Despite what you've heard, solving the immigration problem doesn’t require building a fence of mortar and wire along the border. All it takes is a "paper fence"--strict laws strictly enforced--to stem the tide of illegal aliens. Specifically, we need a true "no-amnesty" solution, one that denies amnesty not only to illegal workers but also to illegal employers.
Illegal employers--individuals and businesses that hire undocumented immigrants--are the single greatest cause of our immigration problem. As Texas Congressman Lamar Smith said in a Heritage Foundation lecture:
The magnet that attracts most illegal immigrants is the easy availability of jobs. Yet the 1986 law that makes it unlawful to hire someone in the country illegally is seldom enforced. In 2005, only four employers were fined under this law. If we make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to get jobs, won't many go home?
This flouting of our laws must end. I suggest a five-step plan to make it much more difficult for illegal immigrants to get jobs. Here is my proposal for a "No-Amnesty for Illegal Employers" policy:
The No-Amnesty Solution (NAS) Fine -- Employers who contribute to the problem should bear the cost of enforcing immigration policy. The fine to be assessed on illegal employers (both individuals and small-businesses) should be sufficient to cover the cost of the individual's extradition. For large corporations, an additional penalty equal to the cost of the enforcement investigation would be added. A 1% per illegal worker penalty would also be added to discourage hiring multiple workers.
The Two-Border Policy -- Illegal workers cross two borders: the border into a sovereign nation and the border of a sovereign, individual state. The amount of the NAS fine should then be divided equally between the state and federal branches. States that refused to comply with federal immigration policy or who subverted the system (e.g., by providing drivers licenses for illegal aliens) would not be able to collect their portion. They would also forego federal funds equal to the cost required to offset their anti-enforcement policies.
The No-Match Policy -- The Social Security Administration (SSA) mails notices when employers hire new workers whose personal information (e.g., name and Social Security number) does not match SSA records. As Heritage recommends, Congress should craft legislation that specifically authorizes the SSA to share no-match data directly with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). My proposal would be to notify the employer that the employee has 14 days to either resolve the discrepancy with the SSA or obtain a temporary employment waiver. If no action is taken, a DHS investigation will automatically be triggered. If the employee continues working for the employer and no waiver has been obtained, the NAS fine would be assessed.
The Off-the-Books Policy -- An employer (whether a business or individual) that contributes to the underground economy by hiring people "off the books" and paying them "under the table" would pay double the NAS fine.
The Exit-Visa Policy -- According to Heritage, forty percent of all illegal immigrants enter on short-term visas and never return home after their visas expire. There is no way to know who they are since the federal government has not developed the exit system--required by law--to keep track of who leaves our country. (The law was enacted 11 years ago and has been largely ignored by both Democratic and Republican administrations.) This system would be put in place and any employer who retained a worker whose visa had expired would be subject to the NAS fine
Although no illegal employer would be exempt from the policy, to entice them to comply a 90-day "admission and restitution" clause would be added. Employers would have three months to admit to enforcement authorities that they are violating the law and to make restitution by identifying the employees in their hire who are illegal. By complying, they would have their fees waived and be exempt from prosecution.
Within a year of implementing the No-Amnesty policy, the immigration "problem" will have all but resolved itself. Lacking the ability to find work, illegal aliens will have little incentive to cross the border. The reduced number of illegals crossing into the US would allow Customs and Border Patrol agents to fulfill their primary tasks--securing the border.
Undoubtedly, my solution has a number of minor problems that would need to be resolved. But it also suffers from one major flaw: Republicans would never go for it.
Just as the Democrats do not want to alienate Hispanic voters, the GOP is unwilling to take actions that would be anathema to the business class. American businesses want cheap labor and are willing to sacrifice our economic health and national security for a few extra pennies in their pocket.
Despite what the Democrats may claim, Republicans do not have anything against "people of color"; they're just beholden to "people of cash." The GOP has long been the party of business--before there were Reagan Democrats there were Rockefeller Republicans--and is not about to antagonize this group by taking draconian, though necessary, measures to defend our borders. They'll rail and rave against amnesty for illegal workers. But when it comes to illegal employers, they're willing to let these criminals off scot-free.
I agree - any attempt to secure the border has to address the incentives that cause so many to try to get here in the first place.
I also agree no Republican--with the possible exception of Ron Paul--is willing to anger the business class the way your enforcement proposals would. You neatly summarized the problem: Democrats are trying to appeal to Hispanics as a voting block, and most Republicans are trying to placate big business. In the meantime, U.S. sovereignty is getting short shrift.
Joe's solution is nice big government statism tied up in the package of 'security'. It's interesting how conservatives came to power in the 80's mocking liberals use of 'think of the children' mantras to push through big government, now they push big gov't with the mantra of 'homeland security'.
It would be pretty bizaar for an American from the 1800's to be transported to this time and hear that we have a 'problem' because we have attractive jobs in America. The attractive jobs that illegals take create jobs that Americans have. The entire debate is premised on the 'lump of work fallacy'...namely the idea that if the guy down the street has a job that's one less job you can have. This fallacy recently lead France to impose limits on how many hours people can work in a week (thinking this will lower unemployment by 'spreading' the available jobs around).
What needs to be done is dramatically increase the number of people that can work legally in this country. Then it will be managable to enforce laws on businesses that hire illegal workers. Get off the amnesty boogyman. Most illegals haven't killed anyone, they simply moved to where the jobs are which is what our ancestors did a hundred years ago. Nobody in Ireland or Italy was 'waiting in line' to come here legally. They heard there was a good life and they came.
