Redstate

One thing that keeps coming up in the seal the border discussion is how to deal with all the illegals that would be caught, by the way catch and release program going on now is a looser IMHO.

There's a sheriff in Arizona that has the answer, it's bare bones tent prison out in the desert. I forget the details, but this guy actually built a no frills prison camp, threw convicted criminals in it with no MTV, no air conditioners and primitive living conditions. I think this is a great answer to what to do with all the illegals caught, instead of catch and release going on now. This approach would be cost effective too boot.  

Heck the Arizona National Guard can run the camp, which would be good practice for running prisons in Iraq.

Who's going to pay for the camps?

On the other hand, a lot of military bases just got downsized...

Just start regular BCIS flights from major US cities to Mexico City, and put the Mexican illegals on there.  Do the same with other foreign capitals, for the illegals from other countries.

Are you against illegal immigration specifically or any immigration of low-skilled people?

Would you support increasing general (not skills programs) legal immigration caps to 1 million, 5 million, or 10 million as long as illegals were cracked down upon?

Would you be more willing to increase immigration from places like Russia or Eastern Europe and just cutting back on immigrants from Mexico?

Last, do you support free trade or do you think quotas should be applied so we only import a certain preset amount?

1. I'm not particularly in favor of restricting immigration by skill level, no.
   
2. I oppose large increases in legal immigration at this time.  I want to try enforcing our laws as they stand today before we change anything, including the current limits.
   
3. Where the immigrants come from really doesn't matter all that much to me.  China, Russia, Mexico, they're all fine by me as long as they're coming legally and at assimilatable (to make up a word) rates.
   
4. I favor lowering taxes in general, and support international trade in general.  Trade quotas make no sense to me.  I'm sympathetic to the appeal of slapping trade restrictions on unfree countries like Communist China, though.

However, not all markets are the same.  Some goods are more mobile than others.  Toys are easy to ship anywhere.  Oil is difficult to move around, requiring pipelines and tankers.  Labor is very hard to ship around, because it requires people to uproot their whole lives and move.

Also, drastic changes to a market disrupt the equilibrium and cause transitions.  Economic transitions are often painful, so I prefer to avoid them where possible.  Certainly I feel we should avoid disrupting our labor market in order to cater to some lawbreakers, which is all the illegal aliens are.

As you are not increasing legal immigration cap at all, would you be for decreasing them?

At what level would you consider enforcement sufficient to start to lifting legal immigration caps, or is this a "I'll know it when I see it" kind of thing for you?

Given how rampant beaking jaywalking laws are and police refuse to enforce them (I break those laws probably a dozen times a day and when riding a bike around town three times that) -- would you support changing jaywalking laws to be more reasonable before  we started a massive crackdown, or would this be too much like just placating the lawbreaks? (If you don't like using jaywalking in the example, marijuana would be a good substitute.)

I favor lowering taxes in general, and support international trade in general.  Trade quotas make no sense to me.  I'm sympathetic to the appeal of slapping trade restrictions on unfree countries like Communist China, though.

This is the monsterous contradition with anti-legal and -illegal immigration people who are also free traders. In supporting free trade you are saying that the nation is better off when we can produce someplace where it takes fewer resource to do it. In saying that immigration should be slowed because wages in the US will rise, you are saying that we should use more resources to produce something even if it can be produced more cheaply. The only difference is that product being produced and demanded. With free trade it is stuff, but with immigration it is labor.

You are arguing that we don't really need free trade because if we restrict the cheaper alternative from entering the market, people will be willing to pay more so these less efficient producers can be kept in business without cost to everybody else. Just because labor costs will establish a new higher equilibrium, doesn't mean that is a good thing.

Labor is very hard to ship around, because it requires people to uproot their whole lives and move

Another contradiction. If labor is very hard to ship around, the illegal immigration shouldn't be a problem. Seeing as you are complaining about the heavy illegal immigration, then it must not be hard enough.

Certainly I feel we should avoid disrupting our labor market in order to cater to some lawbreakers, which is all the illegal aliens are.

My head is spinning with all thr contradictions. But stopping illegal immigration without substantially increasing legal routes will definitely distrupt our labor market. I'm confused. Are you saying that disrupt the market is good or bad?

Anti-immigration free-marketers are essentially walking contradictions so I should be surprised about the free trade issues. However, I'm still very interested in your answers to the other non-trade issues.

I answered your questions, and all you have to say is some accusation of inconsistency (despite the fact that I explained why I treat different markets differently)?

You seem to have a leftist's nose for "hypocrisy."

don't take this the wrong way, but you keep using the whole jaywalking comparison and it isn't really doing you any good, IMO. I don't think it's is persuading anyone.

Do you think the Mexican president would allow that to happen? He seems to be against most of our proposed immigration laws, so I don't know if that would actually work. I'd love to see it happen, though. You're the smarter one, though, so I won't wade in too deep

Is America, in your a opinion, a nation or is she a mere market?

It's not either a nation or a market, it's both a nation and a market.

Are you against illegal immigration specifically or any immigration of low-skilled people?

The latter more than the former, though I oppose both.

Would you support increasing general (not skills programs) legal immigration caps to 1 million, 5 million, or 10 million as long as illegals were cracked down upon?

No.  I do favor an a system that weights skills, but which in addition restricts the total number of new immigrants to no more than perhaps 250,000 per year.

Would you be more willing to increase immigration from places like Russia or Eastern Europe and just cutting back on immigrants from Mexico?

All other things being equal, no.  

Last, do you support free trade or do you think quotas should be applied so we only import a certain preset amount?

I support free trade in goods as a rule, but it's not a fetish of mine, either.

But perhaps I should rephrase: Is nationhood prior to economics, or the reverse?

The chicken or the egg?

Your question is just as relevant as the one I'm asking.

I know this line of reasoning is the dominant one within my party, but let me differ a little bit from the suggestions and the conclusions.

The general approach of "First enforce the laws, then adapt" is simply not going to work, primarily because it is fighting the most basic of market forces: Supply and Demand.  It is time that we face facts.

The American economy needs cheap, dependable, hardworking labor across the board.  Immigrants are the only truly available source of that labor.  Cutting off the flow of illegal immigrants, it is argued, will cut off the supply of labor and therefore raise wages domestically until Americans and legal immigrants are willing to do the work that illegals do now.

I disagree.  I believe cutting off the flow of illegal immigrants, even assuming it can be done through very costly enforcement measures, thereby raising the wages domestically, would mean one of two things (or both):

1.  Raises prices across the board, leading to inflation, leading to those wages we had thought were enough not being enough.  (If a head of lettuce costs $10, getting $5/hr to pick it isn't going to make economic sense for American laborers.)  In other words, real wage gains would be more or less zero.
   
2.  Stifling economic activity.  Some companies would simply choose not to engage in economic activity that doesn't make sense without the availability of cheap, dependable, hardworking labor.

Let me use an example that I think most of us could understand, as company labor management issues might be a bit too foreign: nannies.  There is no doubt in my mind that a large number of upper middle class families (let's say $150K+ a year) employ illegal immigrants as nannies.  They can only afford to do so because the nannies are illegal.  Legal, licensed nannies make roughly two to three times what an illegal nanny makes, putting them out of reach for most upper middle income families.

Now, this is illegal -- no argument there.  The issue is what happens if the flow of illegal nannies is cut off.  Most families would simply be unable to pay three times the rate, and stop using a nanny.  That's less economic activity across the board.  In addition, someone would have to stay home to care for the children -- even less economic activity.  That illegal nanny is buying food and transportation and spending money -- not anymore, so even less economic activity.  And so on.

Or, they may decide to pay three times the price for a legal nanny, but then have to go get raises themselves ("raising prices" across the board) until they are making two or three times what they had been, but still be in the same place in terms of living standards (assuming that they can get those raises in the first place).  So when "upper middle class" is no longer defined as $85K and above (or whatever it is now) but as $250K and above, everything trickles down to a point where $30K a year being a nanny seems like not worthwhile (as $30K = $10K in today's dollar terms).

There is another issue as well that I touched on above: dependable, hardworking.  I hate to say it, but when it comes to unskilled or low-skilled labor, Americans are just not that dependable or hardworking.  (At least in my neck of the woods in the Northeast.)  The skilled labor in this country is among the hardest working and most productive.  But when you speak to people who are managers of or employers of low-skill or no-skill labor (and I do know a few retailers and fast food operators and such), they cite time and again issues of absenteeism, employee theft, bad attitudes, and so on and so forth among their employees.  Without a doubt, all of these guys tell me, and I believe American history shows, that their best employees are the immigrants (all of them legal to work in these companies, but immigrants nonetheless).  Immigrants work hard, don't complain, have a positive attitude, are dependable, reliable, etc.

Combine these things and I think the Republican solution is slightly altered.

Raise legal immigration limits to a point where illegal immigration is unnecessary.

In FY 2004, we had 946,000 legal immigrants to the United States.  Of that number, more than half, or 513,000 were not subject to numerical limits (mostly immediate family members of U.S. citizens).  That means only about 430,000 immigrants were admitted to the U.S. legally in FY 2004 under the programs subject to numerical limits.  Only 155,000 or so of that 430,000 were granted entry based on employer-related preferences.  Most of those 155,000 were high-skilled H1-B visa, or some other category (such as nursing) holders.  (The source for all this is here, click on Table 5).

I submit that this is simply inadequate to meet the needs of American employers, especially those who may need low-wage unskilled labor to remain competitive.

Now, let's turn to the actual problems with illegal immigration.  I know one is that it is against the laws -- but that is the topic of discussion, so let's leave that one aside for a moment.  The problems as I see it are:

1.  Illegal immigrants do not pay taxes.
   
   
2.  Illegal immigrants are anonymous -- we don't know who they are, where they are, what they're doing, and why they're here.
   
   
3.  Illegal immigration finances organized crime and corruption, as sneaking people across the border has become big business for the underworld.

From where I stand, increasing legal immigration eliminates all three of these problems.  Legal immigrants pay all relevant taxes, just as citizens do.  They're not anonymous; we know who they are, what they're doing (or supposed to be doing), and why they're here.  Eliminating the motivation to come here illegally eliminates the incentive for organized crime to be involved -- see Prohibition and the Mafia for an example.

It seems to me that once we have the kind of environment where illegal immigration is uncommon, as opposed to commonplace, we'd have a far greater chance of success at things like border interdiction of terrorists and criminals: if fewer people are crossing the border illegally, we can assume that anyone who is crossing it illegally is a Real Criminal Bad Guy, instead of some poor chump just trying to make a few bucks.  If legal immigration is plentiful enough to meet the requirements of employers, it seems to me that cracking down HARD on employers who still want to hire illegals is both easier and more acceptable to the society and to the economy.

Finally, allowing freer legal immigration can only raise productivity across the board for American companies as they have a greater pool of capable, dependable, reliable, and hardworking workers to choose from.

I believe these are the proper Republican policy towards illegal immigration, because it emphasizes the principles of free market economy, smaller government (not as many INS agents necessary, for example, and no huge bureaucracy to go after violating companies, and so on), and opportunity combined with personal responsibility.  It might be a tough sell politically, but from a principled stance, I think the step is to urge first for greater liberalization of legal immigration, and then put the clamps on, not the other way around.

-TS

It's a lot like the efforts to enforce the Volstead Act.  Ultimately, the enforcement approach failed to the point that the law was ultimately changed.

Are entirely too plastic a concept.  Your proposal would lead to no effective limits to legal immigration, since any job that a foreigner would do for less than someone already here would entitle him to legal employment in this country.  That's good for him, and great for his employer, but it's bad for the vast majority of Americans who live on wages and salaries.  Whose needs are more important?

The American economy needs cheap, dependable, hardworking labor across the board.

Do we need it, or do employers want it?  Needs are pretty plastic things.  Bill Gates needs a private jet.  I just need a new refrigerator, though if I had a billion dollars, I'd probably need a large estate on Lake Superior, a brace of Purdey rifles, and my own private jet.  Employers in the early 20th century had a need for child labor, unsafe machinery, and human finger supplements in sausage.  

Raises prices across the board, leading to inflation, leading to those wages we had thought were enough not being enough.  (If a head of lettuce costs $10, getting $5/hr to pick it isn't going to make economic sense for American laborers.)  In other words, real wage gains would be more or less zero.

Maybe, maybe not.  Wages would tend to be redistributed away from the holders of capital to wage-earners, which is, to my point of view, a desirable and salutary effect.  As for picking lettuce, perhaps farmers would invest in mechanization, leading to the production of new machinery and skilled people to make it and maintain it. But why should they do so now?  Perhaps you're familiar with the theory that slavery retarded the economic advancement of the American South.  Is it apropos here?

Immigrants are the only truly available source of that labor.  Cutting off the flow of illegal immigrants, it is argued, will cut off the supply of labor and therefore raise wages domestically until Americans and legal immigrants are willing to do the work that illegals do now.

