Redstate

We're merely trading one set of absues and usurpations for another.

When did conservatives start loving Big Brother?

never had anything to do with that febrile Libertarianism which sees a duty so basic as immigration enforcement as the dread arrival of Big Brother.

does enforcing the law become an abuse or usurpation of anything?

I have to think otherwise.

A national database of social security numbers?  The United States government would be setting up the ultimate gold mine for an identity thief.  Even the DOD's computers are compromised - they face millions of attacks a months.  When the social security number database is compromised, what then?  When the illegal immigration does nto stop after this, you will probably demand MORE laws and more enforcement - and you will never consent to a guest-worker program, which would solve a lot of the problem without the Big Brother tactics you are ready to endorse.

Lots of new government databases.  I also can see a lot more impositions on ordinary American business owners.

I'm real sure that al-Qaeda and MS-13 have their members apply for jobs at or around minimum age.  /sarcasm

A national database of social security numbers?

Umm, we have that already. It's called the Social Security Administration.

When the illegal immigration does nto stop after this, you will probably demand MORE laws and more enforcement . . .

If we cannot stop illegal immigration, if that enterprise is well and truly beyond our power, then we are no longer a sovereign nation. In which case, our problems are more profound than an increase in the incidence of identity theft.

Set up a guest worker program.  The President's proposal is a pretty good one.

legalize drugs!  Want to eliminate reckless driving?  Lift all the traffic laws!  And so forth...

has given significant attention to this, and for that I'm glad. But the lede of their story on the House measure was downright laughable:

Driven by the rising anger of their constituents, House Republicans are pushing ahead with tough legislation to tighten control of the nation's borders and clamp down on the hiring of illegal immigrants -- without offering new avenues for such immigrants to find lawful employment.

Oh, my God! They're cracking down on employers who break the law by hiring illegal immigrants...without ensuring that those immigrants, who are here, lest we forget, illegally, have a means to support themselves while they're in this country...illegally. Ugh. Are they really incapable of writing a story on the bill without getting in a dig to make it seem less palatable to readers?

I will concede off the top that I'm not an expert on the topic. But I haven't seen a credible explanation of what would actually happen to our industry/economy if all these millions of illegal immigrants were deported.

The lead is laughable if you read it in the context (which was probably intended) that we have some sort of obligation to find jobs for anyone, here legally or illegally.

But what may not be laughable is what happens to those businesses when they lose many of their employees. Whether you are talking about busboys or factory line workers, businesses are relying on illegals in those jobs and what happens when their gone- will restraunt service deteriorate? That's just an inconvience. But will Factories have to scale back their operations? That, I would define as a real problem.

The Pat Buchanan answer is that restraunts and factories will then be forced to pay higher wages to American citizens to get them to fill those jobs. But, for one, our unemployment rate already is relatively low and secondly, what the Buchanan answer means, really, is that you and I would have to pay pay for those higher wages by paying higher prices for the goods and services we consume, and that is no laughing matter.

I have many concerns about illegal immigration but until  I hear a coherent explanation of how we manage the business and economic consequences of pulling illegals out of the work force, I am in the camp of clamping down on the border, but for the people who are already here, have an amnesty-like program (don't call it amnesty) that allows the illegals to let's say pay a $5,000 fine and provide proof that they have been gainfully employed for an acceptable period of time and give them legal residency status.

But Buchanan and others who want "all stick and no carrot" will not be the ones who have to raise the prices or pay the higher wages.  That's not going to be their problem.

When you decide to rob Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and Tyson to pay off Jim Bob and a lot of others, you get the vots from Jim Bob.  Politicans don't really lose anything, since corporations don't vote, and can't really act much in the political sphere.

wipe out the IRS data base.  Funny to see liberals complaining about data bases and someone thinking about the Feds providing a basic response to a fundemental requirement of nationhood.  Databases would not be required if the govarnment had done it's job for the past, take your pick, 20, 30, 40, years.  The point about private citizens doing what our taxes should have been paying for is the larger and more important point.  If this continues the Giver of Progress {the U S govt] may yet get off it's gigantic ass and start to take action.

along with all consumers ultimately would pay for the higher wages because the consumers pay the higher prices. Either Buchanan doesn't realize that or doesn't care- I guess he can afford not to, but I can't.

1.  Easy to enter guest worker program
   
   
2.  Treat anyone crossing border illegally as foreign invader.
   
   
3.  Eliminate minimum wage.

Any one or two of those doesnt solve the problem.  There was a presidential candidate in the last election calling for all 3 of these.  

I don't want to go back to the 1950s.

But what may not be laughable is what happens to those businesses when they lose many of their employees. Whether you are talking about busboys or factory line workers, businesses are relying on illegals in those jobs and what happens when their gone- will restraunt service deteriorate? That's just an inconvience. But will Factories have to scale back their operations? That, I would define as a real problem.

The Pat Buchanan answer is that restraunts and factories will then be forced to pay higher wages to American citizens to get them to fill those jobs. But, for one, our unemployment rate already is relatively low and secondly, what the Buchanan answer means, really, is that you and I would have to pay pay for those higher wages by paying higher prices for the goods and services we consume, and that is no laughing matter.

 Are business owners "entitled" to cheap labor, are we "entitled" to cheap goods and services? Eliminate minimum wage laws and illegal immigration and let's see what "market wages" really are.

Libertarian-conservative.

In no way does that philosophy espouse the dissolution of the nation-state.

It is only about keeping us free within it.

Sovereignty is certainly part of the package.

Want to eliminate drug use? legalize drugs!  Want to eliminate reckless driving?  Lift all the traffic laws!  And so forth...

Well, Cyrus, you help make an argument in favor of a decriminalization approach when you cite drugs. The fact is, laws against drugs manifestly fail to prevent millions of Americans from taking them. The same thing could be said of alcohol; prohibition wasn't exactly a rousing success. I, too, fear the consequences to our national security from large-scale illegal immigration. I just happen to be one of those who thinks the "all stick no carrot" approach is no more likely to work than prohibition.