Some ideas that might actually work:
1. Offer US citizenship for a flat $10,000 fee. (Of course you would have to pass all the tests that are currently required so no you couldn't just pay $10K and get citizenship). Many workers could borrow such funds (no doubt financial institutions would develop to finance loans for worthy immigrants) or obtain them from family members. The revenue would more than offset any supposed cost.
2. Offer a real seasonal work program. Let it be easy for screened Mexicans to come into the US for 3-6 months out of the year for seasonal work. Right now the program in place is so unwieldly no one botheres to use it just to hire some pickers at harvest time. One of the causes of the problems is that tighter borders have actually made the problem worse. Illegals who would come to the US for only a few months at a time to earn money and then return home now stay because it's harder and harder to cross.
3. Only then should you start serious crack downs on employers. The immigration hysterics scream 'secure the borders first'. What they miss is that both go hand in hand. The borders will never be secure in the sense that they demand other than by establishing a police state.
The Justice Department under John Ashcroft raided Wal-Marts and arrested illegal immigrants. I was delighted at the time. If Wal-Mart was subject to raids, then no American business was safe. Shortly thereafter, Ashcroft resigned. When I go into Wal-Mart late at night looking for something, the first worker I ask usually cannot understand English.
"American businesses want cheap labor and are willing to sacrifice our economic health and national security for a few extra pennies in their pocket."
And they have every right to.
Rather than ugly populist-socialist solutions I recommend simply cutting welfare, since immigrants' ability to exploit it is the real source of economic problems.
If I lived in Mexico with no job opportunities and no social safety net, I'd risk a lot to come to America, too.
But the comparisons to 19th-century immigration are specious, since Americans workers at the time were not burdened with income or payroll taxes used to support a vast social welfare system. The point is not whether we're better off with the way things are today (I think we are), but that we're dealing with a different economic reality. People who are here illegally do not pay to support the system, but take advantage of its benefits -- police, hospitals, schools, WIC, Medicare, welfare, and on and on. And many of the illegal workers send their income back home, so their wages don't even stay here to help our economy. We're effectively subsidizing Mexico.
It's an issue of fairness to American citizens and workers. So you can either make the illegals legal so they contribute their fair share, or you can force them to leave in a variety of ways. I think laws against hiring illegal aliens should be enforced, but there should also be an easier path to citizenship for those who want to stay.
I have a hard time understanding, on many levels, why the religious right is so worked up about illegal immigration.
First, there is the economic perspective. Those who truly believe in the free market system should equally support free competition, free trade and the free movement of labor between countries. Read Adam Smith and Milton Friedman. I support the free market system and believe that the path to citizenship or temporary work visas should be exceedingly easy. Yes, let's keep out terrorists and criminals. That would be far easier if created an easy and legal path for the vast majority only seeking honest employment to support their families (hello pro-family party?).
Does anyone grasp what would happen to our economy if we could actually round up and deport every illegal alien? We would overnight spiral into a depression, not a recession. Because, you see, we would not only lose millions of our hardest workers and taxpayers (they pay sales tax, property tax, gasoline tax, social security, etc - no, not income tax, but almost all of them wouldn't pay that anyway), we would also lose millions of consumers. The number of Americans in jobs that depend on illegals as customers or clients is into the tens of millions. Many of them would become unemployed. Further, many businesses that utilize illegal labor would either drastically cut their operations or immediately follow their workforce to Mexico.
The there is the Christian perspective. Joe tells us that Christians care about the poor. Oh, really? Me thinks he cares more about the middle class and wealthy. All of our charitable efforts combined do less to help the poor than would a truly free and open marketplace for all workers.
What would Jesus do about illegal immigrants? Can you hear the following: "I was hungry and you fed me. I was naked and you clothed me. I was an illegal immigrant trying to support my family and you deported me."
Think of all the Bible stories that involved someone migrating from one country to another in desperate circumstances. How many would have been able to do so under the rules Joe proposes?
Think of Abram going from Ur to Palestine to Egypt. Jacob going to Haran. Joseph's family going to Egypt. It goes on and on and on. How about Joseph and Mary escaping with baby Jesus to Egypt. Do you think that had a visa?
I want you to honestly try to picture Jesus here today in America. What would his priorities be? Would getting rid of illegal immigrants be anywhere on his list? Would he be trying to love and minister to them or be calling his senator to get them out of here as soon as possible?
I'm an atheist and I'm motivated by love and concern for people who are in need. I want to do unto others as I would have done unto me.
Reform immigration laws first. They are too draconian and burdensome for the people who would come here legally if they had the opportunity. The people that come here illegally now actually save money by hiring Coyotes to smuggle them in. If it were easier for them to get here legally, they would be helping support the system and would be less of a tax burden, participating instead of hiding.
Do some research on immigration laws people. They weren't always so oppressive, there's no reason for them to continue being so oppressive.
People who are here illegally do not pay to support the system, but take advantage of its benefits -- police, hospitals, schools, WIC, Medicare, welfare, and on and on.
My understanding, based on taking with someone who interacts a lot with migrant farmworkers, is that many of the people here illegally do pay into the system. They have payroll taxes withheld, either using a false SS number or one belonging to someone else. That money, as far as the illegal worker is concerned, is gone forever, but it helps to bolster the system for American citizens.