Yes, supply and demand.  Markets would adjust.  

I submit that this is simply inadequate to meet the needs of American employers, especially those who may need low-wage unskilled labor to remain competitive.

Remain competitive with whom?  Chinese slave factories?  Other American employers who, in a mad race to the bottom, are also depending on illegal labor, or simply prefer the greater "flexibility" it affords them?  

Really, I dislike this whole line of discussion.  Not that economic concerns are unimportant - they are - but the notion that our national policies should be aimed chiefly at enhancing shareholder value regardless of the monetary and non-monetary costs to the Republic or to the vast majority of people who live on wages is, frankly, morally bankrupt.

immigration.

I think a sane immigration policy would provide:

1. Easier and cheaper means for legal immigration for people who want to come here and work.  Right now it takes years and money to immigrate legally.  I am not certain we need caps, but if we have caps they should be raised.  I am also fine with temporary worker type cards, where people who want to come to work, can come, but they have to reapply every few years in order to stay.  But if the jobs are there and people are willing to work, I would rather them be here legally, and working totally on the books so taxes etc can be collected.
   
2.  A zero tolerance policy for those who come here illegally.  If you come here illegally, you get sent back home ASAP, you do not pass go and do not collect $200.  If immigration is easier then we need to make an advantage to doing it the right way, and make it so coming illegally isn't worth the attempt.  
   
3.  Have real consequences for businesses that knowingly hire illegals.  Make the fines and punishments enough of a detterant that they will only hire fully documented workers.  

The fact is right now legal immigration is so difficult and there is almost no consequence for being here illegally, that it isn't worth it to even bother to try to do it legally.  

I don't think there is a big deal with raising the number of legal immigrants, and I am fine with anyone coming here who wants to work and is willing to obey our laws-give them a green card and let them come work on the books.

Doing it this way wouldn't be that difficult.

You will soon find that the law becomes a dead letter at best, or a subejct of contempt at worst - particularly if economics are ignored on the basis of something like someone's socio-cultural views.

Exhibit A is the Volstead Act.

As for your "morally bankrupt" comment, I will note that those who wish to be generous with other people's money are living in a glass house on that front.

You make an excellent point.

The same thing exists when it comes to the difference between getting on welfare and starting a business.  The red tape for the latter is much greater than it is for the former.  It's a very perverse state of affairs.

I've been thinking about that, it is doesn't quite fit well. I was going to stop using it anyways because of that.

I'm just having a hard time finding a response to the idiotic claim that we must enforce all laws to their fullest extent (usually accompanied with an incorrect reference to the Rule of Law) and then we can think about changing them. We never enforce all laws to the letter, and because there are some lawbreakers, that isn't a good reason to not change them.

American is both a nation and a market. However, by nation you mean that she has an absolute right to make any law for whatever reason as long as the law only extends to the borders and the people under that law are not citizens having their other rights infringed. You think of non-legal immigrants on about the same level of a rock.

I asked substantive policy questions. You're version of argument is to ask pesty definitional questions that have no substabce, but then you can try and play definitional games. But that is all the anti-immigrant people can do, b/c their general philosophy is bankrupt.

This is mere annecdotal evidence, but whenever my father needed some extra help on a construction job, he would go down the day laborer hangout and get a group of guys. Even wtih only broken Spanish, he said it was easier to get them to do what he couldn't get Americans to do. They were harder working, complained less, and more conscienscious about the work they did. And if he threw in a dollar or two per hour above what the normally were paid, they did an even better job hoping to get hired again next time he needed help.

So even if wages rose domestically to prices Americans would be willing to work, too many of them are spoiled and quality would be bad.

They don't lob insults instead of arguments.

People like Cella and cyrus don't care about the economics. They are willing to make the exchange -- less economic development for fewer immigrants -- their dislike of immigrants runs so deeply.

presume acceptance of an ideology with which Mr. Cella and I have some rather sharp points of disagreement.  I fear that we may really have very little to discuss with a convinced libertarian, which I presume you are based on your comments, but we try, and there are of course others whose opinions may still be malleable and might be persuaded to our way of thinking.

Clancyphile uses the Volstead Act (prohibition) lower in another thread. That seems far better since it has some empiracism to it.

It was recognized as a bad law precisely because of it being impossible to enforce and how many people broke it. It would be very hard to defend it, saying that the Volstead Act should have been enforced entirely before it was repealed.

You hate mothers. Disprove.

That's enough for your own diary :)

More of a liberally leaning person.

. . . but rather that we would prefer not to be slaves to it.

It is precisely backwards to let economics dictate our principles -- for economics is a tool, just like any other applied discipline. Economics cannot give us a vision of the good life any more than biology can tell us why human life is sacred, or chemistry why a glass of beer after a hard day's work is such a great pleasure, or physics why men look to the heavens with such awe. Economics can surely aid us in our efforts to achieve the good life, but it cannot, of its own devices, articulate the good life. The reign of economics as a kind of totem is the sign of a servile people.

I just disagree with the proposition that a particular ideological view of what constitutes good economics - the maximization of earnings to capital - should trump all other concerns.  We need a society to have an economy.

As for your "morally bankrupt" comment, I will note that those who wish to be generous with other people's money are living in a glass house on that front.

We spend each other's money all the time:  It's the way that living in a governed society works.  All the rest is detail.

I beg of you to stop shooting our argument in the foot.

Can you see the difference between these statement.

1.  I dislike immigrants and don't want them in my country.
   
2.  I think there is something unique about America and its culture and I think letting in too many people from any one culture at any one time may dilute what is unique and special about our country.

To my reading #2 describes Paul and his ilk.

I disagree with both.  I think we have a unique and special culture that is not threatened by increased legal immigration.  And I think that increased legal immigration actually makes us stronger demographically, economically, politically, and culturally by renewing our commitment to those who work to better themselves and their families.

But by conflating 1 and 2 above, you are hurting your own argumentation.  If someone is racist or hates immigrants, call them on it.  But if they are neither, then don't try to pin the label unfairly.

If you have a point, then say it directly. You are going to go the "defending our sovereignty" route, however you are trying to shoehorn it into the definition of nation: because the US is a nation, then it has a responsiblity to protect its borders from invaders.

This is just an attempt to pass over all the problems that have been pointed out over and over again with that strange interpretation of nation that includes such fierce defense of borders against anybody as a prerequisite of being a nation.

If we move ahead with this argument (or any argument, really) without establishing first principle, all we will sow is confusion and bitterness.

Pressing the question of what our priority is -- prosperity for our businessmen or the conservation of our nation -- is certainly not petty "definitional games."

If your position is that prosperity (understood here as continued profits for companies that employ alot of illegals) is more important than perserving our nation in its particular and distinct form, then our disagreement is complete.

But at least we will have achieved a disagreement. With all your slipperiness on this question of the function of economics, we cannot even do that.

I make no apologies about this principle: economics answers to politics. Do you (and clancyphile) wish to propound the reverse?

Debate at will. Have fun. You and I are closer on this in some ways than I am to Paul. However, the fact that you and I align on this so closely has forced me to remember Reagan's adage.

This, however:

You think of non-legal immigrants on about the same level of a rock.

Is insulting, stupid, and probably violates the posting rules. Play nice or don't play.

My point.

Wages would tend to be redistributed away from the holders of capital to wage-earners, which is, to my point of view, a desirable and salutary effect.

There is always a wage transfer and you can always frame it as going to some subset of workers. What you ignore is the higher costs that the consumers will pay, less efficient capital accumulation by US businesses (and labor is helped by the addition of capital), and the marginal producers that cease econoic activity as profit margins fall. The cost isn't going to be carried by a single small group, but instead by a large section of the country.

I assume you support a high minimum wage. And shutting off all immigration would help push those wages even higher in all segments of the labor market, especially tech and unskilled.

This is the same problem Democratic economists make when they equate wage increase, regardless of how they are come by, as unmitigated good.

Yes, supply and demand.  Markets would adjust.

I don't think you understand what that means. It isn't always good to have to adjust. It simply means a new clearing price will be found. However, in this case that new clearing price will be at a lower level of production.

I'm just having a hard time finding a response to the idiotic claim that we must enforce all laws to their fullest extent

Perhaps your puzzle could be partially solved by the realization that neither myself, nor anyone else, made such a claim.

We're talking about certain specific laws; laws which uniquely impinge upon the character and destiny of our nation and its people. In short we are talking, ultimately, about who we are.

Now you said something interesting? So slowing immigration is a mere principle now -- good for its own sake?

Economics cannot give us a vision of the good life any more than biology can tell us why human life is sacred

And the reason why this is true is because biology doesn't involve normative judgements. So you are definitely saying that restricting immigration is good just because it is the right thing to do.

This gets to the heart of it and shows how lacking the ideology is since it can only be assumed to be correct instead of being shown correct.

(NT)

-TS

The guy's become almost a folk hero amongst the law and order crowd.  Pity that he lives in Arizona rather than Illinois as I would love to see him go head to head with Diaperboy Durbin the next time he whines about our treatment of terrorist suspects in Gitmo.

in the form of a reductio ad absurdum, but why not support slavery, then?  I know you don't, but why not?  If we should always get labor at the lowest possible rate, why not?  Presumably because there are, eventually, things that are more important.

There is always a wage transfer and you can always frame it as going to some subset of workers. What you ignore is the higher costs that the consumers will pay, less efficient capital accumulation by US businesses (and labor is helped by the addition of capital), and the marginal producers that cease econoic activity as profit margins fall. The cost isn't going to be carried by a single small group, but instead by a large section of the country.

There are numerous hidden economic costs from essentially unlimited immigration, too, which you ignore.  

I don't think you understand what that means. It isn't always good to have to adjust. It simply means a new clearing price will be found. However, in this case that new clearing price will be at a lower level of production.

Again, you assume too much, both about me, and about what is "good."

So you are definitely saying that restricting immigration is good just because it is the right thing to do.

In fact what I am saying is that perserving our nation as something unique and particular is a good thing; that mass immigration is damaging that good thing; and that, therefore, it ought to stop.

I don't really see anything exclusive about those two descriptions. They don't want immigrants because of a fear of dilluting American culture (we'll ignore the obvious problem of defining American culture w/o making reference to the "melting pot" and our historic reliance on immigrants).

The seem to go hand in hand.

Remember, this is the same group of RS posters where one advocated keeping out all members of a particular ethnic group and others cheered him on. Also, some of them are already on record of as wanting zero immigration for now.

Lately, I'm having a hard time not conflating them, myself.  It's often because you do not see the folks in category #2 distance themselves from category #1.  Sometimes the former seem to actively defend the latter when they are called out.

Politics must account for economics.  When politics fails to do so, the results cannot be good.

"In fact what I am saying is that perserving our nation as something unique and particular is a good thing; that mass immigration is damaging that good thing; and that, therefore, it ought to stop."

In fact, had America held the idiotic belief that mass immigration is inherently damaging to the country throughout our entire history, you would not be here.

Hey, that brings something to mind: those folks who want to restrict immigration, and who are here only because we didn't restrict immigration way-back-when, should be deported.

Lead by example, good sir!

And it isn't a good one. And I can't figure out how to describe it w/o getting awfully close to being banned. Let me try to do it though: You seem to place a priotity on not having more Mexican culture blend with "American" culture.

However, the claim that we must enforce all laws to their fullest extent has been made repeatedly, most recently by Neil Stevens who equated chaning laws to "blackmail." And when I pointed out we do the same for tax compliance, he made if abudantly clear he wouldn't be willing to change immigration laws until the illega part was cleared up.

And there is a constant argument over how much do we need to stop illegal immigration before any of the anti-immigrant group would be happy enough to allow more legal immigration. Clancyphile came right out and asked the question and it was dodged.

Where you and I disagree, I think, is in the inventiveness and resilience of the American people.

You view illegal alien labor as a necessity.  I view it as a crutch.  You think if we remove it, we won't do as well.  I think if we remove it, we'll have to stand on our own two feet, and will walk stronger for it.

You say Americans aren't dependable or hard-working.  I say they're only so unreliable when you try to pay them low wages.

You say we need to keep paying these low wages or we'll have inflation.  I say if the crutch is removed, we'll find more efficient ways of doing things than just using waves of cheap manpower.  Example: California raisin growers can continue to develop cheaper dried-on-the-vine ways to prepare raisins than picking each grape individually first.

We have historical evidence that cheap labor retards an economy.  Just compare the South with the North in the times of slavery and sharecropping.  Who had the more productive economy?

So to sum up, you say this:

"I submit that this is simply inadequate to meet the needs of American employers, especially those who may need low-wage unskilled labor to remain competitive."

And I say, if that's true, then we're doomed to fail anyway, since we can't innovate anymore.  Luckily, I don't think that's true, and we could start innovating again as soon as we have the necessity.