Latin Americans have absolutely no incentive to "go through the system", because that system effectively gives them zero chance of supplying their labor to willing buyers in the United States (this is a far cry from the situation facing the "unwanted Irish" of the nineteenth century by the way).

Change this system by increasing legal immigration admissions to a number more consistent with America's long and successful history of welcoming newcomers -- to a level something along the lines of 2 million per annum -- and you'll have changed the incentives in favor of going through the system.

the philosophy that since businesses that hire illegal immigrants might fail if we don't allow them to break the law and hire illegal immigrants, we should continue allowing them to break the law and hire illegal immigrants.

I recognize your point, don't get me wrong. But it's not all or nothing. Provide some kind of backup for the economy, move forcefully but slowly enough that we can absorb the disappearing illegal worker, and get to it. The Post's assertion that we have to provide labor for illegal immigrants and your implication that our economy will be in trouble if we don't are unacceptable to me.

I'd rather pay more than have illegal immigrants break the law in the hundreds of thousands. In many cases, I won't even have to do that--rake my own leaves, wait to have kids till I can pay for child care. This idea that, oh heavens! Without our cherished illegal immigrant labor base, the economy would grind to a halt! is not a convincing argument to me.

to anything. But the reality is that right now we are paying less for goods than we otherwise would be if we kicked out all the illegals.

The laws our nation should mean something, but while I am troubled by the illegal immigrant situation, I'm not going to make a decision to support deporting all illegals until I get some info on what the economic impact on me as a consumer would be. If getting rid of the immigrants would only result in wages, and ultimately prices, going up by a little bit, then fine give them the boot. But if the resulting lower end wage increase would drive consumer prices up by a lot, its hard for me to support something that's against my economic interests.

I'm not sure if I'm following your proposal on eliminate min wage and illegal immigrants- what is your hypothesis as to what would happen in that situation?

I do not consider myself an expert on immigration. I am troubled by the illegal situation as you clearly are. My concern is that as we discussed, businesses say they will have serious problems if they lose their illegals. Maybe they're full of it, but I don't really see that point refuted anywhere. If someone can lay out a plan, as you allude to, for how we get rid of the illegals through a transition without too much economic pain, I would be happy to get on board.

I'll get on that...

It's easy to pick on Wal-Mart and Microsoft.  Or the folks who do decide to hire help for their child-care or lawn.

You're not the one who has to make the payroll, or deal with the folks they'd hire. You're not the one who ends up giving up his/her time.

You are being awfully generous with other people's money.

Is the economic impact to the consumer, right? I don't have the answer. Depending on who commissions a study to figure this out I suspect you will get different answers.  If wages were to go up by any significance, prices/profits would change to reflect the new cost of labor.  That's the market at work. Should we rig the system too "guarantee" consumers enjoy low prices? This sounds a lot like what minimum wage laws/unions do too "guarantee" wages.

The only reason immigrants don't have incentive to go through the system now is that they don't have to.  They can come to this country and work and get access to social benefits without going through the system, thus, no incentive.  Swinging open the doors is not the only way to encourage them to go through the system.  Making it virtually impossible for them to come here and work will provide that incentive just fine.

Besides, those who can't get through the system (think, those with criminal records) will still try to enter the country illegally.  The border has to be shut down regardless of the number of immigrants allowed to come through the system each year.

You admit you don't know what the economic consequences would be of sending illegal immigrants home, yet you assume you are currently paying less for goods than you would if there were no illegal immigrants in the U.S.

How many of the goods made in America do you suppose are made by illegal immigrants?  With NAFTA in place, many companies that can benefit from a glut of unskilled labor have already moved manufacturing facilities south of the border.  

Most of the jobs performed by illegal immigrants are in the service sector (construction, farm help, child care, lawn care, etc.).  The cost for those services will probably increase because we can't transfer those jobs south of the border, but how much of that will affect the average consumer on a daily basis?  Yes, the cost of produce might go up, but by how much?  Much of our produce is already imported.  Prices for domestic suppliers can't rise much above the prices of the imports, or you'll just buy the imports instead (which you probably do with some frequency already).

What does affect the average consumer on a daily basis is the externalized cost of illegal immigrants.  Every day we pay for illegal immigrants with our tax dollars and health care costs.  Extra schools, roads, hospitals, and social services don't come cheap, and the employers who cheat the U.S. taxpayers by giving illegals incentives to come here and then passing those costs along to us are, in fact, criminals.  Additionally, every day untold hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars are siphoned out of our economy and sent to other countries where those dollars will no longer circulate through our economy.  That is a true cost.

I have trouble understanding your willingness to be complacent with a system that is robbing you of tax dollars and (as was noted in a post by Paul Cella the other day) putting inflationary pressures on the value of your citizenship.  Whatever you may be saving on a head of lettuce can't possibly be worth the price we all pay.

... asking society to bear the cost of compliance with the laws it chooses to enact in order to protect our sovereignty can be properly called being "generous with other people's money".

It's "putting our money where our mouths are".

like the argument of southern secessionists in favor of retaining an institution that provided a similar source of cheap labor.

Just not willing to support pulling millions of people out of the labor market without understanding how much of an economic disruption would result. The points you made in your post help arriving at a better understanding of that issue, and I appreciate that.

But your one point I would quibble with is that the price/wage impact of illegals only effects limited areas of the economy. We have a relatively tight labor market, so if the illegals go and we have a shortage, for example, of construction workers, we have to raise their wages. Then someone who was thinking about becoming a police officer because the pay was better wants to become a construction worker, so we have to raise police wages, then someone who was thinking about becoming a bank manager because the pay was better wants to become a police officer, so the bank manager's wages have to be raised...and on and on accross potentially the entire labor market.