This NY Times article says that illegal immigrants pay $7 billion a year into social security, and their contribution is taken into account in projections of Social Security's future solvency.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html
Jeff,
People who are here illegally do not pay to support the system, but take advantage of its benefits -- police, hospitals, schools, WIC, Medicare, welfare,
(my first attempt at responding was held for moderation, perhaps due to a hyperlink).
Try googling "illegal immigrants pay social security." The first two lins are relevant articles from NY Times and Reason.org. Apparently, an estimated 2/3 of illegal aliens do pay taxes, to the tune of $7 billion per year into social security alone. According to the Reason.org article, the 1996 immigration reform act made illegal aliens ineligible to benefit from many programs that they routinely pay into, so their loss is a net benefit for citizens.
Boonton is right, and Joe is left on this one. Just like Hillary, Joe wants to hold business responsible for results government should be responsible for.
One of his "solutions" is to fine employers and split the proceeds between the feds and the states the illegal moved thru -- unless the state does not enforce immigration laws. In that case, the feds keep all the money. Some penalty for non-enforcement!
There are important economic and spiritual issues involved in illegal immigration, but there are also governance issues as well. Governments should accept their responsibilities for maintaining security and the legality of the population. Conservatives should hold government accountable for meeting its responsibility.
Joe, why not focus your thoughts on how government could control immigration without coercing employers into becoming its security agents? But I guess there are some minor problems with that notion, and one major one: government wouldn't go for it.
Joe, perhaps you should put some philosophical distance between yourself and Washington on this issue.
George2 Just like Hillary, Joe wants to hold business responsible for results government should be responsible for.
This is the problem in a nutshell. People want to claim that it's not the fault of businesses who are breaking the law and encouraging people to enter the country illegally, its the fault of the government for not stopping the illegal aliens when they cross the border.
Conservatives should hold government accountable for meeting its responsibility.
And conservatives should businesses accountable for obeying the law. It's show the hypocrisy of Republicans that they want to blame the immigrants but not the businesses who encourage the problem.
George, let me provide you another example: Is it the governments fault that we have a drug problem (because the feds do not stop the supply as it enters the country) or should the citizens who support the demand for the drugs be held accountable?
"Apparently, an estimated 2/3 of illegal aliens do pay taxes, to the tune of $7 billion per year into social security alone. According to the Reason.org article, the 1996 immigration reform act made illegal aliens ineligible to benefit from many programs that they routinely pay into, so their loss is a net benefit for citizens."
I would suspect that as with the earlier law against hiring illegal aliens, a law prohibiting their access to social welfare programs might also not be fully enforced. But if workers are indeed paying into the system, then they should receive the benefits provided by their taxes. If that's not the case, then it's doubly outrageous that employers would not only knowingly hire illegals but provide false SS #s and withhold taxes for benefits the workers can't receive. It's still an issue of fairness.
As far as causing a sudden depression if all the illegal workers left, who held those jobs previously? Are there literally no Americans willing to do those jobs, or are illegal workers hired because they will work for lower wages? If the illegals are suddenly made legal, there will certainly be economic repercussions as employers are forced to pay higher wages and either pass on the costs or lay off people. But I think our economy can survive, as it did when we decided that we wouldn't let businesses employ children or force people to work in dangerous, sweatshop conditions.
The current system has to change because it gives employers too much opportunity to take advantage of illegal aliens for their profit.
"American businesses want cheap labor and are willing to sacrifice our economic health and national security for a few extra pennies in their pocket."
More to the point, American citizens want cheap food, homes, and toys. Americans may complain about illegal immigration, but if anyone actually enforces immigration law, it will spark a political revolution nearly unprecedented in America.
Why? Suppose that Joe's plan removes 2 million illegal immigrant workers in the space of two months. The actual number would probably be higher, given there are 10-20 million illegal immigrants altogether, but let's just suppose 2 million who actually work. When you take 2 million low-wage workers out of the economy in a compressed period of time, you do two things: first, you slightly depress the demand for goods and services, because you have 2 million fewer consumers. The overall effect on the economy would be negligible.
Second, and more importantly, you significantly depress the supply of goods and services -- if the economy has two million fewer workers, that's 80 million man-hours of less production every week. When you significantly shrink the supply of goods and services but only slightly shrink the demand for goods and services, the inevitable result is rampant inflation -- too many dollars chasing after too few goods.
My personal sense of justice is outraged by illegal immigration, but the economic reality is that we can't afford to sustain our present lifestyle without it. If anybody ever successfully stems the flow of illegal immigrants, he will be promptly be booted out of office by the outraged citizens who will suffer the inevitable economic impact.
This all sounds great to me, but I really don't want to pay $5 for a head of lettuce either. The problem we have with "undocumented workers" is similar to Iraq in the sense that we're in a big mess and we can't just pull out to remove it.
In other words, I don't think that just removing the illegal aliens will do anything but drive up the costs of some of the things we like having cheap. Unfortunately, I don't have any better answer.
The point is not whether we're better off with the way things are today (I think we are), but that we're dealing with a different economic reality. People who are here illegally do not pay to support the system, but take advantage of its benefits -- police, hospitals, schools, WIC, Medicare, welfare, and on and on. And many of the illegal workers send their income back home, so their wages don't even stay here to help our economy. We're effectively subsidizing Mexico.
Except a subsidy is unearned. If someone spends a day cleaning up your yard and you pay him $100 you are not subsidizing Mexico if he sends it to his family. He is with his own money. You have a clean yard...which I assume is worth $100 to you since you were willing to pay that.