There's a reason Japan has all the robot development these days: they're serious about fighting illegal immigration.

P.S. You missed a reason illegal aliens are bad: our porous border is wide open for a terrorist with a suitcase nuke to come across.

How long is this guy allowed to use the old Democrat talking point, equating anti-illegal immigration with anti-immigration?

When you try to regulate things by ignoring or downplaying, you get unintended consequences.  We had a workable guest-worker program prior to 1965.  It was terminated as a favor to the AFL-CIO.

The consequences of that was to make what had been a managable problem much worse.  Back then, people didn't feel the need to bring their families.  Now, they do.

Keep the Law of Unintended Conseuqences in mind when you pass laws, or else the market will send them up, and they're gonna bite you someplace that is pretty painful.

...get up with fleas.

There might be some truth to that.

Often, the illegal immigration is used as an entree into efforts to cut immigration down altogether.

Several people on RS have admitted to being anti-immigrant.  The problem is that many anti-illegal immigrant types are mixing with the anti-immigrant types and it is hard to tell which is which.

In a sibling thread Cella says #1 by using reason #2. Here is the full text of the comment: "In fact what I am saying is that perserving our nation as something unique and particular is a good thing; that mass immigration is damaging that good thing; and that, therefore, it ought to stop."

He cements position by using normative judges to create a position unasailable by reason: that American culture is a good thing, changing American culture is a bad thing, being unique is all that is needed to deserve protection even if that protection has economic consequences.

Can you not fathom that someone wants to stop immigration for reasons other than hating immigrants?

"How long is this guy allowed to use the old Democrat talking point, equating anti-illegal immigration with anti-immigration?"

As long as your bubbas insist on making it a valid talking point.

still working?  There are numerous reasons to believe that the melting pot is broken, that the current flow of immigrants is less assimilable than past flows of immigrants, and that today's officially multicultural America is less capable of assimilating any immigrants than the America of 100 years ago.  You can't assimilate to a nullity, as someone once said.

and he can't make an argument without calling those who disagree with him a racist.

Ah, but he does it as a first resort, as a change of subject, no matter what the anti-illegal immigration person says.

Anyway, After this comment I did see below, when he was being asked to change his tactics.  I hope that effort is a success.

I wish we could expunge the Tancredo element of the party in general.  But alas, there is a much larger group who care about immigration who are not racist or ill-intentioned.

Analogy.  Some people hate homosexuals.  Many, many more think marriage should not be changed to include same-sex couples.  From the left, many people conflate the two and embarass themselves in doing so.  They talk about the 70% of the county who oppose re-defining marriage as "bigoted."  This is not true and it hurts the efforts of those who want to re-define marriage.

I don't want the pro-immigration wing of the party to look as silly in its denouncement of the anti-immigrant wing.  Specifically, we should take time to identify who dislikes or hates immigrants in general and who is making a culturally populist message about defened the American way of life (even if one, like myself, disagrees with that message).

"There are numerous reasons to believe that the melting pot is broken, that the current flow of immigrants is less assimilable than past flows of immigrants, and that today's officially multicultural America is less capable of assimilating any immigrants than the America of 100 years ago."

Sure, there may be "numerous reasons" to believe that. There are also numerous reasons to believe that your "numerous reasons" are not valid.

justify your a priori conviction that immigration enforcement is impossible, without appealing to cretinous tautologies such as are involved in claiming that it is futile because economic law makes it futile.

Can we tell the difference?

Paul J. Cella's quote (cited by jjayson) is flat-out leaning towards anti-immigration in general.

Even then, we see a lot of folks from the "anti-illegal immigration only" group pretending nothing is inherently wrong with the folks in the "anti-immigrant" group.

...I hereby collect the win. Good day, sir!

"Leaning toward" is your interpretation. The actual words mean something different.

The second part of your comment is insulting in its implications.

Good luck.

I recently attended a fascinating lecture that bears on this topic by Prof. Daryl Winn of Univ. of Colorado, Boulder.  The premise was to examine different kinds of capitalism to see which yielded the best end result.  Broadly speaking, he broke it down into two kinds of capitalism: Consumer Capitalism (Anglo-American tradition) vs. Producer Capitalism (Continental European/Asian tradition).  His conclusion is that Consumer Capitalism, in which  policies are judged by the effect on the consumer, is superior to Producer Capitalism, in which policies tended to benefit the producer and/or workers, even if the policies are to the detriment of consumer interests.

I think illegal immigration fits right into this analysis.  Increasing the limits on legal immigration would tend to benefit the consumer with lower prices.  It will hurt certain producers and certain workers (American low-skill workers), and therein lies a major political problem.  But it will benefit consumers -- just as illegal immigrant workers today benefit consumers in many, many industries (food service and agriculture come to mind).  In the long run, Consumer Capitalism leads to greater prosperity for everyone involved: consumers, producers, and workers.  It does have a decidedly negative impact on the low-skilled, uneducated worker, but frankly, I'm not all that sympathetic to those who refuse to take advantage of this great country of ours and what it offers to its people in terms of opportunity.

Your criticism that my proposal leads to no effective limit on immigration is a valid one.  I just don't see that as a major negative.  Your criticism I believe applies with equal force to capital and to trade generally.  Americans taking dollars out of our economy to invest in other countries are "hurting" our producers and workers just as surely, if not more, as illegal immigration does.  Same with trade.  But the benefits outweigh the costs all in all.  So on the whole, just as I don't support restrictions on the inflow or outflow of capital, I don't support restrictions on movement of labor.

Besides, labor flows with far more difficulty.  After all, there are major costs to the immigrant -- financial, social, political, and cultural -- in deciding to come to the U.S.

As to the question of need vs. want in the labor markets, I'm of the opinion that the very existence of millions upon millions of illegal immigrants working in this country is evidence of the need.  It is obviously easier as a manager/employer to hire English-speaking Americans: we share the same culture, the same language, similar values, etc.  So to take on the costs of having to work with a non-American, and an illegal one at that, surely suggests something more than want.  And there are industries with which I am not familiar, such as agriculture, where I really can't say whether it is a need or a want; again, I think the very existence of illegal labor suggests a need to remain price-competitive.

As to your suggestion that restricting labor leads to capital investments:

Maybe, maybe not.  Wages would tend to be redistributed away from the holders of capital to wage-earners, which is, to my point of view, a desirable and salutary effect.  As for picking lettuce, perhaps farmers would invest in mechanization, leading to the production of new machinery and skilled people to make it and maintain it. But why should they do so now?  Perhaps you're familiar with the theory that slavery retarded the economic advancement of the American South.  Is it apropos here?

I think this may very well be the case.  However, in that case, let us agree that the choice is not between low-wage immigrant labor vs. higher-wage American labor, but between low-wage immigrant labor vs. no-wage mechanization.  In other words, restricting or eliminating cheap labor would not lead to any increase in jobs for the low-skilled American worker.  (Let's agree that the low-skilled workers who might replace the illegal farm worker won't be getting jobs programming robots and engineering industrial combines, ok?)  Companies would either invest in robots/machines, or decide to do something else with the land that is more productive.  And American consumers will be facing $5 lettuce and $10 oranges, leading to lower standard of living for everyone.

And this contradicts, I think, your belief that restricting the flow of cheap labor would activate market forces to raise wages until Americans want to do those jobs.  For one thing, as I've said, such a rise in wages would naturally have a significant inflationary effect as low-skilled workers get paid more, companies charge more for those products, with a chain reaction type of effect.  It isn't about the number of dollars one gets; it's about what one can buy with those dollars that matters.  For another, as you've pointed out, eliminating cheap labor leads to mechanization, not to jobs for higher-wage Americans.

The question of competition is a good one.  My response is that if all firms in a particular sector (let's say all agribusinesses) were affected equally, then they would remain in competitive balance.  Everyone would hire more expensive American workers, and make investments in robots/machinery, and be about the same.  Manufacturing and other kinds of jobs that can be performed abroad would simply shift abroad.  Service jobs that cannot be would go up in compensation, but all of these producers having to pay their workforce more money would just charge more for their products and services.  The effect, again, is lower economic activity across the board, followed by restabilization at a higher nominal dollar point, but equal or lower real household income position.  Again, $5 lettuce, $10 oranges, and so on will lead eventually to $500 Nike shoes and so forth.

The national/cultural concerns are perfectly valid -- and I agree that economic concerns are not the only ones we need to consider.  There is a value to having an American nation (which is why I want core curriculum, and English-as-official-language, but those are other topics).  

However, illegal immigrants are almost by definition unassimilable -- because they're constantly hiding.  Nobody is coming to their kid's PTA meeting if he or she is afraid of being arrested and deported.  That is, if he/she is putting kids into school at all in the first place.  Impossible to assimilate those people.  Also impossible to have good law enforcement among that kind of a community (which bears on our anti-terror efforts).  Legal immigrants, on the other hand, assimilate all the time.  I'm an example of that.  Legal immigrants have as vested an interest in our national security and in our national success as the citizens do.  One day they or their children will become citizens.  So if our goal is to keep a certain national character, a certain Americanness to our culture, I submit that the way to achieve that is to increase legal immigration until illegal immigration isn't worth it.

-TS

Thanks to the similar religious and cultural values and their work ethic, assimilation is actually doing pretty good.  Most groups who are not reflexively anti-immigrant acknowledge that the 2nd generation immigrants are almost wholely assimilated.  Here are a couple tidbits from the Economist article:

such fears are much exaggerated. There are problems, to be sure, though these mostly concern America's immigration policy and illegal immigrants. But legal immigrants are neither as numerous nor as culturally different as the pessimists fear. And, far from exacerbating the centrifugal forces in America, immigrants are helping to counteract them....

This immigrant diffusion piggybacks on domestic migration and is essential to the boom in America's fastest-growing areas. Without it, cities that have attracted lots of well-educated domestic migrants would have seized up, becoming top-heavy with university graduates. Arguably, that is happening in San Francisco. But in many boomtowns, Latinos have poured in to take up the basic jobs in construction, food and distribution that cities need to back up their growth. The cities of the inland South and west are wealthy because white Americans are pouring into them. But they keep growing because immigrants are tagging along in the domestic migrants' wake.

This dispersal is allaying the main fear of immigration's critics: that Hispanics will cluster in giant ghettos without interacting with the rest of America. It is true that illegal immigrants are often trapped in a semi-criminalised shadow economy, unable to move up or out. But for the legal sort, the signs of mobility and assimilation are everywhere--not assimilation as in becoming the same as everyone else, but assimilation as in becoming citizens, taking part in politics, enlisting in the army, paying taxes and speaking English.

America seems in no danger of becoming a society divided by language. In 2002, a survey by the Pew Hispanic Centre and the Kaiser Family Foundation found that over 90% of second-generation Hispanics were either bilingual or mainly English-speaking, split equally between the two. In the third generation, more than three-quarters were mainly English-speaking....

First-generation Mexican immmigrant men in their late 40s have had six fewer years of full-time education than their white American-born peers. Their sons are only one year short....

Lastly, there is evidence that new immigrants, Hispanics especially, are joining the rest of the American people in the most direct possible way: by marrying them. Almost a third of all marriages involving a Hispanic or Asian partner cross racial lines (counting Hispanics as a race for this purpose). By most standards, American rates of mixed-race marriage have been low: one in 23 marriages in 1990, up to one in 15 in 2000. Latinos seem to be leading the way in breaking down that barrier. Nearly half of all the 3.7m inter-racial marriages in the country have one Hispanic partner.

I understand the fear of non-assimilation, but I think it is overplayed by the remaining Know Nothing crowd.  We continue to assimilate people through the natural processes of jobs, school, community, and church.  In fact, assimilation is worse among the illegal immigrant sector.  Legalizing or allowing more legal immigration would help assimilation efforts.

The problem is, when the folks making the "culturally populist" message ignore - or defend - the ones who have the general dislikes (the Tancredo wing).

The satisfaction of being able to claim victory without once having articulated a cogent argument?  

Really, I'm interested in engaging in constructive dialogue, but in order to do so, you will need to answer certain questions.  Such as, why is a certain small set of economic needs - contingent ones, at that, given the operations of markets in response to changed circumstances - to be priveleged over all other concerns traditionally thought to fall within the purview of politics?  That's just a start.

Is that some kind of subtle slur?

You may think it's idiotic, but it probably doesn't win anyone over by saying it.  Just disprove the arguments without insulting your sparing partner.  We'll all be happier that way.

Be against heightened immigration levels without being personally anti-immigrant.

...2,100 miles of border sufficient to deter most crossers, and catch the excessively motivated ones who choose to cross anyway. will require a bare minimum of 30 agents per mile, 24/7, plus supervisory overhead (15%, 24/7), plus administrative and logistical overhead (another 15% of the 20-agents-per-mile figure, 8/5).

2,100 miles x 30 agents/mile = 63,000.

