500K and a year in the slammer after the third.

I just cannot see any employer besides drug dealer who still would be interested in hiring an illegal under these rules.

And yes, drug dealers will hire a few illegals as they do it now.

And no, drug trade does not employ that many people.

With no jobs and very limited prospects here illegals will head home.

Mexico is a relatively well-to-do country by the world standard, its GDP per capita is higher than 65% of all countries (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita).

There is no starvation in Mexico and only few people are killed in drug wars.

Illegals will go home, it is better than being fed by do-gooders.

[mikx]

If corporations want to hire immigrants and if Mexicans want to come to this country to work, just what exactly is the economic rationale for a policy that makes both parties worse off?

A corporation is privitizing profits from cheap immigrant labor and socialing costs for health, education, child welfare, police, etc associated with immigrants.

Cost associated with displaced native American workers are also socialized.

You may attemp to prove that country, as a whole, still comes out ahead. But you didn't attempt to do so.

But no matter what you do, please do not pretend that immigrants are cost free. You look stupid by doing that.

[mikx]

I don't hear Lou Dobbs ranting about immigrants from Canada or Britain. And did Lou Dobbs' ancestors come here legally? Some of mine didn't.

He also does not talk about immigrants from Mongolia, Madagascar and Siera Leone. A wild guess: perhaps few people come from those countries and they, so far, don't make problems.

And yes, it is very likely that Dobbs ancestors came here legally, in accordance with the laws at that time.

And why presence of law violators in your family should impact immigration policies of the USA? Please explain.

If I have had bank robbers in my family tree, should I push for the right of poor people to rob banks?

[mikx]

The economy of Mexico has been ruined in good part by NAFTA

You must be about 15 years old.
Otherwise you would have known that Mexico was in a bad shape before NAFTA and virtually always in this century.

There was significant economic illegal immigration from Mexico before NAFT.
In fact supposed future reduction in illegal immigration was a major selling point for NAFTA proponents.

[save_the_rustbelt]

So if illegal aliens and their employers can violate the law at will, why should I obey the law?

Employers of illegals do not generally obey tax, OSHA, Workers Comp, FLSA (overtime) and any other laws, 'cause we don't make them obey the law.

So why should other employers have to obey the law?

Just wondering.

[Rohan Swee]

STR: So if illegal aliens and their employers can violate the law at will, why should I obey the law?

Employers of illegals do not generally obey tax, OSHA, Workers Comp, FLSA (overtime) and any other laws, 'cause we don't make them obey the law.

So why should other employers have to obey the law?

Just wondering.

Hmm, le' see. 'Cause the lawbreakers are whiny sociopaths who don't understand the reciprocal social obligations that provide the foundation that allows them to function in the first place? Or, rather more likely, 'cause they're just garden-variety morons who think that stable, law-abiding, high-trust social conditions are the default and that corruption isn't contagious? (I've actually heard an employer of illegals wax indignant about other employers of illegals, and all the social damage they're causing. But see, he and his "business needs" are special.)

Anyway, you've obviously missed the memo about the transition to Third World Rules. I'd make a lot more money and polish up my bribery skills if I were you.

[eh]

That's the only thing that, ultimately, will substantially reduce the flow of illegal workers without draconian measures.

We have all the "measures" on the books that we really need to do something significant about the problem -- they're called immigration laws. We just need to enforce them. If we do, many illegals -- especially Mexicans, who don't have far to go -- will leave voluntarily. And I hardly see anything "draconian" about that.

And even if we didn't already have these laws, after seeing what the large-scale influx of (mostly Hispanic) illegals has done to California, i.e. the practical, on the ground reality of it, I say bring on the "draconian measures".

[robertdfeinman]

Ah! Jingoism disguised as economics.

One cannot compare the efficiency of highly mechanized corn farming, storage, shipping and processing in the US with that of Mexico. One can, however compare corn exports to Mexico as they changed when trade policies changed.

I have the charts in the essay on my web site:
Immigration "facts" debunked

Anyone who believes that this huge increase in exports didn't have an impact on local farming needs to read some interviews with affected Mexicans.