More important this isn't true. People working generates income all around just as it did 100 years ago. We are coming back again to the 'lump of work' fallacy which is no less a fallacy today than it was years ago.
It's an issue of fairness to American citizens and workers. So you can either make the illegals legal so they contribute their fair share, or you can force them to leave in a variety of ways. I think laws against hiring illegal aliens should be enforced, but there should also be an easier path to citizenship for those who want to stay.
Here I think we agree. It's better that people who are here have legal options to do normal, everyday things. Sadly too many here seem to be eager to jump on the bandwagon of making it harder and harder for people to do everyday things like drive a car, work at a job, open a bank account etc. In the end its our own freedom we are selling off for very little.
Joe, you wrote;
"The Exit-Visa Policy -- According to Heritage, forty percent of all illegal immigrants enter on short-term visas and never return home after their visas expire. There is no way to know who they are since the federal government has not developed the exit system--required by law--to keep track of who leaves our country. (The law was enacted 11 years ago and has been largely ignored by both Democratic and Republican administrations.) This system would be put in place and any employer who retained a worker whose visa had expired would be subject to the NAS fine."
And I just wanted to clarify a little.
First, let me be clear where i'm coming from. In April of 1996 I was hired as an Immigration Inspector to work for the INS in the Department of Justice. Since that time ive worked as an Immigration Officer working on the southern border.
So hopefully I know a little bit about what i'm saying in this area.
In 1996 IIRAIRA was passed. This is the law (If memory serves) that demands that all people coming into and out of the United States be inspected. The law was not supposed to take effect though (Or perhaps only portions?) until then attorney general Reno signed off on it. That didn't take place until 1998.
At the time, U.S. Customs, Immigration and Agriculture (All Officers that work together on the border) did not have sufficient staffing levels to properly inspect all the folks crossing the border in a timely fashion. We are supposed to combine the facilitation of traffic at the border with enforcing the laws. This is a tough thing to do and one usually suffers.
Until 9/11 happened, we were pretty good at facilitating traffic. Our then District Director in San Diego went on the news programs and declared that there would not be more than a 20 minute wait at the border at any given time. Of course, this standard was impossible to uphold without letting in illegal narcotics and aliens as a consequence.
So, prior to 9/11 2001, we didn't have the staffing to do outbound inspections if we wanted to keep the lines down and try and enforce the laws on folks making entry.
Then 9/11 2001 happened and suddenly border waits didn't matter as much as enforcing the laws and keeping out the terrorists. We still didn't have the proper staffing so we sent the national guard to the border to help us out.
We are just now getting to the staffing levels that we need to replace the help that the national guard gave us. However, we are still severly understaffed if we want to facilitate traffic and enforce the laws.
Most of the officers I work with don't care too much about the facilitation of traffic, we care mostly about enforcing the laws. Unfortunately, the same is not true of our management. So if we have to sacrifice one, we tend to sacrifice the enforcement of laws instead of the facilitation of traffic.
Which leads me to outbound inspections.
For 11 years we havn't been able to get enough staffing for inbound inspections. If they decide to force us to also do outbound inspections, what you will end up with is a bunch of useless officers on the border unable to enforce any laws at all.
We already work out maximum overtime every year of $35,000.00 (Maximum we are allowed to work in overtime mandated by Congress) which means we work a lot of double shifts and miss a lot of holidays with our families. So there isn't any room out there to make us work harder or longer than we already are for inbound inspections.
I guess my point is, Joe, you have to think of infrastructure first. Before we can even think of doing more outbound inspections we have to get enough officers, we have to get more jail space (Because the law dictates that even if someone is leaving illegaly and we find a fraudulent document, we cannot just take the document and kick them out of the country, we have to process them), more AUSA's (Assistant U.S. Attorney's) more judges, more vehicles for the transports, and who knows what else.
I'm all for it but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
But if workers are indeed paying into the system, then they should receive the benefits provided by their taxes. If that's not the case, then it's doubly outrageous that employers would not only knowingly hire illegals but provide false SS #s and withhold taxes for benefits the workers can't receive. It's still an issue of fairness.
Oh, absolutely, I agree, but I think Joe's approach would harmful both to the immigrants and to American citizens. My preferred solution would be to liberalize immigration laws so that more workers can enter legally and benefit from the the taxes that they pay. I think that would be a better fit with the Biblical instructions on how we are to treat strangers among us, and border security is not particularly high on my list of worries.
Disclaimer: I'm an immigrant (legal) and a naturalized citizen. But, I'm also an educated and relatively wealthy WASP, so no one worries about me taking jobs away from native born citizens.
"If someone spends a day cleaning up your yard and you pay him $100 you are not subsidizing Mexico if he sends it to his family. He is with his own money. You have a clean yard...which I assume is worth $100 to you since you were willing to pay that."
The point is what happens with that $100 after I spend it. I earned it here and and I'm passing it along in exchange for something of value. I got it from others who earned wages here and passed them on to me. But the chain ends with the illegal worker.
The American who lives here spends his wages here expands the economy. An illegal who sends wages back to Mexico takes money out the American economy.
Cynically, I think that this debate is almost completely economic, though people camoflage it in language of either national security or of social justice. The problem is that nobody really understands what the economic consequences of a particular policy are.
Here's my stab at it. I think it somewhat likely that the results of shutting down illegal immigration would be that we would get a lot closer to "a living wage" for everybody else. But there would be negative consequences, such as not being able to afford to eat out very often, because eating out would get a lot more expensive.