63,000 times 0.15 = 9,450.

(Incidentally, this level of supervisory/administrative overhead is FAR more efficient than most federal agencies ever get in real life.)

Total 24/7 manning for the border: 63,000 + 9,450 = 72,450; times five (to man one post 24/7 and still allow for weekends off/vacations/other necessary absences) = 362,250.

Add 9,450 personnel for admin overhead: 371,700.

371,700 federal employees at an average loaded cost of $150K per employee: $55,775,000,000 per year.

The only way you will get almost 56 gigabucks per year for this mission is to justify it as anti-terrorism. The problem is that opponents will point to the remaining 17,000 miles of unsecured border as a great big gaping hole in your "anti-terrorism" security perimeter, and then gleefully point out the additional $473,917,500,000 per year needed to secure the remaining perimeter to that standard.

arguing we should judge on motivation and intent rather than action and result? =)

When both groups are advocating the exact same thing, it's hard for some of us to be as precise as we ought to be in separating them. Seems to me those in the second camp might do more to distinguish themselves from the first.

Adam, for your charity.  It should be a lesson to everyone in arguments, particularly on the Internet.  I hate to have to say this, but I have nothing personal against immigrants, legal or even illegal (criminals, petty and otherwise, and terrorists excepted) per se.  I can hardly condemn people who come here to improve their lives.  After all, we, for the most part, let them do it, and how could one not be moved by the terrible plight so many of them flee?  But immigration to the US is not a global anti-poverty or anti-dictatorship program.  It can't be, since there are far too many poor and oppressed people in the world.  We would sink under their weight.  It must be limited, and could be limited and controlled in ways that would unequivocally enhance economic growth without threatening racial and ethnic Balkanization or giving us an ecologically disastrous population explosion like our present de facto policy of lax controls.

My interpretation has been that there is a tendency to ignore the pandering.

Look at Michelle Malkin's archive on VDARE.  Look at her archives at Townhall and Creators Syndicate.  The one at VDARE shows a one-day "advance" on her column (the dates are for Tuesdays there, the same column appears a day later on Townhall and Creators).

Take a look at the stuff on VDARE.  Is that stuff you want the GOP and the conservaitve movement to be associated with?

squat. But you do receive a warning. Another instance of calling or imputing racism gets you booted. Good day, sir.

Welcome to politics in a free country.  People with different goals work together when it suits them.  "Politics makes strange bedfellows," as the saying goes.

It happens in Republican issues all the time.  Just look at the opponents of Roe v. Wade.  Some favor a national total abortion ban, some favor statewide total bans, some favor allowing states to make those bans, but favor only limited abortion bans.

To ask one wing of the anti-Roe coalition to defend another makes no sense. They have different goals, even if sometimes those goals coincide (such as with the appointment of judges who oppose Roe).  Especially when some even favor activist anti-Roe judges, while the rest oppose all judicial activism.

Likewise, the anti-illegal alien coalition has many groups in it.  Some, like me, just want to enforce the laws on the books today, but are open to increasing quotas in the future if the economy shows signs of needing it.  Some want to secure the border and increase legal immigration.  Some want to close the border entirely.

What they have in common is a desire to call the current situation a problem, and a desire for greater law enforcement.  That's pretty much it.

Combining the groups in your mind is intellectually lazy.

"It must be limited, and could be limited and controlled in ways that would unequivocally enhance economic growth without threatening racial and ethnic Balkanization or giving us an ecologically disastrous population explosion like our present de facto policy of lax controls."

I agree with this except the insinuation that the solution is to cut back on legal immigration.  As the article I linked to elsewhere pointed out, we risk Balkanization because so many immigrants are here illegally.  I think we agree on the problem, and differ on the solution.  I think raising our legal numbers to 1% of current population would be good for the nation.  It would make enforcing the law financially and practically feasible.  It would allow us to grow many times faster than Europe or Japan and not fall further behind India and China.  It would bring the supply and demand for unskilled labor in North America into an equilibrium.  And sometimes forgotten, it would bring the balkinized segments of society back into the assimilation process that still works far better than many like to admit.

"The satisfaction of being able to claim victory without once having articulated a cogent argument?"

I leave that to you and yours.

Malkin lets a site that you (and for what it's worth, I) find more than slightly detestable have a one-day lead on her columns. This means that:

(1) At best she's pandering to racists, at worst she's one;

(2) Malkin is now the GOP; and

(3) Cats and dogs are living together.

Sloppy logic. And still has nothing to do with the other commenter you were smearing.

Who cares what President Fox would think?  What's he going to do, seal the border?

I think you add a lot to RedState and I hope you will tone down your rhetoric and continue to be a valuable part of the community.

"dislike of immigrants"

But if you persist in cries of racism or anti-immigrant accusations, we will have to send you on your way.

If you really can't grasp the difference between anti-immigration and anti-immigrant, then you may want to stay away from these threads.

whose back of the envelope math produces such numbers. You also have to figure in training costs, equipment costs, the cost of building a vast new infrastructure of holding pens and jails. Moreover, if you're going to do it right, there's going to need to be major investments in smart border technology, CCTV, sensory equipment, etc.

My guess is the ten year cost of truly bolstering our border with Mexico is something like a trillion dollars. And that's before you even begin to worry about our much longer border with Canada (and Poobah, there ain't no way we're gooing to be able to afford to make the Northern border as bristling with agents as the southern) not to mention our shoreline. Not to mention visa jumpers who stay here permanently after visiting DisneyWorld.

I think you are getting a little high-handed here.  The fact is that when I look at some of the folks who Michelle Malkin and Tancredo hang out with (to wit, VDARE and Pat Buchanan), I have wonder about their judgement or worse.

But it doesn't really do the trick.  Thirty agents per mile?  Ok, the distance from my driveway to the intersection of the exit road of my neighbourhood with the nearest through-road is .5 mile.  Fifteen agents along a distance that small would leave them well within sight of one another, which, given the possibilities of modern detection technologies, the fact that the border is not one undifferentiated string of equally-attractive crossing points and the demonstrable deterrent effect of even modest increases in border surveillance, such as the Minutemen Project, leads me to conclude that your estimates are ....  out of whack.

So, I'm not persuaded.

In a multi-trillion dollar budget, 56 billion is chump change.

That kind of money gets spent in the supplementals nobody gives a second look at (unless Senator Kerry is running for President).

who, in the span of just a few, brief exchanges, brought this whole thing down to the level of six-year-olds on the playground.  

Ideology tends to do that to a soul.  

about the ends of our policy.  Unlike most Republicans or RS posters, the environment is a major concern of mine, and I don't want to see that much growth in population.  I feel crowded and overwhelmed by sprawl enough as it is, and I hate to see more hillsides and farmland covered with houses, roads, and strip malls, which is exactly what we get with such rapid, immigration-fueled population growth.  I think that, as long as we have a relatively free economy, we will continue to grow faster than Europe or Japan, and don't require large-scale immigration to do so.  And looking at China and India, their billion-plus populations are more of a hindrance to their nations than a boon.

As the article I linked to elsewhere pointed out, we risk Balkanization because so many immigrants are here illegally.

Would raising our legal numbers necessarily reduce the number of illegals?  Illegals provide certain benefits to employers, so there will continue to be a demand for them, and on the supply side, the number of potential entrants to the US exceeds even your proposed 1% a year.

The Economist article is encouraging on its face.

The Sophist's top level comment is anti-illegal immigration.

However Cella, cyrus, Neil Stevens, etc are anti-immigrant in general. Also, most of the arguments used by that crowd are equally applicable to legal as well as illegal immigration (such as the cultural preservation and jobs arguments).

Instead of asking me, maybe you should ask yourself if you can see the difference. You seem to want to throw everybody in the anti-illegal immigrant group when the difference between The Sophist and Cella are clear.

If I did, I would have been banned. I've been very careful to try and stay away from anything even remotely close.

I understand that the current mayor of Mexico City and likely to be the next President of Mexico is proposing to build a bullet train from Mexico City to a depot right at the border to give more people the ability to cross the border.  He's a socialist and highly popular with the urban poor in Mexico.

It was in the Wall Street Journal this week but I don't have the link.

If we don't do something soon, things could get much, much worse.

For a visible effort on the part of those who are opposing illegal immigration to distance themselves from the more fringe elements on the issue.

Has anyone really decided to ask her, "Michelle, why are you giving these guys a one-day lead on your column?  Why have you called it 'another great resource'?  Why have you named that site on two occaisons?"

I don't read her blog, but a google search on her site finds that she's promoting VDARE.com on at least 26 pages.

Don't take my word for it.  Just look for yourself.

does not equal anti-immigrant.  Can you please acknowledge that?

On your last point.  The mismatch between supply and demand is so far out of whack right now that it drives the systematic and organized illegal operations (think drug markets or obscene rent control as similar levels of mismatch).  If we upped legal immigration from 1 to 3 million a year (which is slightly more than we get both legal and illegal right now), then there is a good reason for immigrants to try to come legally which there is not right now.  If 2.5 million (of the 3 million I propose) were Mexicans, we would actually take in the whole country within 40 years if that many actually came continuously (which I have a hard time believing) so there is a limit to how many proximate, potential immigrants we have who are likely to come illegally if we don't give them a better option.

I'm an economist, I think in terms of incentives.  If I were a potential immigrants, what would I do?  That is the way I approach the issue.  And we either need to make it prohibitively costly for the immigrant to try to come illegally or make it easy and cheap enough for them to come legally.  I think the first entails too many costs and too few benefits for the country.

You're just a liberal Democrat, here to stir up trouble and split the Republican party.

No sensible Republican open-borders advocate would say this garbage.  It's only the Fabian Nunezs of the world who do.

If this is your standard for booting, then most of the site should be gone. Relax that itchy trigger finger. Is there like a quota you need to meet?

There was nothing remotely about racism in his post.  I think this topic makes everyone sensitive.  So let's hold off on the triggers unless someone uses terms like "anti-immigrant" or "racist" or "brown people" etc.

Calling an argument "idiotic" isn't the same as calling somebody an idiot. Next time somebody calls an argument "idiotic" or "stupid" I expect to see you take such a hard line.

or a subtle expression of disdain for the sort of American likely to be disfavoured by the current political/economic preference for illegal labour, or both.  Pick.

It was a suggestion.  I am doing my best to help those on my side in this argument.  That includes not insulting the other side's argument, but rather defeating them.

You view illegal alien labor as a necessity.  I view it as a crutch.  You think if we remove it, we won't do as well.  I think if we remove it, we'll have to stand on our own two feet, and will walk stronger for it.

I think you misread my post, and are mischaracterizing my argument.  I am arguing for increased LEGAL immigration as a necessity.  There is a major difference, as my original response laid out.

You say Americans aren't dependable or hard-working.  I say they're only so unreliable when you try to pay them low wages.

Let's face it.  Work sucks; otherwise it wouldn't be work.  We have managed to raise whole generations of Americans who can't deal with work.  Whether it is our teachers unions controlled public education system that does not educate, or our corrupt culture that glorifies airheaded bimbos like Paris Hilton, or our pop music that's all about bling bling, or TV shows that are not sending the right message, or broken homes, or drug abuse, or whatever it is, fact is that we have people in this country who are not employable in any reasonable sense of the term.  I don't think it would matter whether they were paid $5/hr or $50/hr -- they're culturally, educationally, habitually ill-prepared for the workforce.

Is removing illegal immigration, and forcing employers to raise the nominal pay, going to suddenly make college-educated workers want to go pick strawberries for 10 hours a day?  I don't think so.  Does that mean these unemployable American workers will suddenly start behaving like immigrants -- working hard, not complaining, conscientious, and aspirational?  I don't think so.

Among our working classes -- the skilled blue collar workers -- and in our middle classes, Americans are among the hardest working, most productive people in the world.  But among the no-skill, low-skill workforce?  I don't think so.  And no amount of pay is going to change that.

You say we need to keep paying these low wages or we'll have inflation.  I say if the crutch is removed, we'll find more efficient ways of doing things than just using waves of cheap manpower.  Example: California raisin growers can continue to develop cheaper dried-on-the-vine ways to prepare raisins than picking each grape individually first.

We have historical evidence that cheap labor retards an economy.  Just compare the South with the North in the times of slavery and sharecropping.  Who had the more productive economy?

As I have pointed out above, this ultimately means that the choice is between cheap immigrant labor (that is currently illegal, that I urge should be legal) and mechanization, NOT between cheap immigrant labor and expensive American labor.

"I submit that this is simply inadequate to meet the needs of American employers, especially those who may need low-wage unskilled labor to remain competitive."

And I say, if that's true, then we're doomed to fail anyway, since we can't innovate anymore.  Luckily, I don't think that's true, and we could start innovating again as soon as we have the necessity.

There's a reason Japan has all the robot development these days: they're serious about fighting illegal immigration.