But your larger point makes sense that the costs of allowing illegals to stay here (what we are paying as tax payers for illegals eduction, health and other social services, as well as $$ being sent back to Mexico) may very well be larger than the costs of getting rid of them (the consumer price increase we would have to swallow, the loss of the SS taxes they pay). Unfortunately, I think it seems difficult to get transparency on how much $$$ we could save if we were no longer paying taxes for those illegals' welfare services. Sounds like Paul Cella's earlier post spoke to this as well, I will try to track it down.

I'm also not the one breaking the law to meet expansion goals.

Economic expansion in the USA has, in the past, been fed by immigration. Successive waves over the centuries from the English, Germans, Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc. supported the need for more workers.

The economy grew because the workers, even as they worked in low paid jobs, became consumers of products and services.  The sons and daughters in some cases grew out of the low paying jobs and moved up the economic and social ladder.

In the main, immigration was legal because the government recognized the need for more workers.  I bet some also recognized the need for consumers as well.

Prelude to the present: The great emphasis placed on higher education in the 70s, 80s and 90s had a number of effects some good and some bad.  The good was that it drove some people to excell past what they might have to get higher education and move into a different proffession.  The bad, those that did not have the educational ability to obtain a degree became dissafected.  The were conditioned to believe that higher education was they only way to success.  They also looked down on doing some of the more labor intensive work that in the past had formed the basis for those with less education to become part of the work force.

Why Illegal immigration: This lack of interest in lower level employment left the way open for other people to take the jobs.  Traditionally this work was done by new legal immigrants.  However, the government changed its policies from one of suporting the economic engine to one of supporting refugee immigration.

The void is filled by illegal immigrants because the government does not actively encourage either US residents to do the work or recruit legal immigrants from overseas.

While visas are available for higher level jobs, which deprives people of some of the moving up jobs, the emphasis is not on the lower level jobs.

Yes there are ways to get a visa for lots of lower level jobs but the effort to get these people is left to private immigration companies who charge a hefty fee to process the paperwork.

What to do:  The government must accept that there is a need for people to fill lower level postions. Educate US residents into the advantages, yes, there are advantages, of doing these jobs.  Not everyone stays in these jobs their whole working lives.

Where applicable actively recruit from overseas.

At the same time improve border controls to limit illegal immigration as much as possible. Fully impliment the laws in place to sanction employers who employ illegal immigrants. Those who employ illegal immigrants often do so to the detriment of honest employers.

There will be a lag time where employers may have a reduced workforce but this will even out as the legal migrants integrate into the work force.

Remember, legal immigrants are part of the economic engine needed to keep the economy moving. They work and consume and they pay taxes.

These migrants often come from cultures where childbearing is still considered a value to the family. In a time when the US population is aging and the number births declining legal immigrants bring the potential to improve the balance.

Don't forget that a 5% unemployment rate doesn't mean that only 5% of the population is without a job.  The unemployment rate doesn't capture those who aren't interested in finding jobs or who have given up finding jobs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment).  A lot of people who give up do so because they don't have the skills for the available jobs, and the wages on unskilled jobs are driven down by the overabundance of unskilled laborers who pour into our country each year.  Keeping out some of the unskilled labor means some disenfranchised native workers can finally be priced into the job market through natural market mechanisms (not forced minimum wage floors).

So you see, it isn't just a matter of shifting workers around to cover gaps caused by drying up the immigrant pool of workers.  American citizens who have been sitting on the sidelines waiting for low-skill job opportunities that will pay better than welfare will be able to move up to take some of the jobs.

They don't have to and its a real pain with little success. Therefore both of the arguements are true.

Case in point #1... if I spent 8 hours of any weekday here in the Bay Area... I could find at least 500 illegal immigrants. I'd run out of time before I ran out of illegals.

Case in point #2... my friend's wife hasn't gotten citizenship after 3 years of paperwork. She's lived 3/4's of her life in the USA under legal visas. She's married to a US citizen, her kids are US citizens and she speaks English as her first language. Everything about her is on the up and up. Do you think an illegal with no basis to be in the USA much less ability to apply or pay or virtually anything is going to go thru a near impossible process? Hell no... its off past the border I go.

As long as we are leaving theory behind and just looking at 'the reality' of the situations. ANY CREATED OPPORTUNITY for workers to come here legally without any quotas combined with the lax enforcement on the employers side is simply doomed to become a disaster of biblical proportions. If done...Half the planet is going to jump in a barrel and paddle to get here.

Yes, the immigration process is long and tiresome, but I don't think speedy service should be the goal of our immigration policy.  Of course there is no 100% guarantee that everyone who applies to come here will be allowed.  People who want to frame the debate as a racist movement against underprivileged Latin American populations fail to consider that we don't let in the vast majority of people who want to come to the U.S. from ANY country.  People all over the world have been waiting patiently in lotteries for years for the chance to get green cards.

I see no merit to the argument that we have to open the borders to millions of new immigrants per year and make the process easy enough that every immigrant with a sixth-grade education and a dream finds dealing with the bureaucracy preferable to jumping a fence.  To me, that sounds like capitulation under duress.

It is as if they say, "let us in legally in the numbers we want, or we'll break your laws because we know you won't do anything about it."  Our response can be either, "Okay, we'll give you whatever you want in order for you to stop breaking our laws," or "No, we've turned a blind eye to these activities in the past, but a new era of enforcement and accountability has arrived."

The bottom line is we are not obligated to provide easy entrance as an incentive to immigrate through the legal channels.  By offering a legal channel for access to citizenship, even if only for a small, lucky percent of those who want it, we are already offering more than most other countries, including France and Germany.

and my money, too, and we're both willing to pay it.  It's our country, too, and you're being awfully generous with it.

What would likely happen in the absence of south-of-the-border quasi-slave labor is that the farmers who now use them would either automate, or move their operations south of the border.  Or, they might go out of business, their place in the market taken by more cost-efficient producers in other countries, under the principles of comparative advantage.  Either way, we would win.  A strong agricultural sector in Latin America would strengthen their societies and, yes, even their families, leading to more prosperous, stable trading partners who don't need to export their surplus people here.  If family values don't stop at the Rio Grande, you'd think we'd not be encouraging the emptying out of Latin America and the reduction of their countries to remittance dependencies.  