It seems to me that as a sovereign nation, the US has the complete right to create rules on who is allowed to enter the country, and under what circumstances. The US has the right to enforce those rules. What it does not have is the right to escape the consequences of the policies that it adopts.
But there really are issues of social justice here, not just of self-interested economics. Joel Garreau pointed out clear back in 1980 or so that illegal workers sent most of their money back home to Mexico, and that it was about the most effective form of foreign aid that the US had ever seen, because the money actually went to the people that needed help, rather than lining somebody's pockets. (He also pointed out that a Cuba-style revolution in Mexico would very much not be in the US's interest, and that, by providing a safety valve, illegal immigration reduced the likelyhood of that.)
But the social justice debate is not simple. We may consider that the poor in Mexico have a valid claim on us. But so do the poor in our own country, and their claim is stronger. What does illegal immigration do to them? It's hard for me to be sure, but I suspect that it lowers their wages. It also lowers prices, but for the American poor, it's probably a net loss.
Either from a pure selfish economic perspective, or from the viewpoint of social justice, it's not real clear-cut to see what the right thing to do is...
Why? Suppose that Joe's plan removes 2 million illegal immigrant workers in the space of two months. The actual number would probably be higher, given there are 10-20 million illegal immigrants altogether, but let's just suppose 2 million who actually work.
Wow, you mean the typicall illegal immigrant is supporting ten people inside the US! Whoever thought there was so much money to be made in day labor!
Jeff
As far as causing a sudden depression if all the illegal workers left, who held those jobs previously? Are there literally no Americans willing to do those jobs, or are illegal workers hired because they will work for lower wages?
I went to HS in a town called Dover, NJ. It's a small little town but a bit like a mini-city because it has a big train station & was big a long time ago, in contrast to the rest of Morris County NJ. When I went to school there the downtown was rather empty, with lots of old stores and little happening.
Nowadays the town has a lot of immigrants in it. Nothing compared to the places you see on the news but still plenty of people. The downtown now has lots of little shops. Granted they speak Spanish and there's not much to my taste there but its still nicer than having pure blight. The immigrants, legal and not, earned income which brought businesses there to cater to them. During the housing boom it felt like just about everyone's house turned from run down to super nice. Why? Just about everyone has done one or two home equity loans to remodel their homes cheaply. Before they just didn't do it.
So who had these jobs before? No one! They didn't exist before. Different people trading creates economic activity. You don't gain prosperity by tossing people away. If that was the case why not just have a reverse lottery where we deport every 100th person...citizen or not. Sure it would 'free up' some houses and jobs that might make some individuals benefit but it would be an overall diaster.
"So who had these jobs before? No one! They didn't exist before."
That's right. And the reason they exist now is because employers are creating jobs with artificially depressed wages through illegal employment. If businesses were forced to pay open market wages for the labor, either the jobs wouldn't exist or the price of related goods and services would increase. It's better to have jobs created than not, but it's not good to create jobs outside of legal protection and recourse for workers.
Obviously, they're jobs somebody is willing to do, but there are some labor practices we've said we won't allow -- employing children, operating sweatshops, working people more than a certain amount without overtime, paying people less than a certain wage per hour. Those protections raise the cost of everything in the economy and make some jobs economically unsupportable, but we've said it's worth it. Businesses and consumers take advantage of people's poverty and desperation to get cheap goods and services by going around the labor protections established by law. If your goal is to expand the economy, bring back child labor, sweatshops, and the 14-hour work day.
I've not said we should throw people away. I agree with Joe that we should enforce laws which punish businesses for hiring illegals. I think we should also make the path to citizenship more quick and easy for those who really do want to stay and contribute. I think everyone who works here should pay into the system and receive all its benefits (including worker protections).
The lawless workers have my sympathy in two ways. People who hire them know they can get away with horrible wages and work conditions. Illegal bosses know they can drop someone without paying wages. Who are they going to complain to? The poor honest roofer or lawn care businessman who hires workers and pays taxes is at a tremendous economic disadvantage - for being honest. We need a level playing field.
The other group that I really feel sympathy for is the legal hispanic family. Is there any one of you that can honestly say he doesn't wonder about the legal status of the hispanic family buying food in the grocery store or working in line? Are they often offered lesser wages due to the same suspician? It would be terrible to have these doubts directed at you all day long.
If there were real temporary worker programs set up AND ENFORCED, this would help both groups. Europe has allowed guest workers between countries for years - but you BETTER have your papers! And if your time is up, go home.
Jeff
"The American who lives here spends his wages here expands the economy. An illegal who sends wages back to Mexico takes money out the American economy."
Using this to justify closing the border and fining the hiring of immigrants is to equivalent to protectionism.
Suppose a entrepreneur buys goods from a foreign trader, with the goods being added to our economy and the money being added to the foreigner's. There are three effects: while before we had money we now have goods, so there can be no net loss; there is in fact a net gain since the foreign goods are doubtlessly cheaper than American ones (or otherwise he wouldn't buy it) and he will be able to sell at a lower price; and inflation is reduced because money is taken out of the economy. Admittedly, an isolationist economy gets both the money and the goods and workers will get higher wages. What the protectionist sophists ignore is that businesses are hurt and prices will be higher and hence there is no net gain.
This is Bastiat's basic argument against protectionism, and easily applies to immigrant workers by substituting the term "foreign labor" for "foreign goods".