Actually, a better example of robot/mechanization comes from Germany.  Thanks to incredibly rigid labor markets, including an immigration policy that is second to none in terms of restrictiveness, Germany in 2004 has (courtesty of Dr. Darly Winn, but I don't have this in electronic form):

1. Unemployment rates > 10%
   
   
2. No job growth since 1970
   
   
3. 1.4% average annual economic growth over last decade, compared to 3.3% average annual growth for U.S.
   
   
4. Robots, robots, robots everywhere.

Take a look, for example, at a BMW factory.  Almost everything a human could conceivably do in putting a car together, a robot does it in Germany.  This isn't because of some desire to be world-class technology leaders.  It's because of German labor and immigration policies.  It's innovation, of a sort, I guess.  But tell that to the 10% of Germans who are out of work and can't get jobs as robot engineers or computer programmers.

Nonetheless, this line of reasoning is ultimately a red herring for the reason mentioned.  Eliminating cheap immigrant labor does not create expensive American jobs.  It creates mechanization and robotics, and eliminates all of those jobs altogether.  I'm not opposed to that, but I will say the anti-immigration argument will need to find another angle.

-TS

P.S.: By the way, I didn't miss the terrorist angle -- I specifically mentioned the business that illegal immigration creates for organized crime.  I also mentioned the problem of law enforcement not being all that jazzed about rounding up a bunch of poor chumps who are just looking to make a few bucks, so they turn a kind of a blind eye to the problem.  Eliminate the need for illegal immigration, and it makes border interdiction much easier.

The trick is, though, that someone has to produce the machines.  It can't be a never-ending series of machines that produce the machines.

Someone has to design the machines.

Someone has to maintain them.

Someone has to monitor them.

Someone has to clean up after them.

Someone has to load them.

Someone has to sell them.

Someone has to write the webpage for the company that sells them.

Someone has to man the telephones at the company that sells them.

Yes, mechanization creates good jobs for Americans.

As I've argued, legal immigrants assimilate very well.  Illegal immigrants assimilate very poorly -- probably has something to do with constantly hiding from the police, not registering with Social Security, not going to church picnics and the like.

Solution: More legal immigration ==> less illegal immigration.

-TS

If you were writing solely about legal immigration, why did you feel your comment fits in a thread about combating illegal immigration?

Wait, a conservative arguing we should judge on motivation and intent rather than action and result?

How else do you judge a person. Policies should be judged on their merits, but moral decisions are made in their motivation. For Christian conservatives this should seem strikingly familiar to the concecpt of judging a person by their hear.

Also there are good rational reasons to disassociate yourself with a group who may have overlap in your policy suggestions but who you disagree with in other very important matters since they might use you to push for those disagreeable ends.

How about a guest worker program?

Are you saying that as long as another group has some of the same policy ends as you, it is acceptable to ask them into the tend and work with them? So the Nazis that patrol the borders along with Minutemen who are not racist should be accepted (as long as they just don't make a big deal out of being Nazis by hauling out the flags at rallys)?

There has to be a line in which motive does become important. And racism -- Nazi or not -- seems to definitely be on the wrong side of the line.

Assuming that the employer in question engages in a legal business (i.e., not a prostitution ring), what benefit does it get from illegals that it would not get from legal immigrants?

Apart from cost, I can't think of one.

(By the way, I oppose minimum wage legislation, and believe people should be paid what the market will bear.  So let's hope it's a non-financial benefit of some kind.)

-TS

the Republican approach to illegal immigration, and I am a Republican, and my approach (while it may be unpopular) is one that I would like to put forth for my party to consider:

Increase LEGAL immigration until ILLEGAL immigration becomes unnecessary.

-TS

They exist.  And an employer paying $2 an hour, no benefits and no FICA is saving a lot compared to $6 an hour, FICA, and some basic benefits.  Especially when you consider overtime pay and the number of employees.

There is an incentive for them to find illegal workers.  But the incentive for the workers is to be legal, given the chance.

You just argued that people should be kept in poverty where they use less resources. Are you sure about that?

"why did you feel your comment fits in a thread about combating illegal immigration"

Because one solution is to allow more legal immigrants so that the supply and demand of immigrants is more in line with market forces.

who would be picking strawberries in California.

So yes, it would lead to jobs in the robotics and related high-tech industries.  I granted as much.

I am pointing out that the low-skilled, no-skill American worker is still just as out of luck after shutting down illegal immigration as he is today.

So can we agree to dispose of this employment-related populist argument for crackdown on illegal immigration?

-TS

to have a detterent component to discourage the illegal immigration, so that the easier method is legal immigration.

Immigration is too expensive and takes too much time.  Make legal immigration easier and cheaper for those who mostly want to come here to work.  

Have a zero tolerance policy for illegal immigration-you get caught, you get shipped back across the border ASAP period.

And businessess that still knowingly hire illegals should have real consequences involved.

If you make illegal immigration unpleasant enough, while making legal immigration easy, you should end up with a willing immigrant workforce that is correctly documented, and earning money, and paying taxes on that money.

What he argued was more along the lines of, "We have obligations to Americans here at home that we do not have to non-Americans living abroad."

Tremendous difference.

However, there is a good argument to be made that some of the arguments called anti-immigration -- even if not intended --  are essentially anti-immigrant.

Take the cultural dilution angle. It is impossible to divorce the culture of somebody (especially when given a negative light in that in harms the American culture) from that person itself. Saying you don't want their culture to destroy American culture is essentially saying you don't want the immigrant unless he leaves behind his identity.

My goals are to deal with the three problems I outlined above:

• Illegals don't pay taxes
  
• Illegals are anonymous
  
• Illegals finance organized crime (which is the major hole for terrorist infiltration)

If guest worker programs will deal with these three problems, I'm fine with it.

-TS

There are numerous criminals who want to break in my window and take my television.

Shall I let supply of my television meet demand, and unlock my door?

"So can we agree to dispose of this employment-related populist argument for crackdown on illegal immigration?"

No.

Can we dispose of the argument that Americans are lazy bums?

Perhaps the solution is the guest worker program for the low-skilled workers with specific legislative language so as to make sure the minimum wage and required benefits inapplicable to guest workers.  FICA will need to remain, but I suspect most employers and guest workers will be fine with having to pay FICA on dramatically lower wage rates.

Higher legal immigration would still be a good thing overall, perhaps in line with your 1% of U.S. population idea.

-TS

Go back to your five minutes of hate on Michelle Malkin.

Becuase in some cases, they have decided certain work is beneath them.

There is one elegant way we can do that.

Let's you and I both open a McDonalds franchise here in New Jersey, across the street from each other.  I will staff mine entirely with legal immigrants; you can staff yours entirely with U.S. citizens.

Let's see who stays in business longer.

-TS

I thought you said you weren't arguing in favor of illegal immigration?

Sounds to me like you just want to capituate and solve illegal immigration by making it all legal.

mis-read, heh.  Your  qualifier of "legal immigrant" is unusual.

If this comment isn't anti-immigrant then I don't know what is.

You've hit it on the head.

In fact, I really think if legal immigration or guest worker or what-have-you is easier, law enforcement would have a MUCH easier time interdicting illegals.  Because after we've put in a generous LEGAL immigration/guest worker policy, anyone you catch crossing the border is likely to be a Real Bad Guy Criminal, smuggling drugs or what have you, or a terrorist.  Border patrol won't be turning a blind eye to that.  Humanitarian organizations and the like are going to have a TOUGH time convincing people that hanging bottles of water in the Arizona desert is a good idea.  And so on.

Heck, have a generous enough LEGAL immigration policy and I'd be fine shooting anyone caught crossing the border illegally.

It's a two-sided approach: Welcome the immigrant, punish the illegals (and their employers).

-TS

to the problem of global poverty is .... drumroll

Invite them all here?

No, we really can't discuss anything.  

It is not a statement that immigrants are criminals.

It's an analogy between burglary and illegal immigration.

in other words, you don't actually care about assimilation, because assimilation is cultural assassination, or some such?  I've always hewed to "when in Rome," and if I moved to a foreign country, I would expect to have to obey their norms and speak their language.

Take the cultural dilution angle. It is impossible to divorce the culture of somebody (especially when given a negative light in that in harms the American culture) from that person itself. Saying you don't want their culture to destroy American culture is essentially saying you don't want the immigrant unless he leaves behind his identity.

Which is exactly what the vast majority of pre-1965 immigrants were expected to do, and did, with enormous success.  Please don't talk about the melting pot, since with this statement, you have revealed you don't believe in it.

I saw that.  He, on the other hand, appeared to read it as though you were suggesting that all immigrants, without regard to legal status, are criminals.  That is the only semi-rational way he could have taken offense.

The problem doesn't exist?

Says a lot about you - none of it complementary in my opinion.

who is immensely proud of his culture and heritage, I can assure you that most real immigrants want to blend the cultures.  My family's typical Thanksgiving Dinner: turkey, stuffing, gravy, kimchi, galbi, spicy fish-egg soup, and rice.  Ain't America great?

I don't want their culture (or mine for that matter) to destroy American culture.  I left a big chunk of my identity behind when I raised my hand and swore fealty to the United States.  What of it?  If I wanted to be 100% Korean culturally, there's a place I can do that in: Korea.  I see nothing anti-immigrant here.

At least I had the chance to become an American; something other countries, I assure you, do not grant routinely to immigrants.

-TS

Cyrus's argument was that we need to protect the environment. This is a global problem, not just local. Overpopulation is still overpop regardless of its in LA/OC, Calcutta, or Mexico City. The only difference in those with higher standards of living in LA/OC area use more resources and will have to build more roads.

Caring about the local sproul isn't really an environmental issue, but more about asthetics and not having to deal with traffic congestion. As soon as you start trying to tie that traffic congestion to environmental issues such as CO2 emission, then you hare right back to what I said: you stop emissions by stopping people from having a high enough standard of living to afford a car and the infrastructure.

No matter how you roll it, if you want to talk about the environment in any global perspective, you have to keep going back to keeping people too poor. (This is absent any arguent about local pollution like air quility which actually tends to be worse in places like Mexico City.)

Just having won the birth lottery and being born in the US doesn't give me any right to try and protect my privledge at the expense of others.

it isn't so much that culture is shed-the US is a mishmash of culture anyway with little pieces here and there adopted as new immigrants came along.

I think assimilation isn't so much that the culture goes away so much as it just gets blended into everything else.

That's the only way it makes sense. Adam's remark was about the supply and demand for immigrant laborers, including legal.

moral obligation to solve the overpopulation and related poverty and problems of environmental degradation in other nations by bringing  vast numbers of the foreign-born to America.  Which is to say, by making them our problems.

but I'll take all the galbi you can stuff in me.

However, the point is that assimilation happens naturally and usually involved a little exchange as the new cultural elements are brought into the dominant culture. Staying with the food topic, California Asian is massively popular and wouldn't have happened with all the fears of dilituting American culture. Of course it dilutes it in the way it that it changes it. This is a natural process and not something to be fought against.

I'm not saying that assimilation isn't important and cultures should be kept 100% in the U.S., but that it isn't important b/c assimilation happens naturally and quickly. By the second generation, kids are almost culturally indistringuisable.

and they pay taxes, are we really making them our problems?

It has been a much more successful policy than foreign aid.  We let in a million here, a million there.  They work hard and send back money directly to their families.   Their families use that to stay healthier and afford education.  It's actually quite a conservative form of helping others (through hard work and family values).  Compare to giving foreign governments a bucket of money to "fix" their country.  I'd call that the more liberal, government-based approach.

Perhaps the solution is the guest worker program for the low-skilled workers with specific legislative language so as to make sure the minimum wage and required benefits inapplicable to guest workers.  

This is interesting.  Why would a program like this be implemented?  Specifically, a guest worker program that pays sub-minimum wage and requires neither employee nor employer to pay taxes on wage earnings.

I see no difference between this suggestion and hiring an illegal immigrant, other than having knowledge that the worker is in the country.

are run by despots and unethical leaders who are more than happy to skim a chunk off the aid and put it in swiss bank accounts or use it for frivilous things.

At least the immigrant working in the US is sending the cash directly to his family who needs it, if it gets sent to the government, it is unlikely his family will ever see any benefit directly.

Burglary and illegal immigration are both crimes.  Whether you want the latter to be or not, it is breaking the law.

The problem with the analogy is that Neil owns his TV and has a property right to it.  Someone taking it is taking something of Neil's.  Allowing an immigrant to come in legally (as opposed to illegally) is not taking something of Neil's.  And the nativist argument that it is "taking our jobs" is rather belied by the 5.0% unemployment in the country and the fact that new jobs are created when a source of low cost workers is available.

You might add "illegals don't assimilate well."  It would help you win over some more people to your perspective, and it's true.

if we admit them on the scale required by a moral calculus which begins with the assumption that being born in America is a sort of victory in a birth lottery and ends with the conclusion that we have no right to deny entry to anyone who wishes to come immigrate to our shores.