I also notice that none of the anti-immigration faction chose to address the issue of what to do with all those who are already here (and working). Policies to criminalize their, otherwise legal, activities like working and renting an apartment without dealing with the fallout are simply not credible. They are just further appeals to xenophobia.

We have been fighting a "war" on drugs for decades and there has been no effect. Drugs are now cheaper and more widely available then before the "war" started. We do have a permanent anti-drug industry which is doing quite well for itself, however. All those cops, border guards, prosecutors, jailers, judges and private prison firms are thriving.

Is this goal with immigration? Are we building up to an internal police state for foreigners? We have plenty of examples from elsewhere to chose from. Both France and Germany have institutionalized second class status for immigrants and are now seeing violent reactions as a result.

If you want to cut down on the flow of immigrants (and drugs) from poor countries then give their populations a way to have a decent standard of living. Dumping corn, or supporting right-wing dicatorships is not going to do it.

[David N.]

"Markets find a way to work no matter how hard governments work to stop them"

America is more than a "market" we are a sovereign nation that has many legitimate reasons for regulating immigration, one reason being national security.

[btg]

"Shouldn't poor Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, Ethiopians, Morrocans have a shot at the American dream?"

"What about Canadians? Don't we have oligations to them?"

What is forgotten here is that, for most of the history of the US and Canada, people freely crossed the border - I am not sure when this started to change - probably the 1920s.

Of course, the "Loyalists" settled in Canada after the American revolution, but 100 years ago, many of the farmers settling in Alberta were American - once the US west was filled up, where else was there to go. And many Canadians went to the US - french canadians to Massachusetts, and others to California - Many americans can trace their roots through Canada - Ontario lost massive numbers of people to the US between the 1850s and the 1980s.

My own step-father went to Harvard and then stayed behind for many years working in the US, before finally returning to Canada in the 1960s. And my paternal grandparents families - all of whom emmigrated to Canada by 1850, and well dispersed on both sides of the border.

[Barkley Rosser]

eh,

That you do not see anything "draconian" about it is because you probably do not look at it up very close. Is tearing families apart not draconian (some are legal, some are not)? And, do you live in California? I suppose you are also a fan of Gitmo, not draconian in the least that one.

Robert Oak,

Gosh, we should all apologize that you wasted your time coming over here from whatever rock you were hiding under.

NoMoreBlather.com,

Why is it that people with monikers like yours always seem to make a mockery of their moniker with their own comments?

[DD]

mikx,
Yes, NAFTA was sold as a solution to undocumented migration, but please visit the Pew Hispanic Center website and check out their figures on the topic. You'll be surprised about the radical increase in Mexican outmigration after NAFTA.
Why help Mexico and Central America first, well, consider 75% of all undocumented migrants in the U.S. come from that region.
As to Mexican growth, it's averaged 3% over the last ten years, not really what NAFTA promised, and way below what's needed to meet labor demand.
NAFTA and CAFTA are helping corporations to the detriment of the local labor force there.

[jean]

Lot of xenophobia floating around here. Whoeee. How about bringing Mexico (and Central America) to parity with us, with Canada? South America seems to be moving that way, now that we are occupied in the ME. Whoops, I forgot Colombia!!

WHY would anyone come here to be arrested, abused, spit on (I guess) and generally vilified? Maybe because it's worse back home since NAFTA. Corporations (most of them) are amoral. They operate on the bottom line, no matter where that is. It isn't in Mexico.

So if a gal/guy could make a good living in, say, Guadalajara, why would they WANT to come here? And be a maid/gardener? It's COLD here. Americans are so isolate, we think the world revolves around us. Well, they ARE scared of us and I must say, rightly so. So am I. But, haven't I read some countries are using Euros for trade now? Whoops!

Think globally, act locally applies here. It occurs to me that there are some companies that aren't blood thirsty; that are trying to do good. Encourage that instead of throwing money down the rathole of a fence or incarceration. Whoeee, more money for the private prisons!!