[Note: It may quickly and rightly be objected that NAFTA and CAFTA are anything but beneficial to the economy. But despite their names, they are not free trade but government-managed trade. Also, while they are called "agreements" (named as such so they would be within Slick Willy's domain), issues concerning trade are treaty material and hence are to be decided by congress. Ergo they are unconstitutional. A good rule of thumb is that the market is always right and the government is always wrong.]
Again, I must stress that the only injustice done is in the government taking our money and spending it on people who don't pay taxes. As Friedman put it, you can't have both open borders and a welfare state. (Having to maintain an oversea empire doesn't help either).
Anonymous@11.01.2007 2:21 PM said that removing the illegals would reduce demand a little bit but significantly reduce supply. I think he's (she's?) got it backward.
Illegals get paid low wages not solely because they are being exploited. They also get paid low wages because they are in jobs that produce less than other, higher-paying jobs. One would expect, then, that removing the illegals would have a larger effect on demand than on supply, because the jobs that illegals get are at the lower end of the range of productivity.
On the other hand, I assert that the most important person at my company is not the CEO, but whoever makes the coffee. Without that person, the whole company stops. Illegals may be in that position - the work they do may be considered "less important" or "less productive" only until it quits being done.
Let's not forget that this problem is result of our government catering to special interests and big business. So that means we have a "rogue" government. They ignore our intersts while catering to the groups that shell out cash for their commercials. What they need is our vote.
This is going to be the big issue this election and we need to force the politicians to clean up the mess they made through inaction. Bush is not going to do anything because his comprehensive immigration reform failed. So he took his ball home and is not going to play. The rest of the politicians knew about this all along and don't want to admit the fact. They will pretend that they didn't do it.
We need to push at the state level and start sending bills to the federal government and then it will get their attention.
"This flaunting of our laws must end."
Or flouting, even.
Mike Stimpson said in response to me: "One would expect, then, that removing the illegals would have a larger effect on demand than on supply, because the jobs that illegals get are at the lower end of the range of productivity."
Two points: first, by and large, illegal immigrants produce more than they consume, in that they remit much of their pay back to Mexico to family members. Those remittances aren't being spent here, so their disappearance would have no effect on our economy. The disappearance of the production, though, would have a huge effect.
I think you hit the nail on the head by saying the guy who makes the coffee is most important. The reality is there will never be a sufficient number of native-born Americans willing to work for $5.75 an hour to pick lettuce or do construction or clean hotels. $15 an hour? Maybe. But Americans won't pay what it costs to pay lettuce pickers and construction workers and custodians $15 an hour.
Joe, in response to your question several hours ago: When government fails to keep drugs from crossing our borders, it's the government's fault. When people buy drugs, it's those people's fault. But I never thought of buying labor as being equivalent to buying drugs.
It doesn't have to be an either/or, as you try to make it out to be. One can hold business accountable and simultaneously hold government accountable. You assert "conservatives should businesses accountable for obeying the law. It's show the hypocrisy of Republicans that they want to blame the immigrants but not the businesses who encourage the problem." And it shows the hypocrisy of others to place the blame for border violations on business.
But, hey, Joe, we love you anyway.
Remittances represent perhaps 10% of their earnings. And where does that money go? The #1 retailer in Mexico is . . . (drum roll please) . . . Wal-Mart.
Illegals in the US spend the vast majority of their earnings in the US. That money goes to buy products and services from Americans and to pay sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, payroll taxes and so on. The best study I've seen concluded that when all the pluses and minuses are figured, illegals contribute more in taxes than they take in benefits. Some particular cities may not see that balance, but it does exist when the whole nation and whole economy is examined.
I find it revealing that no one has responded to my post regarding the moral dimension of this issue. Is it odd that evangelicals don't want to talk about what Jesus would do about illegal immigration?
One word: entitlement.
We've raised an entire generation in America to believe that some jobs are beneath them. Until we fix that, this issue won't go away.
When I was young (and illegal immigration was a non-issue), I had to work scummy jobs. We all did. And no one complained because that was the way it was.
Now you've got kids today who think they're too good to do most low-level jobs. They figure they're entitled to better jobs.
I'm all for deporting lawbreakers, but until we can figure a way to get our self-obsessed young people to take the tough, low-paying jobs, we've got problems.
Abortion.
We underestimate the effect abortion has had on our labor force. With 50 million abortions done since Roe v. Wade, it's easy to see how different our country would be if the 20 million aborted infants capable of working in the job force today were still here.
I suspect that if those 20 million survived, we would have less of the immigration issue we have today. Competition for jobs would force most of us to take lesser-paying jobs when we were young and not succumb to this sense of entitlement so many of our young people display today.
The abortion issue is huge and definitely impacts this whole conversation.
It's better to have jobs created than not, but it's not good to create jobs outside of legal protection and recourse for workers.
I agree, hence its more important to get some type of legal status for these people rather than worrying about 'amnesty'.
Is there any one of you that can honestly say he doesn't wonder about the legal status of the hispanic family buying food in the grocery store or working in line?
I don't. I would say some of you might have too much time on their hands here. If tomorrow every illegal disappeared there would still be plenty of hispanics left buying food at grocery stores.
We've raised an entire generation in America to believe that some jobs are beneath them. Until we fix that, this issue won't go away.
Can we start then teaching your kids to clean toilets and pick crops?
We underestimate the effect abortion has had on our labor force. With 50 million abortions done since Roe v. Wade, it's easy to see how different our country would be if the 20 million aborted infants capable of working in the job force today were still here.