America would be a pretty nasty place if it were as populous as India or China, let alone home to six billion souls.

Which is exactly what the vast majority of pre-1965 immigrants were expected to do, and did, with enormous success.

Yes, of couse, that is why you never see small minority groups like China Town in SF, Litte Bombay in So Cal, etc... And of course all these people brought with them their religious traditions (look to the mess in Orthodoxy). There was the Eastern European fear, the Catholic fears, etc. The history of the US is littered with complaints about lack of assimilation by a group of people that later bacome very well assimilated.

Please don't talk about the melting pot, since with this statement, you have revealed you don't believe in it.

What? I talked about the problem people see with dilution. Inherent in that is an acceptable of assimilation. Cella and others are worried specifically about that assimilation because it means change in the dominant American culture. I absolute believe in the meltin pot. However others here have a problem with it because they thing the ingridients are fine as they are and don't want anything extra added.

You've got yourself mixed up on this.

Illegal aliens are taking the liberty of crossing our borders and ignoring our system of laws at their whim.  They're taking the services of our government, our economic system, and our society.

They do this all without paying in the form of following our laws and coming legally.

They don't take anybody's television (well, most don't), but their contempt for our laws is the same.

"America would be a pretty nasty place if it were as populous as India or China, let alone home to six billion souls."

This is hyperbole.  We could actually fit many people in TX alone with each having 1217 sq. ft. of space per person.

Now I'm not advocated that, and I'm especially not a fan of that happening quickly which would be a problem.  But the idea that we are short on space is rather silly.  When we only had 1,000,000 people in the country, I'll bet someone thought "if we every fit the whole world, all 300,000,000 of 'em in this here country, we'd be sitting on top of one another" and it is just as untrue today.

I thought you just said that we should solve environmental issues. And to the extent they are global environmental issues, your solution is to keep others in poverty, and the extent that they are just your frustrations with traffic and the esthetics of sprawl, they are not environmental at all.

You seem to be flipping your position on the environment around to fit your desires on immigration. If they come here, they cause environemntal harm, except when they where they are and cause environmental harm, then you don't care, even when this environmental harm is global.

It always comes back to "but they are breaking the law" as if that lends some sort of moral authority to any reaction. You can't defend it on policy or moral ground so you just complain "But there breaking the law."

Yes, they are. So?

on this one.  I didn't state that there would be a shortage of space; I'm familiar enough with statistics of the type you quote.  No, what I'm saying is that the utilization of that space would be, well, unpleasant in appearance and effect; there are many of us who would rather not live in a nation the majority of the habitable (to exclude vast tracts of unihabitable desert, mountain ranges, the Alaskan interior, etc.) places of which would end up having the population density and character of most of New Jersey.  Or most of developed India, for that matter.  We prefer nature, all things considered, to concrete, asphalt, sprawl and needing 3 hours to get where it once took only 30 minutes to reach.

If slightly off-topic, to remember that the previous Great Catastrophe that many on the left envisioned would destroy the world came from Paul Ehrlich.  Global Warming is the 21st century's Ehrlich catastrophe.  For the time being, I'll leave out Lovelock and his Gaia "the world is an organism" musings because he has recently started supporting nuclear and thermonuclear power generation.  It is rumored that the French are listening...

Meanwhile, Jane Fonda is preparing to tour the country on her Veggie Bus in a great leap forward for science and technology...

I'm sure the United States could support many more people than it currently does.  The question, as always, is energy and how to pay for it -- how to grow the food to support them, how to build homes for them, how to bring them into the culture, etc.  The population, in terms of raw numbers, is not the problem -- it's the ancillaries.

But I find that quite selfish.  You would deny the opportunity for someone to help his own family through hard labor so that you can enjoy a little less asphalt.  I understand the desire; I'm an outdoorsman myself.  But it's hard for me on a moral and ethical level to deny people willing to work to better themselves the opportunity to do so for any reason, much less so that my backyard view isn't infringed upon.

I'm not directly commenting on the environmental questions involving other nations, only observing that we have responsibilities to preserve our own environment here in a manner approved by our own citizens, and yes, that does include the issue of sprawl.  

Other nations may tackle those issues as they think best, and should tackle the problem of poverty as think best; it is their job first and foremost, not ours.

"The question, as always, is energy and how to pay for it -- how to grow the food to support them, how to build homes for them, how to bring them into the culture, etc."

We will create more food (or buy it from other countries), we will hire construction workers (of which many are immigrants) to build them, and we will assimilate them the same way we always have: through school, church, community, and work.  Capitalism and democracy do amazing things sometimes.

here.  I'd rather not ruin it by taking upon ourselves the burden of righting all the world's wrongs.

pay farmer not to plant the crops now.

I don't think feeding them will be a problem.

I find it somewhat our duty to help others.  But that may not be the American in me, it may be the Christian.

But I recognize we have no obligation to help anyone.  That said, I continue to think that we should do it anyway.

I believe we are at an impasse.

First, I must simply place a higher value on aesthetics than you do; I consider the preservation of natural beauty itself to be a  moral imperative.  It is an outgrowth of my Christian faith.  Relatedly, I fail to see how the bare fact of economic opportunity in America generates a moral claim on the part of non-Americans to immigrate here without regard for other considerations of the sort that I, cyrus, Paul, Nick and others I may have forgotten have raised.  Other nations are utterly incapable of reforming economically so as to create opportunities for their own citizens?  We have to torpedo much of what constitutes a certain quality of life for Americans to do that trick.

Selfish?  No.  Just a belief that Americans and their interests have more of a moral claim upon me than those of non-Americans living abroad.

I think it is the weighing of the claims where we break paths.  Humans who live under governments that exploit rather than assist them and are willing and able to work to better themselves and their families are quite high on my list of people to help.  I think taking care of the environment on both a local and global scale matters, but that human misery is a more immediate concern.  I also believe the trade-offs aren't that great.  Even if we got crazy and let 10 million new people into the country each year, we could do it without touching 99% of our land and 100% of our protected wildlife.

As a said, I believe this is our impasse.  I'm off for the evening, have a good night.

I just don't think inviting the whole world to the US is the optimal way to do so, nor do I think Christian charity demands it.  It's terribly arbitrary and capricious, as admitting even as many as 3 million people a year as you propose equals less than .05% of the world's population.  How do you decide who wins that lottery?  What about the other 4 billion people who live in poverty?  We ought not kill the golden goose out of misguided generosity.  There are other ways to skin a cat.  We could start by eliminating our agricultural subsidies, and tarrifs on goods from the poorest countries.

Most of the development would occur surrounding already-developed areas, meaning just that sort of undesirable increase in density that I deplore.  It's not as though all those new factories and other enterprises would be spread out, along with all the new residences, on as-yet untouched land.  No, the places where most of us live would start looking more and more like megacities, and most of us still wouldn't have the luxury of abandoning those areas for the country; so our QOL would decline in spite of the liklihood that little wilderness would be touched.  No thanks.

Yes, this is an impasse.

Hate kimchi???!???  Have you no heart man?!@!

j/k =D

It's actually quite addicting once you get used to it.  I eat it with pizza sometimes.

-TS

the part about FICA having to remain....  I meant that to include all relevant taxes.  After all, it's goal #1 of 3 I listed.

-TS

Legal immigrants => assimilate

Illegal immigrants => too busy hiding to assimilate.

-TS

Second, Bush wants a policy that "serves America's economy by matching a willing worker with a willing employer."  This one's easy.  We have a free labor market in America, and if we cut off the flow of cheap, illegal alien labor, natural market forces will raise wages and fill those jobs with hard-working Americans.  We don't need a government control of the job market, so this one takes care of itself.

Ah.  And restricting entry in the labor market is not exercising "government control of the job market."  

Look, we can argue over how the government should regulate the job market.  But to pretend that some forms of government "control" aren't really "control" -- as this point does -- is to engage in useless doublespeak.  

Re: In saying that immigration should be slowed because wages in the US will rise, you are saying that we should use more resources to produce something even if it can be produced more cheaply.

????

How would we be using "more" resources. If it takes five "undocumented workers" to perform a given job, it would presumably take five citizens or legal immigrants to perform the same job would it not? Last time I checked 5=5 so that's not "more" resources.

Mexico is just starting to get on my nerves. I don't want to sound too insensitive, but Mexico is becoming BS. I went to Tijuana in July; the place is a dump.

To be somewhat snarky, couldn't we build a moat? Or rather, a canal. Dig the canal, and blast the Rio Grande to make it deeper to handle more water-flow since the canal would conenct to it. The Grande is already a trickle, anyway. The only land connections with the US would be the border checkpoints. That'd work, eh?

The heart of the capitalism v. capitalism debate is that on the one hand you have the profit-driven, market-worshiping capitalism of the U.S. and UK and on the other hand you have the socially-minded, heavily state-regulated capitalism of Central Europe and Japan (although, such differentiation is increasingly a non-issue).  I can see how it could be viewed as a struggle between consumer interests and producer interests if you define "producer" in manner more closely related to labor unions than what we in the U.S. would normally consider when thinking of supply-side considerations.  As described by Michel Albert in the book, "Capitalism vs. Capitalism," it should be the case that America will sacrifice the quality of life for its workforce (think 60-hour work weeks and only two weeks of vacation per year) in pursuit of competitive advantage that will drive down costs.  In such a model, consumers are the big winners because they have more to consume at the low prices achieved through competition.

You analyze immigration in these terms by saying that the Anglo-American form of capitalism lends itself to mass immigration since that should result in lower prices, which are, according to that view, the narrow-minded focus of the system.  Your assumption is that we as market participants are necessarily willing to sacrifice the unskilled or poorly educated members of our society in the interest of decreasing costs to producers, thus, keeping prices low.

The big point of failure for this analysis is that it exists in a vacuum.  You fail to consider that consumer capitalism (sans unfettered, low-skilled immigration) does not have a "decidedly negative impact on the low-skilled, uneducated worker" to whom you admit you are not sympathetic.  Optimization under such a system is achieved when even the lowliest among us has an opportunity to earn a wage and become a good little consumer.  What would have a "decidedly negative impact" on such a system is outsourcing our unskilled jobs to people who will export their earnings, all the while being unsympathetic to those who, for whatever reason, have not achieved the same level of educational or professional success as their would-be outsourcers.  Talk about slamming the door shut on opportunity for people!  The attitude seems to be, "If you didn't care enough to go to college, I don't care if you can't find a job after we've added 10 million immigrants to the hiring pool."  Karl Rove having to defend himself against Plamegate allegations is a "political problem,"  callously  causing harm to low-skilled native workers is more like a human tragedy.

Additionally, the vacuum in which this analysis exists fails to put the consumers in context.  Just because externalized costs like infrastructure, overcrowded classrooms, and emergency room services aren't itemized on a receipt and handed to each consumer doesn't mean the consumer isn't paying for them.  The price tag on the lettuce might be a lower number, but the pool of post-tax money from which one pays for that lettuce might be diminished, thereby increasing the cost of that lettuce.  Also, let's not forget that lower-skilled workers are also consumers, and cutting them out of the equation like a cancer to be replaced with money-exporting immigrant workers is not a net gain for society.  (Before you attack, yes, I realize they spend money as well as export money, but even a 1% across-the-board export of immigrant earnings is a leak that fails to stimulate our economy.)

Furthermore, I'm not impressed by the specter of $5 heads of lettuce and $10 oranges.  The history of employing increased mechanization has not been one of increasing prices for consumer goods.  If Florida oranges increase in cost tenfold, trade (Florida is not the world's only producer of oranges) and substitution will take over.  And if traditionally grown oranges were to become that expensive, price incentive would exist for some crafty entrepreneur to create a hydroponically grown version that would transform the face of orange growing all together.  That is American capitalism at its best.

I don't understand how proponents of lax immigration can argue on one hand that immigrants don't make that much less than native workers, and on the other hand that if this source of "cheap" labor dries up the U.S. economy will crumble.  You can't have it both ways.

For those who believe it is duty of the U.S. to provide opportunity for the citizens of Mexico, I think NAFTA was a pretty good compromise.  The willingness of some people to ride roughshod over the low-skilled workers in this country is astounding given the fact that we've already taken so many jobs from them by moving a lot of our manufacturing jobs south of the border.  We sent Ford, GM, and DaimlerChrysler plants to them to employ their citizens, and  now  it should be up to them to create industries and infrastructure around that to boost their own economy.

A trained neurosurgeon doesn't give a kid a shot, because the surgeon is a very resource intensive person.  He is high value labor who could be doing something far more economically beneficial. His labor isn't the same as the labor of a nurse's.

This is basic opportunity cost.

How can we tell he isn't being used appropriate? He's way too expensive and it would make sense to use somebody less expensive.