Re: A national database of social security numbers?

Umm, we have that already. It's called the Social Security Administration.

The Devil, as always, is in the details.

• How accessible is the current SSA database from the outside?
  
• How much information would be made available to outside inquiries? For security's sake I think it should be restricted to A) First and Last Name match with SS# and B) the individual with that number is not reported as deceased. Nothing else (including birth date, address etc.) should be included.
  
• How reliable is SSA's data? I have to ask this because in my own case there is in fact a glitch in their data on me, which has proven difficult to correct.
  
• Would an override be allowed? I.E, if the last name doesn't match (maybe because of a marriage or divorce) and the job applicant could produce official documentation showing a name change would that be acceptable?
  

People who want to frame the debate as a racist movement against underprivileged Latin American populations fail to consider that we don't let in the vast majority of people who want to come to the U.S. from ANY country.

Well, I for one don't frame the debate in racist terms. Rather I think the debate tends to boil down to how one views immigration in general: as a good in and of itself that has made America stronger, or as a barely tolerable evil that should be minimized to the greatest extent possible. After all, even if we were to increase immigration admissions to a number I think desirable -- around 2 million -- the US would still have a net rate of legal immigration only one-half what it was circa 1900. And that's in the context of a nation with a far slower rate of natural population increase than a century ago. Given the realities of a much larger economy than a century ago, and a workforce that is expanding much less rapidly due to natural population increase, I think we can handle a net rate of legal immigration 50% smaller than in the year 1900. That's all I'm talking about here: boosting the net immigration rate from 25% to 50% of what it was at the turn of the last century. The absurdly small number we now allow to immigrate simply isn't consistent with the labor demands of a $13 trillion economy. The result, predictably, is a black market. It's all so unecessary.

I see no merit to the argument that we have to open the borders to millions of new immigrants per year and make the process easy enough that every immigrant with a sixth-grade education and a dream finds dealing with the bureaucracy preferable to jumping a fence.

Hardly anybody is arguing in favor of allowing millions more people to enter the US annually. Even I only want to see the number increased by about a single million. Even a number significantly lower than that (say 500k) would greatly help undermine the incentives to immigrate illegally. Still, your words touch upon a reality of the current situation: the vast majority of Latin Americans currently don't have the option of "dealing with the bureacracy". That option is not simply rare, it approaches zero in probability. I think this fact is something missed by proponents of more restrictive immigration policies. For all intents and purposes, the USA simply doesn't permit any immigration of unskilled labor from Latin America, except in the rare instance of blood relatives of people who have already made it to the US. This is a huge departure from our pre-1920 policy, when millions of working class people from places like Ireland, Italy, and Germany contributed greatly to our national life.

It is as if they say, "let us in legally in the numbers we want, or we'll break your laws because we know you won't do anything about it."

I think the reality is simpler, and starker, than you describe. In truth it is as if they say "My family faces hunger and deprivation, so I'm headed north to work for an American who needs my labor. And because there's no chance whatsoever I'll ever be able to go in through official, legal channels, I'll risk my life crossing via the Arizona desert."

By offering a legal channel for access to citizenship, even if only for a small, lucky percent of those who want it, we are already offering more than most other countries, including France and Germany.

We may be doing more than France or Germany, but that's faint praise. In terms of net immigration rate (i.e., as % of overall population) the US not only permits a number well below its own historical norms, it allows in far fewer than other English-speaking "new world" nations like Canada and Australia (both of which allow immigration quotas that give them net immgration rates 2-3 times higher than the USA).

That's not to say we should allow in anybody. I think we ought to to very leery indeed of immigration from the Islamic world. But that's not what we're mostly talking about here. We're mostly talking about immigration from Europe's progeny. Granted, these aren't places steeped in Anglo-Saxon values, but neither were the Italy or Lithuania or Greece of the year 1900.

I must say I find the rallying of conservatives to the restrictionist banner sad not merely because they're supporting a policy that is unlikely to work, but also because they're missing the opportunity to do the right thing politically, which is to support a Reaganesque immigration policy that is both expansive (in terms of numbers) and officially assimilationist. We should insist that newcomers learn English. We shouldn't spend tax dollars on Cantonese-speaking math teachers for the public schools, or multi-lingual ballots. And we certainly shouldn't spend money on public services for those who are here in contravention of our laws.

What we should do is get back to a formula that has worked well: provide opportunity to those who want to embrace our values, stay out of trouble, work hard, and eventually, become Americans.

Rather I think the debate tends to boil down to how one views immigration in general: as a good in and of itself that has made America stronger, or as a barely tolerable evil that should be minimized to the greatest extent possible.

No, it doesn't.  At least I hope not.  I hope that immigration proponents are not so naive as to see immigration per se as a good in itself; I know of no opponent of immigration who sees it as per se evil.  No, the question is what we, into whose country immigrants wish to come, intend immigration to do.  Is it to increase GDP?  To reduce income inequality?  Change the country's ethnic balance?  To uplift the immigrants?  Is it our national duty?  Who and what is it for, and what is it worth to us?  Once we've answered that, we can begin to discuss a policy, but not until then.

For all intents and purposes, the USA simply doesn't permit any immigration of unskilled labor from Latin America, except in the rare instance of blood relatives of people who have already made it to the US.

Why should we permit any?  I could accept a bracero program for seasonal labor, but why do we need millions of unskilled laborers coming to live permanently in this country?  Further, I can hardly accept your characterization of the presence of blood relatives on American soil as "rare."  There are a huge number of uneducated, non-English speaking, basically unskilled, legal immigrants here.  It's not a small number, and the phenomena of chain migration and ethnic nepotism are well known.  Given that a job offer and a relative in the US (which frequently come together) provide a basis for acquiring a visa, there are quite a lot here, who aren't even covered, as I understand it, by our country quotas.