[outsider.com]

Tortillas in Mexico city are made with Nebraska corn. It's cheaper to import from the U.S. than to grow locally due to the subsidies to the less than one percent of the population in America that are farmers.

Result, can't grow corn here and live, have to pick crops in El Norte. Can't get a visa, so I'm "illegal". last year 750,000 tons of produce was left to rot around El Toro in Ca. Seems there were no laborers of "legal" status available, and I.D. was rigorously checked to prevent the (boogymen) terrorists to get too close to the Marines.

Hey! how about we quit paying the Elite and let economics fix the issue?

Also, in Ca. 93% of our precious water is used for agriculture and farmers pay $17 for an "Acre foot", the amount of water to cover an acre of ground for one foot. I've seen automatic sprinklers blow water away from fields in high winds. No point in installing more efficient systems as water is so cheap. How about not socializing the price of water for farmers?

Hey, how about eliminating the lobbyist classes and let economics work?

[hari]

A lot could have been done under NAFTA to regulate immigration and incentivise them to find employment at home.

Just last week, EU Heads of State met with Latin American counterparts in Lima, Peru. EU has been working with Mercusor countries for some time now with a view to focus on local development including infrastructure.

Last week they identified sectors for joint activities and climate will find a focal point of investment from EU. I don't have their final document to give you a list of sectors agreed upon in their programme of action.

In other words, EU is recognizing mainland China's penetration in South America, and is trying to engage them in sectoral development including budgetary commitments to boot.

[eh]

I also notice that none of the anti-immigration faction chose to address the issue of what to do with all those who are already here (and working).

Actually, I did address it -- you just chose not to pay attention. Begin to systematically enforce the law and many of them will leave on their own. Not that we owe them anything.

And regarding Hispanics (the vast majority of illegals are Hispanic), it is indisputable fact that they are, as a demographic group, and when compared to e.g. white Americans, 1) significantly more criminal (e.g. approx 4x as likely to be incarcerated), and 2) do poorly academically, e.g. fail to graduate from high school and to attend/graduate from college in disproportionately large numbers.

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.

Aside from politically correct platitudes, maybe you can explain: How can the fact that the number of Hispanics is increasing so rapidly in some locales that they're practically a replacement population possibly be a good thing for America?

[Uncle Billy]

Does anyone have a link to a good itemization of pros and cons for the immigration issue. I'd like to try to do a Ben Franklin -- write them down, weight them and then see what wins.

From the outside of this issue it looks like card carrying conservatives promote unrestricted immigration for the cheap labor it brings, and modern liberals like it because "we're all brothers." So the only people against it are me and everyone who is angry about having their wages diluted?

[robertdfeinman]

eh:
I usually don't respond to anonymous comments. If one can't own up to their remarks why should others take notice.

However...

Actually, I did address it -- you just chose not to pay attention. Begin to systematically enforce the law and many of them will leave on their own. Not that we owe them anything.

There are so many things wrong with this statement, that it's hard to know where to begin, but here are a few items.

1. Many "illegal" immigrants were brought here as children by their parents. They have no "home" country to go back to. Many may not even be very proficient in their parent's native language.

2. Many "illegal" immigrants have children who were born here and are citizens. Once again deporting their parents leaves the children in a lurch and puts a burden on society which now has to find support for them.

3. There has been a long tradition of seasonal workers coming to the US and leaving again. Now that entering has become so much harder they tend to stay and don't go back home during the off season. The immigration policies have made the situation worse.

4. People determined enough to pull up stakes and move to a country where they can't even speak the language are obviously willing to put up with a lot. Whatever drove them to come here has to be a lot worse than what they experience in the US. They won't leave voluntarily.

5. If you remove any possibility for gainful employment what do you expect these people to do? Workers with families and dependents don't commit crimes, the unemployed with few prospects do. You want to make crime the only option.

6. The history of migration has shown that people seldom return home voluntarily (I'm not speaking of war related refugees). There is little reason to think that the pattern with the US will be any different then elsewhere.