Stop thinking in terms of dollars though for a minute, and imagine we are still in a barter economy. You need to dig some holes for a fence around a new field. As a vintner, one method will cost you 10 bottles of wine, but another method will cost your 100 bottles. One is clearly more resource intensive, yet the only difference is one group is five unskilled workers and the other group is five astronomy instructors from the local university.

It would like the difference between using gold wiring and copper wiring when both will do an equally good of a job in certain case. Both are same footage of wire, but one is better use elsewhere.

For a potential Guest Worker/Bracero Program, which I would be in favor of, would it be limited to Mexicans or Central Americans?

Or... can.. and this is a dicey issue, but it could even save lives... it expand to other continents... like... Africa?

It is one way to end poverty, bring them over here, pay them what would be incredible over there, but here would be cheap, and then send them back once their term is up.

Sort of like an international workfare.

Let me address the main points you raised, as they are thought provoking.

You analyze immigration in these terms by saying that the Anglo-American form of capitalism lends itself to mass immigration since that should result in lower prices, which are, according to that view, the narrow-minded focus of the system.  Your assumption is that we as market participants are necessarily willing to sacrifice the unskilled or poorly educated members of our society in the interest of decreasing costs to producers, thus, keeping prices low.

I apologize for perhaps being a little obscure in my post, but this is a misreading of my position.  My view is that we as a society have almost always made economic policy decisions on the basis of consumer protection.  The operative question when judging policy is, "Does this benefit the consumer?"

"Should we break up AT&T?" -- well, does it benefit the consumer?  If so, then yes.  "Should we deregulate the airlines?" -- well, does it benefit the consumer?  If so, then yes.

I take the position that if we apply that question to the issue of labor, allowing illegal immigration providing cheap labor does in fact benefit the consumer.  The problem with illegal immigration, in my view, are not consumer-related; they are TAX related (stress on social services), SECURITY related (we don't know who/what/where/why of illegal immigrants), and ORGANIZED CRIME related (illegal immigration funds gangs and criminal organizations).

My assumption that we are willing to sacrifice the unskilled is borne out in the very economy in which we live.  A few "conscientious" shoppers might choose only to buy American union-produced goods and services, but really, that's a drop in the bucket of consumer spending.  Most consumers are trying to stretch their dollar as far as possible, (see the threads on Wal-Mart on RS) and their price sensitivity naturally leads to the labor practices we have today.

The big point of failure for this analysis is that it exists in a vacuum.  You fail to consider that consumer capitalism (sans unfettered, low-skilled immigration) does not have a "decidedly negative impact on the low-skilled, uneducated worker" to whom you admit you are not sympathetic.  Optimization under such a system is achieved when even the lowliest among us has an opportunity to earn a wage and become a good little consumer.

I think your argument, while cogent, ultimately fails to take the real world into consideration.  Consumer capitalism has a negative impact on the low-skilled worker; protecting the consumer means suppressing labor costs.  Low-skilled workers who can be replaced by robots will be; if they can be replaced by foreign factories, they will be.  Companies are trying to maximize profit and gain market share.

When you talk about the "lowliest among us" having an opportunity, let's make sure we're talking about the same thing.  The classic illegal immigrant job is harvesting lettuce in Arizona: backbreaking labor under 110 degree weather.  I have no doubt that any American who wants to do that job can get it; they just can't get it for minimum wage plus benefits plus taxes.  They too can work off-the-books just like an illegal immigrant would, and get that job.  Is this what you mean by having an opportunity?  Seems to me that what you're arguing is for those jobs to pay more, have benefits, and so on, until an American would do the job.  That leads to all of the negative economic impact I discussed: price inflation leading to no real wage gains, renormalization of the poverty line, and decreased economic activity.

The attitude seems to be, "If you didn't care enough to go to college, I don't care if you can't find a job after we've added 10 million immigrants to the hiring pool."

As I've written elsewhere (Wal-Mart thread I think), I have no sympathy for someone born in the United States with all of the advantages and opportunities that this country grants to its people not being able to "make it".  College education isn't the cutoff point.  Getting a job and working hard at it is; it doesn't matter what the job is.  I think it was c17wife who wrote about her family members who may have started out as cashiers at Wal-Mart, but made something of their lives through diligence and hard work.  God bless 'em.  

My point simply is that if an immigrant (legal immigrant, mind you) landing on these shores with $20 in his pocket with no high school, nevermind college, education, with no English, can work three jobs, make all manner of sacrifices, save up to buy a little store or restaurant, work at it until successful, and send his kids to Harvard... what exactly is the excuse that I'm supposed to accept from those born here?

Additionally, the vacuum in which this analysis exists fails to put the consumers in context.  Just because externalized costs like infrastructure, overcrowded classrooms, and emergency room services aren't itemized on a receipt and handed to each consumer doesn't mean the consumer isn't paying for them.  The price tag on the lettuce might be a lower number, but the pool of post-tax money from which one pays for that lettuce might be diminished, thereby increasing the cost of that lettuce.  Also, let's not forget that lower-skilled workers are also consumers, and cutting them out of the equation like a cancer to be replaced with money-exporting immigrant workers is not a net gain for society.  (Before you attack, yes, I realize they spend money as well as export money, but even a 1% across-the-board export of immigrant earnings is a leak that fails to stimulate our economy.)

Two points here.  Externalities like infrastructure are not financed by sales taxes or VAT in our country.  Perhaps it should be, but it is not.  They are financed largely by income taxes and property taxes.  Illegal immigrant workers are a BIG problem in that they do not pay taxes on their income.  I propose to legalize as many immigrant workers as necessary in order to fix this problem.  I think your analysis on the head of lettuce incorporating these external costs is incorrect for this reason.

Second, you're concerned about the earnings that these foreign workers are sending back to their country.  You reason that if they kept them here, those funds would stimulate our domestic economy.  This is flawed for a couple of reasons.

Whatever the amount is that these foreign workers send back to their home countries, it absolutely pales in comparison to the amount that Wall Street, insurance companies, and American companies such as GE, Ford, and so on send abroad.  For that matter, international trade sends American dollars abroad.

Also, the major reason why they send the dollars abroad is because they are illegal immigrants.  If they were allowed to bring their families here in the first place, by raising limits on legal immigration, then that money would in fact stay here in circulation in the domestic economy.  So your argument actually leads to supporting my and Adam C's proposals for liberalizing legal immigration as a way to fight illegal immigration.

Furthermore, I'm not impressed by the specter of $5 heads of lettuce and $10 oranges.  The history of employing increased mechanization has not been one of increasing prices for consumer goods.  If Florida oranges increase in cost tenfold, trade (Florida is not the world's only producer of oranges) and substitution will take over.  And if traditionally grown oranges were to become that expensive, price incentive would exist for some crafty entrepreneur to create a hydroponically grown version that would transform the face of orange growing all together.  That is American capitalism at its best.

I agree; but as I've said elsewhere, let's recognize that mechanization and technology aren't going to employ those American workers whose jobs are supposedly being taken by illegal immigrant laborers: the lettuce picker in Arizona.  More robotics engineers might get jobs, but that isn't going to help the unskilled laborer.

For those who believe it is duty of the U.S. to provide opportunity for the citizens of Mexico, I think NAFTA was a pretty good compromise.  The willingness of some people to ride roughshod over the low-skilled workers in this country is astounding given the fact that we've already taken so many jobs from them by moving a lot of our manufacturing jobs south of the border.  We sent Ford, GM, and DaimlerChrysler plants to them to employ their citizens, and  now  it should be up to them to create industries and infrastructure around that to boost their own economy.

I think you need to understand that I (and I think Adam C and others) am not saying it is our duty to provide opportunities for Mexicans.  Our proposal is for the benefit of the United States and its people.  Illegal immigration is a major problem, but the proposed solutions such as "clamp down harder" or "get tough with employers" are in fact counterproductive and ultimately doomed to failure.  The solution that makes sense is ours: raise legal limits until the need for illegal immigration becomes minimal.

When economic policy tends to work with, and not against, market forces, it tends to be more successful.  It applies in trade, applies in capital markets, and also applies in labor markets.

-TS

I think you need to understand that I (and I think Adam C and others) am not saying it is our duty to provide opportunities for Mexicans.  Our proposal is for the benefit of the United States and its people.  Illegal immigration is a major problem, but the proposed solutions such as "clamp down harder" or "get tough with employers" are in fact counterproductive and ultimately doomed to failure.  The solution that makes sense is ours: raise legal limits until the need for illegal immigration becomes minimal.

That is not true.  You may speak for yourself, but "Adam C" wrote outright that it was in fact our obligation to provide opportunity for the world, and implied that it was a duty of Christian charity.  "Jjayson" believes that "winning the birth lottery" by being born in the US is no reason to deny the opportunity of living here to anyone else who wishes to come.  So, no, this statement is simply not correct.  

It seems to me you're improperly comparing antitrust and deregulation policies to immigration policies.  The problem is that, other than benefiting consumers, breaking up a monopoly or deregulating an industry should only really affect those employed by or holding ownership interest in said monopoly or deregulated industry.  In that situation, a much greater subset of Americans is benefited than the subset of Americans that is subject to the possible negative effects of the policy.  For example, if the government were to step in tomorrow and break up Microsoft to disrupt its market power and give consumers a shot at lower-cost software, it probably wouldn't have much of an effect on a manicurist in Akron or a window washer in Sacramento.  On the other hand, if the government decided to open the flood gates for new immigrants to come pouring into the U.S., every citizen would feel the impact, especially those with fewer job skills or less education.

It is flatly incorrect to assume that a policy is desireable simply because it may help consumers.  The goal should be to do what is best for most Americans, not most consumers.  Americans aren't just walking wallets.  We are also workers.  And policies that help us in the checkout line but hurt us by depressing wages and making it hard for the less-educated among us to find employment are bad policies.

So, I suggest that all the things you readily admit are the problem with the current state of immigration (tax collection, security, organized crime) are compounded by the detriment to our native workforce.  Any gains you would assign consumers would do little to offset the weighty detriments.

That brings me to my point about market distortions and their effects on immigration.  One could easily argue that labor costs in this country are artificially high due to a government-mandated minimum wage and the influence of labor unions.  That certainly makes legal labor in the U.S. more expensive than illegal labor.  I think the best answer for that isn't to throw away our native workers and replace them with illegal "scab" workers.  I think the answer is to stop listening to Teddy Kennedy cry about how a family of four can't survive on minimum wage.

Another distortion in our labor market comes from safety nets like welfare, unemployment, housing assistance, and food programs.  I've studied such social policy programs and do believe they have their place in society, but they are notorious for creating a disincentive for sucess.  When government assistance is available to you while you are not working, the opportunity cost of taking a job (especially a less-desireable job, like harvesting lettuce on a hot day) becomes extremely high.  I'll leave my thoughts on the welfare state for another day, but suffice it to say, it can cripple work ethic if taking a job means sacrificing assistance of food, shelter, and cash.  Immigrants to this country aren't faced with the same opportunity costs for employment.  For them the tradeoff is simple, give up your time and effort and get a paycheck.

I'd like to tie that last point in to try to defend less-educated Americans for a moment.  I firmly believe that what it takes to make it in this country is hard work and determination.  I often find myself frustrated by people who squander that opportunity.  However, I also know that just because someone is born here and has a world of opportunity at their doorstep doesn't mean they are given the tools to take advantage of it.  If a child doesn't learn to read by about age 7 or 8, the chance for that child to succeed are greatly diminished.  You certainly can't charge the child with understanding the that the consequence of academic failure is a lifetime of poverty and missed opportunities, can you?  Lack of parental involvement in the education process can greatly diminish the chance of success for a child.  Can you blame that child for the lack of parental involvement?  I was talking tonight with my soon-to-be sister-in-law who is a DC public school teacher.  She just had parent orientation for her 6th grade students and three parents showed up (one stinking of alcohol).  I remember the school orientations where I grew up (a suburb of DC), and it was rare that a parent didn't show up to meet with their child's teacher.

If, at the end of the day, the only thing a poorly educated person is qualified to do is stock shelves at Wal-Mart or detail cars, I'd like for that person to be able to get that job without having to compete with 20 Mexicans who will send a portion of those earnings out of the community.

Oh, and by the way, your comment comparing the supposedly diminutive nature of funds sent abroad by immigrants to funds sent abroad by business fails to consider one HUGE difference.  Businesses expect a return on their international investments or value for their international purchases.  They aren't just tossing money into an abyss and expecting nothing in return.

And let me revise my statments to reflect just my personal opinions in that case. :)

-TS

Truly, erudite disagreements like this is why I spend most of my precious web time at Redstate.  Let me address a few of your points.

It is flatly incorrect to assume that a policy is desireable simply because it may help consumers.  The goal should be to do what is best for most Americans, not most consumers.  Americans aren't just walking wallets.  We are also workers.  And policies that help us in the checkout line but hurt us by depressing wages and making it hard for the less-educated among us to find employment are bad policies.