I think the reality is simpler, and starker, than you describe. In truth it is as if they say "My family faces hunger and deprivation, so I'm headed north to work for an American who needs my labor. And because there's no chance whatsoever I'll ever be able to go in through official, legal channels, I'll risk my life crossing via the Arizona desert."

That's a bit of an overstatement.  Mexico, for instance, has a purchasing power parity GDP per capita of $9600 per year, which places it squarely in the middle ranks of world income.  Honduras and El Salvador are much worse.  But clearly not in "starvation" territory.  

We may be doing more than France or Germany, but that's faint praise. In terms of net immigration rate (i.e., as % of overall population) the US not only permits a number well below its own historical norms, it allows in far fewer than other English-speaking "new world" nations like Canada and Australia (both of which allow immigration quotas that give them net immgration rates 2-3 times higher than the USA).

Norms for which period?  1800?  1910?  1950?  1970?

That's not to say we should allow in anybody. I think we ought to to very leery indeed of immigration from the Islamic world. But that's not what we're mostly talking about here. We're mostly talking about immigration from Europe's progeny. Granted, these aren't places steeped in Anglo-Saxon values, but neither were the Italy or Lithuania or Greece of the year 1900.

I imagine that most Mexicans and other Central Americans would take issue with being called "Europe's progeny," and for good reason.    

I must say I find the rallying of conservatives to the restrictionist banner sad not merely because they're supporting a policy that is unlikely to work, but also because they're missing the opportunity to do the right thing politically, which is to support a Reaganesque immigration policy that is both expansive (in terms of numbers) and officially assimilationist.

Right thing how?  Will it win the GOP votes?  There's no evidence of that, indeed the evidence points the other way.  California is already out of reach, and within a generation, it's possible that parts of the South will be, too.  As to assimilationist, to what are we asking them to assimilate?  Some minimal "liberal values?"  If that's the case, they can get those in several dozen countries.  It doesn't necessarily make them Americans.

Below are some details for President Bush's Guest Worker program that conservatives could support.  Bear in mind that this is a "Guest Worker" plan and not an immigration agenda.  

NOTE --While discussing this plan, Mexican President Vicente Fox said the Mexican workers did not want to migrate.

1.    Who would be eligible to apply?  

*    Only individuals residing outside of the United States of America and those who are in the USA in a legal status (Tourist, Student, etc.).  

*    If someone is currently here illegal they would need to exit and get in line.

*    This program would apply only to the worker, not the family of the worker.

2.    Would the Guest Worker be eligible for Food Stamps, Low Income Housing, or other forms of welfare?  No. If the Guest Worker received benefits from these programs the government would in effect be subsidizing the employer by supplementing the Guest Worker's wages.  If the government subsidized the worker's pay the effect would also reduce the Income and other payroll taxes.

3.    Would the Guest Worker be eligible for Earned Income Credit, credit for elderly or disability, child care, or other such tax deductions?  No.  The worker would not be eligible to claim any deductions other than them selves.  

4.    Would the Guest Worker pay into Social Security or Unemployment?  No, as they are not immigrating they could not receive these benefits.  They would pay into Worker's Compensation and therefore will be eligible to receive payments, care, and rehabilitation.  They would have to receive their medical care at a State approved medical treatment facility.

5.    Would the Guest Worker be eligible for medical care?  Only emergency medical treatment due to fact it would be a wage subsidy as stated above where the government would be paying.  If the diagnosis was that the required medical treatment was not acute but routine the patient would be given written advice and or prescriptions and told to purchase the medication at their local pharmacy.  The cost of diagnosis and or emergency treatment would be recouped through payroll deduction by billing the employer.  The worker, their employer, or the two together would provide the medical coverage.

6.    Would the Guest Worker be eligible for subsidized educational programs? No, the worker may receive monies from charitable organizations for education and training.  The monies would have to be paid directly to the accredited learning institution.  The employer may provide training to the employee.

you ideas on medical care create some form of universal health care for guest workers. Would this be possible (or ethical for that matter) when American workesr do not have that benefit?

but the employer isn't on the line for the healthcare of the native-born (or greencard alien) workforce. Unless you would generalize that rule? I don't know, I think we need to move healthcare away from its current employment system, and I don't think creating an employer mandate is a good idea, even if just for "guest workers". In fact, that woudl create huge resentments and I sdonlt see how you could begin to justify not creating such a mandate for American workers too.

How about instead we stipulate that we will only accept guest workers from countries who agree to reimburse us for their healthcare (and of course we would agree to do the same assuming we export American workers to them). That would seem a lot more reasonable and it would not tax our own resources.

worker and therefore the employer would NOT be bound by any rules and regulations other than OSHA - no minimum wage, no Davis Bacon, etc.  This is for jobs that Americans will not accept or did you forget that fact?

The health care is part of the employment compensation package. The worker will not be given monies to purchase health care, spend it on something else, then expect the emergency room to provide for free - No way Jose.

I don't know, I think we need to move healthcare away from its current employment system, and I don't think creating an employer mandate is a good idea, even if just for "guest workers". In fact, that woudl create huge resentments and I sdonlt see how you could begin to justify not creating such a mandate for American workers too.

I think there a lot of people that think a mandate for employer provided health care is a good thing.

How about instead we stipulate that we will only accept guest workers from countries who agree to reimburse us for their healthcare (and of course we would agree to do the same assuming we export American workers to them). That would seem a lot more reasonable and it would not tax our own resources.

Who does the hospital/emergency room bill?  The foreign government?

Cyrus touched on a lot of arguments with your post, but let me address some of your points that I found particularly important.

First, you propose two million immigrants per year as reasonable because it is only about half the level of immigration America experienced circa 1900.  Immigration circa 1900 was quite a dramatic peak in the history of immigration to the U.S. (http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/cohn.immigration.us), and American cities had great difficulty absorbing that many immigrants.  There was also a tremendous amount of ethnic hostility.