I suppose your ancestors magically appeared in the US. They weren't immigrants, they weren't mistreated or belonged to minorities that were "inferior". At one time the current treatment of Hispanics was applied to the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Jews, Poles and Ukrainians (among others). There is nothing new in your type of racism, it was your ancestors that suffered, now you think you have special rights and call roll up the drawbridge and keep everyone else out.

Very commendable.

[2slugbaits]

For what it's worth, my copy of the Penn World tables shows that for the dozen or so years before NAFTA real per capita GDP in Mexico was consistently below trend and generally negative. In the dozen or so years since NAFTA real per capita GDP in Mexico has bee consistently above trend and usually positive.

It's hard to reconcile the two contradictory arguments that I hear coming out of the anti-NAFTA crowd. If NAFTA contributed a race to the bottom for unskilled US workers, then it's hard to see how it could also have created a race to the bottom for Mexican workers. You can argue that US unskilled US workers were made worse off, but in order for that to be true it also has to be the case that NAFTA made unskilled Mexican workers better off. At some point you have to insist on some kind of logical consistency.

[Bob]

I'm somebody thats actually out of work cause of illegal latino labor (wanna bet i can't back that up).

Also a life long leftist.

I'd vote for Dobbs in a second.

Tancredo too.

Look at the Spitzer "drivers license for illegals" incident in NEW YORK if you think there is a lot of sympathy for illegals among liberals.

They are scabs.

[Bob]

>> Lot of xenophobia floating around here

Brilliant

Ceasar Chavez and led protest aginst illegal immigrant labor.

I suppose he'e a xenophobe too.

[Bob]

and Walter Mondale (i believe)

[mikx]

If you want to cut down on the flow of immigrants (and drugs) from poor countries then give their populations a way to have a decent standard of living.

You mean us, the US citizens? Who has died and made us the God?

You must be one righteous holy man.

Or did you mean that we should reconstitute Colonization 2.0?
Along the lines that it is a burden white man must carry to clean and feed his darky brothers?

When countries (and cities) are ready for reasons of their own to get cleaned up, abide the law and free markets a bit, they will develop with virtually no outside help.

Witness Taiwan, Hong Kong, Ireland, India, Czech Republic, Chicago, arguably Miami.

If they are not ready, no amount of outside help changes much. Witness xEast Germany, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Detroit, Oakland.

In mean time how about eating some humble pie and concentrate on our own problems.

It does not mean that righteous do-gooders cannot contribute up to 100% of their income to deserving causes.
Just don't force me to pay for your Messianic delusions, we already have one Messiah in the White House. Leftist Messiah will perform just as impressively than the current Moron-In-Chief.

[mikx]

Mark Thoma thinks that reducing opportunities for illegals in the US via cracking down on employers will have NO significant impact on illegal immigration.

Why? I'm curious to know how he got to this conclusion.

[Well, I didn't say that... "Sure, we can get tough and reduce the flow of illegal workers, crack down on employers..." MT]

[mikx]

NAFTA was sold as a solution to undocumented migration, but please visit the Pew Hispanic Center website and check out their figures on the topic. You'll be surprised about the radical increase in Mexican outmigration after NAFTA.

I don't need to visit some website, I know that Mexican illegal immigration has increased after NAFTA.

Was it because of NAFTA? I doubt it and I don't have an informed opinion about it.

[mikx]

It's hard to reconcile the two contradictory arguments that I hear coming out of the anti-NAFTA crowd. If NAFTA contributed a race to the bottom for unskilled US workers, then it's hard to see how it could also have created a race to the bottom for Mexican workers. You can argue that US unskilled US workers were made worse off, but in order for that to be true it also has to be the case that NAFTA made unskilled Mexican workers better off. At some point you have to insist on some kind of logical consistency.

Logical consistency does not have to end in the middle school.

A simple scenario would do exactly as you propose. I don't know if that in fact was what happened.

US farmers who don't employ that many people and highly mechanized increased production and sent foodstuffs to MX.
US farmers did not have add too many new employees.