You're assuming that if abortion wasn't legal:
1. Abortions wouldn't happen.
2. Women wouldn't have changed their behavior to adjust to a different legal regime.
I believe abortion has not altered the number of kids the typical woman has, only the timing. In other words, instead of having their first kid at a young age, they have their first kid at a later age but overall will still have the same number of kids thru their lifetimes. If that's true then there wouldn't be an extra 20 million people here today, people born to 17 year old mothers would have been offset by mothers in their late 20's and early 30's opting not to have another kid.
Then again even if you're right why would another 20m kids simply not make an economy that is that much bigger? 20m kids means so much more food that needs to be grown, so many more hotel rooms used for family vacations, so many more Denny's that need dishwashers, another 1,000 Wal-Mart stores perhaps.
Competition for jobs would force most of us to take lesser-paying jobs when we were young and not succumb to this sense of entitlement so many of our young people display today.
There's that lump of work fallacy again. The fact is we are paid what we produce. American kids today who take higher paying jobs do not achieve that good fortune because they are walking around with an arrogant sense of entitlement but because they can produce more than their parents could at their age. Do you think the office manager sits there saying "this kid knows nothing but I must be loyal to the delusional sense that American kids are entitled to good jobs therefore I must hire him while Sam Patel, the chemical engineer from India, must be given the job to make the coffee"?
As Friedman put it, you can't have both open borders and a welfare state. (Having to maintain an oversea empire doesn't help either).
True but we don't have open borders. No we do not have the Berlin Wall running along the south (and I know many here are just itching to import it....perhaps there are still some old East Germans around who haven't been indicted for crimes against humanity who they can grant work visas to help out) but we hardly have an open door policy. And we also don't have much of a welfare state either. Yes if you're deeply in need of medical attention Medicaid does help and yes maybe you can get food stamps and public schools but not much. To get the real goodies of our 'welfare state' you need to be working legally. More likely than not you're paying into the welfare state (using false or 'borrowed' SSI numbers) and not able to take out.
Friedman also said (or he would have agreed) that transactions that result from free bargaining are almost always more efficient than gov't mandate.
And you are erroneously assuming that if abortion wasn't legal there would still have been a million or more illegal abortions a year for the past 30 or so years; and conveniently forgetting or overlooking the deleterious affect abortion has on ability to bear children later.
Do you not see the callousness of accepting the abortion-as-birth-control philosphy that you egregiously rely on for your hypothesis?
Ex-P wrote: "I find it revealing that no one has responded to my post regarding the moral dimension of this issue. Is it odd that evangelicals don't want to talk about what Jesus would do about illegal immigration?"
Maybe it's odd. Maybe not. There's nothing recorded about any comments Jesus made concerning the issue. In fact, I am unaware that it was an issue when He lived in Israel.
On one occasion He was in Tyre, and a Syrophoenician woman asked Him for help. He said He was focused on attending to His own countrymen, but then relented to her argument and helped her. She was not an illegal, but she was a foreigner from His earthly perspective. So perhaps one could argue that Jesus would have said natives first. Or perhaps not. As I said, Jesus did not address illegal immigration.
Jesus did direct His followers to attend to the poor and disadvantaged. So perhaps one could argue that Jesus would have said open borders. Or perhaps not. Jesus did not address illegal immigration.
Jesus did indicate that civil laws pertaining to taxes controlled civil matters. So perhaps Jesus would say that immigration laws should be obeyed by immigrants. Or perhaps not.
Jesus did say we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, and that neighbor-ness crosses nationalities. So perhaps He would have said illegals should have the same access to rights that natives have. Or perhaps not. As I said, Jesus did not discuss illegal immigration.
Ex-preacher:
I hope this comment is not coming too late for you to notice it.
You, a professed atheist, seem to be the most Christ-like poster here.
I, like you, am stunned by the failure of the vast majority of Christians to consider the moral implications of their stand against illegal immigrants.
Why should a child of God's opportunities be limited by where they happened to be born?
What but the grace of God prevented any American from being born in the third world?
Are our neighbors in Mexico not the same neighbors that are spoken of in the golden rule?
In every age there have been popular immoral delusions. In the antebellum South it was the belief that slavery is acceptable. In the 20th century it was "separate but equal". Now it is apparently thought okay to discriminate against people based on where they were born.
Jesus taught, and I believe, that all are valuable and precious and to be loved. There is nothing loving about labeling people "illegals" and running them out of the country when they are here serving us and improving their own lives.
Hey Ex-preacher,
Do you think that people will be able to immigrate to Heaven illegally?
Think about it... you're asking the wrong questions. Instead you should be asking why right wingers are so intent on keeping immigration laws on the book that discriminate against the poor and latinos in particular.
And you are erroneously assuming that if abortion wasn't legal there would still have been a million or more illegal abortions a year for the past 30 or so years; and conveniently forgetting or overlooking the deleterious affect abortion has on ability to bear children later.
I see once again you are responding to things you don't read. If you bothered to read my post you would have noted that lifetime birthrates appear constant. I asserted that additional births at younger ages would have resulted in women deciding not to have children at older ages...I didn't assume that every legal abortion would have simply transformed into an illegal back ally abortion. I don't think there's any evidence that the US population is less fertile as a whole because of abortion
More relevant is the fact that more people automatically means more jobs in a functioning economy. As I said, more kids means more Wal-Marts, stores, hotels etc. which means even if DLE's assertion is correct we would still have illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are filling demand for unskilled labor created by our market economy. Going back in a time machine 30 years and setting in motion a policy to increase our native born population would not have altered that dynamic unless you also set in motion a policy to have a large portion of our native-born population become unskilled.