You also have to consider that immigrants to this country in 1900 didn't receive government assistance like they do today.  I believe most programs offer assistance to people who have been here three years (five years if they were sponsored by family members), but if they have a child born in the U.S. they receive benefits immediately.  That cost is considerable given the number of immigrants who fall below the poverty line.  This link to the Center for Immigration Studies gives a snapshot of the foreign-born population during the last census (http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back101coverage.html).  Note the levels of poverty more than twice the native population, as well as the staggering numbers of immigrants who lack health insurance (33% overall, and more than 50% of those from Mexico and El Salvador).  People without health insurance drive up health care costs for everyone and clog emergency rooms with complaints of coughing or earache.

There was also a better match between immigrant skill levels and jobs available back then, as well as the skill level between immigrants and the native population.  America was in the middle of building a newly-industrialized nation, and our economy depended a lot more heavily on labor-intensive manufacturing than it does today.  It simply doesn't make any sense for us to expand our pool of low-skilled workers by a million per year when we have low-skilled native workers who are unemployed today because there are fewer low-skill jobs to be had and wages have been driven down by the immigrants (some legal, some not).

Also, an extra million immigrants per year isn't negligible when you consider that our current immigration policies already have our foreign born population at about 30 million.  To add an extra million people per year, mostly people with fewer skills, less education, and who speak a different language (which, unlike Italians and Germans before them, they will not have to give up), is an ill-advised experiment that should not be undertaken.

This link describes the changing ethnicity and education of immigrants to America (http://www.nber.org/papers/w8998).

Your assertion that the U.S. doesn't permit immigration of unskilled labor from Latin America is simply wrong.  Cyrus noted it in his post, and looking at my links and doing your own research will advise you of your error in thinking on this point.

How should I respond to your comment about the guy with the hungry family who is so determined to sell his labor in the U.S. regardless of his ability to do so legally that he breaks our laws and risks his life to get here?  Should I wipe the little tear from the corner of my eye and agree that allowing in everyone who can't earn a decent living in their own country is the only good and just thing to do?  If that is the case, let's start bringing over Indians by the millions.  They already speak English and their per capita GDP is only about $3,100 per year, as opposed to Mexico's, which is about $9,600 per year (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html).  I guess it goes without saying that I'm not going to be swayed by that argument.  I'm not unfeeling, nor am I uncharitable; I just don't believe moving all the world's impoverished people to America is the answer.

It is pretty easy for a lot of people to brush off the native American underclass as a group of people who just didn't make enough of the opportunities they were given, but what are you going to say when it isn't just the ditch diggers, housekeepers, tile layers, child care providers, and groundskeepers who are being displaced by unskilled immigrant labor?  With millions more per year looking for jobs and lax enforcement of hiring practice laws, it is only a matter of time before increasingly middle-class jobs like store clerk or delivery man become things "Americans just can't be paid to do."  

Finally, you could probably entice a few conservatives away from the "restrictionist banner," as you call it, if there ever really were a chance for an "assimilationist" policy in this country.  Like Cyrus, I'm concerned that there is nothing to assimilate to.  How can we force assimilation when we won't take the un-P.C. step of establishing an official language?  How can we force assimilation to values when traditional values of this country are getting dragged through the court on a regular basis?  Maybe if we really could establish the country's national identity instead of having it shamed away from us, more conservatives would be willing to welcome immigrants to share in that common identity.

Re: This is for jobs that Americans will not accept or did you forget that fact?

There is no such thing as a job no American will do. Pay enough, and you, I, Donald Trump and Paris Hilton will pick fruit or scrub toilets.

Re: Who does the hospital/emergency room bill?  The foreign government?

Yes, that's what I am suggesting. Whether for special guest workers (not regular greencard aliens) or for illegal aliens, the governments which have, in effect exported these people to us would be billed for their healthcare. And I have no problem with the US government being billed likewise, assuming there are American illegal aliens or guest workers (again, not regular documented expatriate workers) receiving healthcare in their host countries.

Immigration circa 1900 was quite a dramatic peak in the history of immigration to the U.S. (http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/cohn.immigration.us)

Yes, and if I were proposing we have the same rate of immigration as 1900, I might see your point, but I'm not proposing this. The link you've helpfully supplied indicates that in the century leading up to 1920, the average rate of immigration in the US was .66% (I painstakingly did the calculations, but feel free to double check my math). I think that number would work well today. As it happens, we're probably getting a number close to that anyway, it's just that many of those who make up that number are coming here in violation of the law. I think the law-breaking is a problem for a number of reasons, but I don't think the number itself is problematic. I see no evidence whatsoever that the America of 2005 absorbs immigration less efficiently than the the America of 1819-1919. The country is far wealthier, after all. I also think it is likely that the greater exposure newcomers have to American society before their arrival (through TV, movies, the worldwide spread of English, etc.) may well help them assimilate more quickly than the immigrants of a hundred years ago.

There was also a better match between immigrant skill levels and jobs available back then, as well as the skill level between immigrants and the native population.

This seems to me to be demonstrably false. I suspect the vast majority of immigrants these days find work, which, by definition, means there's a good match between the skills they bring and the jobs that are available. It's true that some of this work might not be in occupations you or I would find appealing (but that's just the point).

You also have to consider that immigrants to this country in 1900 didn't receive government assistance like they do today.

You also have to consider that America is a far wealther country than in 1900. I've yet to see a shred of evidence that immigration is a net drag on the economy, if that's the point you're trying to make. In some cases it may be true that immigrants are a net drain from a tax revenue perspective, but so are children and old people. Bringing immigrants in from the cold via an amnesty, so that they can fully pay required taxes, would do much to eliminate this phenomenon.

Also, an extra million immigrants per year isn't negligible when you consider that our current immigration policies already have our foreign born population at about 30 million.  To add an extra million people per year, mostly people with fewer skills, less education, and who speak a different language (which, unlike Italians and Germans before them, they will not have to give up), is an ill-advised experiment that should not be undertaken.