Imported cheap foodstuffs from US put out of business lots of workers in MX largely manual agriculture.

Big negative for MX worker.

At the same time US manufacturers outsourced their (well?)-mechanized plants to MX and employed some MX workers.
However new MX employment likely to be smaller than number of jobs lost to imported US foodstuffs.

Big negative for US worker.

Result: reduction in employment in both countries.

Again, I don't know if that happened. I just constructed scenario where NAFTA reduced total employment on both sides.

[ken melvin]

The difference in prices include the lost jobs?

[dilbert dogbert]

El Norte is a powerful tool for the government of Mexico to use to NOT make the necessary changes that will improve the lot of its poor campesinos.
Maybe closing the border is the "Tough Love" needed to spur the government of Mexico to make the needed changes?

Most likely not, as chaos in Mexico is not to our advantage or to the advantage of the Mexicans. Damn tough problem.

Be careful of thinking that somehow we Americans can solve the problems of the Mexicans.

[BJ Feng]

I believe one of the best arguments against illegal immigration is based on the concept of capacity. Many systems, like roads, can only handle a certain number of users or units at a time. If you go over the "limit" then negatives rise very fast. A couple of more cars over the limit and a traffic jam occurs, it would be better for everyone on the road, and even those who want to use the road in the hope that they will get somewhere, that the limit is not exceeded.

Immigration is similar, but more complicated. There isn't an endless number of jobs available, the greater the labor supply, the worse it is for workers. Both immigrants and residents suffer. Residents become resentful as they fight for jobs with immigrants, and immigrants are harmed by the negative perceptions and low wages. Our social services also become strained, as our schools become overcrowded with immigrants who need special help. Currently, schools don't have the resources to provide a good education for all those who need to learn English, and at the same time, allow those who don't to flourish. Both residents and immigrants would benefit if the number were restricted so that our system isn't strained by overcapacity. This is why there should be a limit to immigration, and why unlimited illegal immigration is harmful to both the illegals and current residents. This is only one argument against illegal immigration, but a good one.

I also don't see how we can grow Mexico's economy when we don't have any control over their laws and customs. This seems to me, pretty unrealistic. Besides, Mexico is actually one of the wealthier nations in the world! They only seem poor because they're being compared against the richest nation on Earth.

Illegal immigration barriers can work, and have worked in the past. The tougher it is to come over the border illegally, the more costly it will be for those who try. At some point, it won't be worth the cost to pay a coyote, or overcome the obstacles and the flow of illegal immigration will be greatly reduced. It's only because it is so easy to come here illegally that people are doing so. The gains far outweigh the costs, increase the costs, and it will no longer be worthwhile.

[Lafayette]

Pundits need feedback

Article : Now, I know that Dobbs brings in some serious ratings. And he is certainly entitled to his own opinion.
Yes, he’s entitled.

But spewing that opinion across nationwide TV engages CNN to assure that it is balanced. Was Dobbs’ opinion balanced by a contrary point of view, either directly or indirectly?

He should have been. Face to face stand-off usually draws invective, especially amongst male pundits where it quickly gets the testosterone cooking.

But, independently expressed debate, that is well articulated, as in on-line forums, carries the weight and conviction of the words employed – hopefully beyond the heated manner in which televised debates do.

Let’s not forget that the media is in business for profit. Not all media outlets have been polluted by sensationalism, but few deny that American journalism may have lost its cool objectiveness. Americans who do not avail themselves of foreign journalistic input are missing assuredly some key information and opinion that is not conveyed by American nationwide news broadcasters.

There is also the Objectivity Factor. When in the midst of a complex situation, it is often difficult to report objectively about it.

Also, why not open the national debate up to bloggers who, too, have an opinion to express. Isn’t it a bit tiring to have the pundits managing their one-way opining, them to us? Unfortunately the blogosphere has not got beyond its debuts and is too heavily overpopulated.

Pundits need appropriate feedback … methinks. At least those who think they were endowed with three cojones -- and not just two.