Do you not see the callousness of accepting the abortion-as-birth-control philosphy that you egregiously rely on for your hypothesis?
You need to get a grip on yourself smm. I was only replying to the assertion that if abortion was illegal there would be no illegal immigration as all the jobs would be filled by aborted children. Whether or not you agree with abortion that's a conjecture that's built on a lot of assumptions, a real lot.
We all know very well what you meant Boonton, being dishonest about it now doesn't make you look any better. So, now you're saying that you didn't mean you believe that there would have been no change in the population as a result of abortion being illegal? How do you account for your follow on statement to what I originally quoted?
and then you follow up with a comment that includes this...
That's quite an assertion for somebody who is trying to avoid denying or confirming acceptance of the abortion-as-birth-control philosophy. On what evidence are you supporting your flimsy notion that life-time birthrates appear constant? There is no parallel universe to compare to.
JEFF WRITES: But the comparisons to 19th-century immigration are specious, since Americans workers at the time were not burdened with income or payroll taxes used to support a vast social welfare system.
And unfortunately, that expensive system is not going away, but at least we are reforming it to make it a hand up instead of a hand out.
JEFF WRITES: The point is not whether we're better off with the way things are today (I think we are), but that we're dealing with a different economic reality. People who are here illegally do not pay to support the system, but take advantage of its benefits...And many of the illegal workers send their income back home, so their wages don't even stay here to help our economy. We're effectively subsidizing Mexico.
I know many illegals, and MOST of them pay social security using fake SS numbers or tax id numbers they recieved during the last "amnesty." (interestingly, these fake ss numbers are not usually associated with any other living american citizen, so it doesn't show up in their taxes).
I think the roundup of this situation is, however, that even if illegals do pay into the system, it is only about 1/3rd of the cost of the services they use.
But this economic argument misses the humanitarian element - these are desperate people seeking to feed their families. Any hardline approach, even this one that Joe suggests, is essentially a heartless, me-first approach rather than a win-win, which is what we should look for.
The problem is partly in the corrupt and poorly structured Mexican economic system, which we have not been able to change even through pressure, and without that, there is not complete solution.
But as far as what we CAN control, the simple answer is that we need to address security, economic, AND humanitarian issues in a wholistic, win-win solution, rather than demonizing immigrants. Sure, some immigrants will commit crimes. Sure, our economy might not be able to take huge influxes of people, and we need to control the flow. But let's set up a system where good people can get expedited processing and start being legal, contributing members of our economy and society. They already are doing that, even if illegal.
So, now you're saying that you didn't mean you believe that there would have been no change in the population as a result of abortion being illegal? How do you account for your follow on statement to what I originally quoted?
Errr not now that's what I said from the beginning. I noted the population theory rests on two assumptions; no illegal abortion and no change in behavior.
If, on average, women tend towards keeping a constant lifetime birth rate then more kids at a younger age would mean fewer kids at an older age. Certainly you aren't so ignorant as to believe the only way that can be achieved is illegal abortions are you?
We've crossed keyboards on abortion and will do it again but here we are talking about a demographic and economic question....would Roe never of happening have caused population to be 20m higher today and if so would that have eliminated the demand for immigration from Mexico?
Not we fellow, just you, all I'm talking about is your reliance on the deplorable abortion-as-birth-control philosophy. I know it's off topic, but I don't care. There are a multitude of other ways to try to demonstrate the two are unrelated, but you just had to go about showing how you think abortion hasn't changed anything at all.
Exactly how do I demonstrate that the 'two' are unrelated without using abortion when one of the two is abortion! Sorry banning abortion may solve a moral problem for you but that doesn't mean we all have to be silent when you guys try to sell it as a spurious solution to everything under the sun.
If I thought you really were interested in knowing, I might consider telling you. Then again, if you really were interested in knowing, I probably wouldn't need to tell you.
If you really had a clue you might consider telling but you don't. Thanks for wasting more time.
You're welcome.
Most of these discussions are pointless. The persons with the duty and ability to do something refuse both the duty and the input. But having said that,
1) there are laws. They are not being enforced. And we all know that. The *refusal* to obey, honor, and enforce the laws is corrosive to the nation. The President bears a heavy guilt on this. He's not alone, but 'the buck stops there', and he is guilty of criminal malfeasance and dereliction of duty on the matter. The laws specify rather clearly who may enter the nation and what procedures govern. Change the law if you can, but NO ONE has a right to ignore it.
2) three major difference between now and the system of the late 19th century are a) we no longer have an Ellis Island system that most people respected and, b) the 19th century immigrants from Germany, Italy, and Ireland were not not being sent here by their governments under some sort of 'reconquista' mission, and c) those immigrants came here to BECOME AMERICANS. There are, not far from my house, 2nd and 3rd generation Mexicans, as well as new arrivals, who still consider themselves Mexican (or Guatemalan, or whatever) not Americans, and can not or will not speak English. Non-assimilation, in other words. A *huge* difference.
It's illegal. Send them all back, and any apprehended here should NEVER be permitted legal presence, ever. Bill the nations of origin for all the costs of their presence, with interest, and be downright direct about getting payment.
If they are uninvited, they are unwelcome.
Build the dang wall. Imprison those deliberately or recklessly employing illegals, seize their assets, and throw the corporate officers in prison. That will get their attention.
And take stern measures against all those acting as enablers of criminal activity. Including churches.