I didn't say it was "negligible". Moreover, I'd like to see total levels of legal immigration in the neighborhood of 2 million, and we may well be getting that already under the status quo, if illegals are counted. It's impossible to get a verifiable number in this regard -- I've seen varying estimates -- but my sense is that in addition to the 900k or so who come here legally, we're likely getting another 500-600k annually who immigrate illegally. The net/net is that increasing immigration admissions to around 2 million per annum, accompanied by reform of the system, would disrupt the current collection of incentives that prompts thousands of people in this hemisphere to enter the US in violation of our laws; and this would be accomplished with little or no increase in the total number of people immigrating to the US each year over today's status quo (again, it's just they would now nearly all be legal, whereas today at least a third -- and possibly a good deal more -- are immigrating here in violation of the law).

Your assertion that the U.S. doesn't permit immigration of unskilled labor from Latin America is simply wrong.  Cyrus noted it in his post, and looking at my links and doing your own research will advise you of your error in thinking on this point.

I carefully noted the existence of the exception of would-be immigrants who possess family already here. I regard this "lottery based on birth" to be one of the more pernicious, ill-advised features of US immigration policy. I would like to see the system fundamentally reformed, with perhaps 70% of the new, larger quota divvied-up along Canadian lines, and the remainder used to soak up the inflow from Latin America that will otherwise wind up immigrating illegally.

Should I wipe the little tear from the corner of my eye and agree that allowing in everyone who can't earn a decent living in their own country is the only good and just thing to do?

Patricia: I'm hardly arguing that we should "allow in everyone" who wants to immigrate for economic reasons. Again, 2 million persons is a far cry from "everyone" -- it's simply a number I think history shows us is eminently "absorbable", and likely to yield optimal benefits to the US.

With millions more per year looking for jobs and lax enforcement of hiring practice laws, it is only a matter of time before increasingly middle-class jobs like store clerk or delivery man become things "Americans just can't be paid to do.

There's no evidence the scenario you paint above will occur, or indeed can occur, in a smoothly functioning economy like America's. Employment is largely a function of economic growth, and the evidence overwhelmingly indicates population growth (of which immigration is but one component) boosts the growth of the economy. Wage growth is a different issue, but over the long term is mostly determined by productivity. Immigration has little effect on productivity either way. Remember, the US economy is a $13 trillion behemoth, and total US population is now at the 300 million mark. Common sense tells us the effects of a total number of newcomers each year who collectively equal well under 1% of this existing population are bound to be modest.

How can we force assimilation when we won't take the un-P.C. step of establishing an official language?

By electing lawmakers who agree with us on this issue.

Maybe if we really could establish the country's national identity instead of having it shamed away from us, more conservatives would be willing to welcome immigrants to share in that common identity.

Maybe so. I admitedly don't see the situation as quite so dire (perhaps if I did I would feel differently about immigration in general). I honestly just don't see America's national identity being "shamed away from us" because of immigration. There are some big political, cultural and (above all) philosophical mega-trends I'm aware of that frighten me, but I reckon the danger in these areas is to be found far more often among America's (and the West's) established elites than it is among the country's heavily-immigrant-staffed construction sites and landscaping crews.

This seems to me to be demonstrably false. I suspect the vast majority of immigrants these days find work, which, by definition, means there's a good match between the skills they bring and the jobs that are available. It's true that some of this work might not be in occupations you or I would find appealing (but that's just the point).

Speaking specifically of Mexicans, who make up by far the largest group of immigrants, and who, under Bush's plan, would become even more numerous, she's right.  It's not that Mexicans are necessarily less educated than Poles circa 1910, but that native-born Americans are better educated.  Nonetheless, the gap now is much greater, and as a result, Mexicans earn half what natives do.  Immigrants in general earn 77% as much as natives, compared to roughly 85% a century ago.  Obviously they're finding work, at least for the most part (31% of Mexican households receive public assistance, compared to 14% of native households), but that does not mean that low wage jobs simply went unfilled before they arrived.  Many were done by teenagers, high-school dropouts, and especially American blacks.  Mexicans, and Latin Americans in general, are perceived to be more disciplined and reliable than any of those groups, and tend to be hired instead.  It's not surprising that wages for high-school dropouts have dropped during the period of high immigration.  Many other jobs didn't exist:  the presence of new people leads to greater demand for numerous occupations in construction, for instance.  This may be good for America, Inc., but is of no benefit to Americans already here.  The fact that a new school, house, or road that wasn't needed before newcomers arrived is built by those newcomers is of no benefit to me at all.  Immigrants are doing jobs that wouldn't need doing but for immigrants.  For the rest of us, it is at best a wash, and more likely, the costs imposed by greater crowding and higher land prices and taxes make it a net loss for most.  

You also have to consider that America is a far wealther country than in 1900. I've yet to see a shred of evidence that immigration is a net drag on the economy, if that's the point you're trying to make.

"Not a net drag" hardly constitutes a persuasive endorsement of such a massive remaking of America.

In some cases it may be true that immigrants are a net drain from a tax revenue perspective, but so are children and old people.

Our children, and our old people.  We owe them something.  We don't owe foreigners the same consideration.

Bringing immigrants in from the cold via an amnesty, so that they can fully pay required taxes, would do much to eliminate this phenomenon.

How much?  Poor illegals will still mostly be poor legals, and will have greater access to public assistance.  Why are we undertaking this?  Is it just that you think it's inevitable?

I'd just like to make a few points about your position.

1. Initially, you argued that the incentive is for unskilled, Latin American immigrants to come here illegally because their chance of coming to this country legally is effectively zero.  You suggest we diminish this incentive by doubling the number we let in every year, thus, making what had been (in your words) a zero chance of legal entry twice as good!  Do you really believe the average Latin American immigrant is going to say to himself, "Gee, my chances had been zero, but now they're twice as good.  I'll just stay home and wait my turn to move to America!"  Is it worth the cost (not just monetary) of taking in an extra million immigrants per year to find out?
   
2. You counter my concern about the new number by saying we're probably taking in that many already anyway.  Well, if we're already taking in as many as you want, what are you complaining about?  Are you upset that they aren't legal?  Should we have police officers stop smugglers with human cargo to direct them to an immigration office so we can reward their perilous journey with full-fledged citizenship?  Taking in an extra million per year legally will not stop the flow of illegals, and then we'll just wind up with an extra three million immigrants per year instead of two million.
   
3. You claimed that my remark about poorly skilled immigrants being a worse match for our economy today than they were a century ago is "demonstrably false."  Let me direct you to the OECD Jobs Study (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/51/1941679.pdf).  On page 33, the study makes the following point, "In a globalised world, OECD countries cannot cling to low-wage-labour products in the face of competition from low-wage countries."  One of the overall conclusions of the study is that societies need highly skilled and adaptable workers to keep unemployment low and to keep the economy strong.  The U.S. is not an exception.  We are strong because most of our population is highly skilled, well-educated, and flexible.  The U.S. already has a native underclass of people with fewer skills who need jobs.  Why should we import an extra million poorly skilled immigrants per year to compete with them for jobs?  America doesn't need additional unskilled labor.  We just don't.  We can't compete with countries with lower costs of living for providing cheap, labor-intensive goods, and bringing the cheap labor here means we have the problems of a swelling underclass of people who lack the education and flexibility to take the kinds of new jobs we hope our economy is able to create.  That swelling underclass widens the divide between the haves and the have nots in this country, and when that happens we have to listen to socialists on college campuses crying about how "rich people" (who often provide jobs for the rest of us) have too much, rather than focusing on the poor people who are being harmed by our willingness to push them farther into the margins as we welcome millions of immigrants who will work for less.
   
4. If you are moved to responding to sob stories about men who can't feed their families, why don't you look first at the 30,000 employees who are about to get laid off by GM.  They'll need jobs.  Many of them aren't terribly flexible in the kinds of jobs they are able to take.  We as a nation owe it to them to provide the skills that will allow them to find good jobs, or to at least make sure jobs in fields like construction and maintenance are available to them.  Our responsibility to those workers, and others like them, is more important than any altruistic impulse we may have to import people who can't earn a decent living in their own country, teach them English, provide free health services for them, and allow them legal access to jobs.

If we can't agree on a point as basic as that, we really are just talking past each other.

Taking in an extra million per year legally will not stop the flow of illegals, and then we'll just wind up with an extra three million immigrants per year instead of two million.

Patricia: You're right. We're largely talking past each other. But I will respond to the above point, as I think it gets to the nub of our disagreement (or at least your lack of understanding -- as I see it -- of my position (and the fault lies with my poor skills of explanation, I'm sure)).

I basically disagree with you that "taking in an extra million per year legally will not stop the flow of illegals" if what you mean by "flow" is the substantial number -- probably at least a 500k per year -- we get now each year. That's exactly my point. Taking in an extra million (or choose a smaller number if you will; I'd personally settle for half that if I cold get it) WILL stop/radically reduce the flow of illegals if the increase is structured properly. Why? Because would-be foreign sellers of unskilled labor to the US for the most part don't have any choice but to sneak in to the country unless they happen to have relatives here, because we allow in only tiny numbers of such people to immigrate legally. If that quota were to increase substantially -- say by at least a half million --immigrating legally to the USA would be a realistic prospect.

Now, obviously there are more than a mere half million people south of the Rio Grande would like to come and work legally in the USA, so getting one's immigration visa will require waiting in line, perhaps for years. But waiting in line would be worth it, because the benefits of coming here legally are SUBSTANTIAL.

Illegal immigrants have it tough. They are subject to abuse by employers. Their housing options are severely constricted. It is difficult or impossible for them to get health insurance. They have an exceedingly difficult time visiting home (because of the difficulty of getting back in). Instead of arriving in the US safely and cheaply, they typically face the "privilege" of paying $3k or $4k for a potentially deadly voyage into the country.

Perhaps most critically, their employment options are narrow. Sure, nearly all of them can find work in the black economy, but it's impossible to move up the latter of success in America without a green card. Take a look at the help wanted pages or Monster.com: nearly ALL employers these days are blunt about the requirement for working papers. The myth that the Wall Street journal crowd (i.e., the Fortune 500) is hoovering up the labor of illegal aliens is just that, a myth. The vast majority of illegals in this country work in low-paid jobs for tiny firms who offer no benefits and minimal chances for advancement.

Now, given the choice of A) immigrating right now illegally to "enjoy" the life of an illegal or B) waiting in the queue until the one's number is called to enter the US with a valid immigration visa, which would YOU prefer?

Clearly the benefits to living in the United States legally are substantial. Immigrants are rational actors just like all of us. Right now, they respond to the pernicious set of incentives our faulty policies have created by immigrating to the US in violation of our laws. We have it in our power to change that.

Also, FWIW, I favor strong enforcement measures and explicitly assymilationist policies across the board. I'd like us to take a serious look at English-only legislation, and I don't think people who are here illegally are entitled to tax payer-funded programs. I would prefer that any amnesty be accompanied by the resumption of a robust deportation policy (targeting those who arrive after the amnesty) lest we send out the wrong signals. I think huge increases in the budgeting for border agents, smart border technologies, holding pens, etc. are necessary. But again, I think spending all the money in the world on the "stick" isn't going to get the job done -- and will therefore be an expensive boondogle -- without the "carrot" of increased quotas for people who want to come here legally.

And because I believe a robust level of immigration (which helps undergird acceptable population growth) is a desireable good in and of itself, I see nothing but upside from this approach: healthy population growth, a stronger economy, a more secure America with more secure borders, and radically lower numbers of illegal aliens.