The goal of a policy and the effect of a policy are often two different things.  Clearly, we both want to adopt an immigration policy that benefits most Americans.  My support for an immigration policy in line wiht Consumer Capitalism ideas is not an ideological one; rather, it is driven by real world evidence on what happens to a nation's economy when labor supply is restricted by government action.  I touched on it in one of the responses in this thread, but here it is again:

Germany in 2004 has (courtesty of Dr. Darly Winn, but I don't have this in electronic form):

   1. Unemployment rates > 10%

   2. No job growth since 1970

   3. 1.4% average annual economic growth over last decade, compared to 3.3% average annual growth for U.S.

France has 9.5% unemployment, with fully 33.8% of that "long-term unemployed" (1 year or longer with no job).  Italy has 8.6% unemployment, with 59.6% of that long-term unemployed.  Japan has 4.6% unemployment, but 30.8% are long-term unemployed.  Germany, as above, has 10% unemployment with 47.9% long-term unemployed.  The United States, even with our illegal immigration problem, has only 5.4% unemployement (lower now I think), but with only 8.5% of that long-term.  Ours is a very healthy economy because of the relative freedom of the labor markets.

Despite the problems of illegal immigration that has plagued the United States over the last ten years or so, we have created more jobs than Japan, Germany, and the UK.  From 1991-2002 (again, from Dr. Winn, whose paper I only have in print form, but he got his data from Bureau of Labor Statistics):

USA: +16%

Japan: 0%

Germany: -2%

UK: +6%

Real GDP/capita in the U.S. in 2004 as compared to Japan, Germany, France, and the U.K are as follows (with percentage change from 1990 to 2004):

USA: 38,392 (+30%)

Japan: 28,337 (+17%)

Germany: 27,600 (+10%)

France: 28,538 (+23%)

UK: 30,273 (+34%)

Why is all this data relevant?  Because I believe that the major difference between consumer capitalism and producer/worker capitalism is in labor policy.  That is the major difference between the US and the EU nations, between US and Japan.  Regulation plays a big part, but LABOR POLICY is at the heart of the difference.

From that standpoint, I think the evidence is pretty clear that in terms of overall employment, GDP, growth rates, purchasing power parity, or any other economic measure, the United States has outperformed virtually every major industrialized economy on the planet despite a major illegal immigration problem, or perhaps (dare I suggest), because of it.  (Cheap labor for the low-end jobs = more growth in the economy overall due to consumers saving money on commodity goods.)

The proposals to crack down on illegal immigration are, I believe, labor policy proposals at base. They all have been tending towards restricting free flow of labor.  The goal will be to do the best for Americans -- as the goal of the French and the Germans in enacting their labor policies was to do the best for the French and the German workers.  Well, the consequences of such policies are pretty clear for all to see now.  I would not have us walk down that path.

On your comments about the welfare state, let me just agree 110%.

On your comments about Wal-Mart stockboy jobs going to Americans as opposed to Mexicans who will send their earnings abroad, let me suggest, as I have, that if those Mexicans were here legally with their families, they would keep the dollars here.  The reason why they send the money abroad is because they are here illegally, and could not bring their families.  Were we to raise the limits on labor-based immigration, the money would stay here, we would collect taxes on it, we would know who these people are, we would shut down organized crime gans in illegal smuggling, and we would enable far greater rate of assimilation among the immigrant populations.

-TS

if those Mexicans were here legally with their families, they would keep the dollars here.  The reason why they send the money abroad is because they are here illegally, and could not bring their families.

Many of them do bring their families here illegaly, while others quite rationally conclude that their money just goes further in Mexico than it does in the United States.

Were we to raise the limits on labor-based immigration, the money would stay here, we would collect taxes on it, we would know who these people are, we would shut down organized crime gans in illegal smuggling, and we would enable far greater rate of assimilation among the immigrant populations.

Or, just as likely, the net tax receipts would be extremely low, as those in the bottom deciles of the income distribution essentially have a negative tax rate.  In the meantime, the even greater numbers of immigrants, their numbers constantly replenished by still more immigrants who depress the wages and reinforce the original folkways of their compatriots already here, would make assimilation even slower and more uneven.  We would cut down on smuggling, perhaps, but that is a minor benefit in the scheme of things.

With respect to your comparison of the US to other developed countries, let me point out several things:

We imprison a far higher percentage of our non-productive citizens than any of those countries, removing them from the unemployment rolls and artificially depressing our relative numbers.  

We have a less generous welfare state, weaker unions, and fairly free, responsive, and risk-tolerant capital markets.  

Finally, though less tangibly, we are simply more risk-tolerant than the French and Germans.  All of these factors are independent of immigration and  unquestionably boost economic growth.  No one here on my side is advocating a 35 hour work-week, 6 week vacations for everyone, more welfare, or the establishment of labor unions that make it impossible to fire anyone and shut down the country when they feel slighted.  The notion that, absent a million or more low wage, immigrants per year, the American economy would begin to look like Germany's (which didn't look so bad fifteen years ago, while our immigration floodgates were open, by the way) lacks support.  The growth of the 1990s had a great deal more to do with innovation and capital expenditure than it did with cheap labor.  

Other than mere correlation, which does not prove causation, what is the evidence that, out of all these factors, unrestricted low-wage immigration is a significant contributor to economic growth?  And what about immigration in other countries?  France has a large immigrant population, that Germany spent years importing millions of guest workers, and that Japan spent most of the past sixty years outgrowing the US while allowing essentially no immigration at all, and continues, as you write, to have a lower unemployment rate than we do.  Digressing for a moment, I would also ask why it is that Europe's much lower rate of immigration is supposed by many prominent American conservatives to be on the verge of turning it into Eurabia, if it has not already done so, while our much higher and accelerating rate is supposed to be nothing but a blessing.  Are we immune to the laws of history?

Cyrus - good points, and I do wish I had more factual information on some of the points you raise.

Let me concede that as it comes to the issue of illegal immigrants bringing their families over, I am hitting a gap in information.  If anyone has any numbers based on solid research as to how many illegal immigrants bring their families over or not, I'd love to see it.  Based on my limited experience with both Central American (not a lot of Mexicans up here in the Northeast) and Asian (quite a few Chinese though) illegal immigrants, it seems to me that the illegal immigration workforce is mainly comprised of able-bodied adults who work to send money back home to their children or to elderly parents, etc.  That could be completely wrong, although I doubt it.

On the other hand, I have never seen any evidence to suggest that illegal immigrants tend to immigrate as entire families.  "Many do" could mean just about anything.

As to the net tax receipts being low... well, my reasoning is that low tax receipts still beat the heck out of no tax receipts.  Plus (again hitting a lack of information barrier here) my experience and observation is that LEGAL immigrants tend not to rely on government services much at all, and end up being net contributors to the economy and the tax rolls.  There have been studies to that effect, but I can't look for them now due to a lack of time.  If anyone has evidence he/she can point to on either side of that question, it would be helpful.  I'll try to look for it when I have time.

As to your "assimilation even slower" comment... well, we may have to agree to disagree on this one, quite possibly due to real differences in what is meant by assimilation.  Again, logic alone dictates that people who are constantly in hiding are not going to assimilate very well; and history shows that legal immigrants to this country have assimilated incredibly well, even while holding on to their folkways in many instances.

As to my comparisons of U.S. vs. EU countries and Japan, the argument of increased imprisonment in the U.S. being responsible for the massive difference between our employment figures, our GDP numbers, and EU countries simply isn't convincing.  Perhaps your data shows otherwise.  The risk-tolerant, free, responsive, economic environment that we enjoy as compared to France, Germany, et. al. is undoubtedly present: my argument perhaps is that the reason why we enjoy such an environment is because of our labor policies that favor consumers over workers/producers.

Trying to shut down illegal immigration is a step in the wrong direction to that overall labor policy we have.  I know that no one on the other side of the immigration debate wants us to become the Unionized States of America; but you have to recognize that the economic impact of a "shut our borders now" policy is inherently pro-worker, pro-producer, at the expense of the consumer.  I have made arguments, and I think supported if inadequatley, as to why legalizing more immigration (or guest worker program) would tend to benefit the economy overall, and the consumer more specifically.  I do not see how shutting it off, or trying to, would do the same.

You may be correct in that the position that "absent a million or more low wage, immigrants per year, the American economy would begin to look like Germany's" lacks support.  However, I raise two points in opposition.  First, what is supported is that despite the illegal immigration of about 1m workers per year, we have fared far better in job creation and in economic growth than any other industrialized country in the world.  At a minimum, that supports the view that cheap labor in the form of illegal immigration is not an economy-killer or a job-killer.

Second, I suspect neither of us has the facts (because it is counterfactual) to back up either side of this, but the growth over the last 10 years or so was driven by consumer spending in the United States.  Inflation has been kept in check during that period.  How much of that could have been as a result of prices of consumer commodities such as food being held down due to cheap labor?  So while it is true that the argument lacks support, I submit that it isn't entirely without merit and entirely without at least logical support.  The less a family has to spend on clothing, on food, etc., the more they can spend on other things that grow the economy, like cars and computers, and the like.

The growth of the 1990s had a great deal more to do with innovation and capital expenditure than it did with cheap labor.

Even if this point were granted, as I have mentioned with respect to mechanization/automation, I think it's safe to say that such innovation and capital expenditure happened in sectors of the economy that doesn't affect the low-skill/no-skill labor either way.  Silicon Valley didn't come out with an automated dishwashing machine, or a table-clearing robot to take the place of dishwashers and busboys upon whom restaurants literally depend.  Capital expenditure and technology innovation did not create or eliminate a significant number of the low-wage jobs over which we are debating.

Now, you are surely correct that the data does not show a causal relationship between unrestricted low-wage immigration and economic growth.  Similarly, however, it does not show a causal relationship between unrestricted low-wage immigration and economic decline either; or low-wage immigration and loss of jobs.  If anything, the correlation goes the other way: more illegal immigration ==> more jobs created.

Finally, I do not believe that cutting down on smuggling is a minor benefit at all.  One of the critical aspects of this debate is the need for greater border security.  At present, this is more or less impossible.  How do you detect one or two evildoers in the stream of humanity that is crossing over illegally every day?  I submit that should we be able to channel the stream of humanity into known, knowable, and registered channels of legal immigration, it would be MUCH easier to pick out the ones that are coming in illegally for the sake of doing us harm.

-TS

First, thank you for your kind words regarding my post.

Returning to the idea of Anglo-American capitalism vs. Alpine-Rhine capitalism, the main difference between the systems is that the central European systems tend to have policies that lead to rigidity in the labor markets.  Businesses are reluctant to hire because it is very difficult to fire.  The OECD conducted an  oft-cited study of the labor markets in member countries, the results of which can be summed up as follows (you'll have to excuse me, I am new to posting and do not know how to put text in those nifty boxes):

"[T]he differences between countries in their ability to create jobs and to bring down unemployment lie in their different capacities for structural adjustment."  http://www1.oecd.org/sge/min/pdf/job_96.pdf

In other words, countries with more flexibility in their labor market (easier to hire, easier to fire, fewer disincentives to work resulting from social safety nets, and educated workers who can adapt to changing needs of employers) are likely to have lower unemployment.  Based on these findings, I just don't see how you can parlay the superior unemployment statistics of the U.S. into an argument for importing unskilled workers.  The jump is a non sequitur.

The original job study offered several suggestions for improving job markets.  One of the recommendations was to "[i]mprove labour force skills and competences through wide-ranging changes in education and training systems."  There was no recommendation to strengthen the job market through importation of workers, and the concept of allowing in a bevy of unskilled workers is diametrically opposed to the suggestion that countries should improve the skill-level of their workers to ensure flexibility in the ever-changing world market.

You make it sound as if the U.S. has no workers available to fill positions for unskilled labor, but the fact is the unemployment numbers don't reflect the group of workers who have simply given up on finding work.  This is where the rigidity of our own labor market comes into play, since many of those who have given up on finding employment do so because the safety nets available to them raise the opportunity cost of taking a job.

You suggest that we increase the number of immigrants we take in legally and then dedicate resources to assimilating them, but couldn't those resources be better spent training and educating our native workforce so we can enjoy the kind of flexibility that will move our economy forward?

The proposals to restrict illegal immigration are not simply labor policies.  They are largely quality-of-life issues.  Such policies dictate not only how many off-the-books job candidates a lettuce farmer has available to him, but also how many children are sitting in classrooms, how many cars are sitting in traffic, how many day laborers are standing in front of the local convenience store, how many people are in front of you in line for emergency room services, and how much cash gets funneled out of the economy.

The U.S. is an economic and monetary union of states.  It consists of states that decided to live under the same constitution and contribute tax dollars for a common federal government.  To the members of this union, we owe free movement of labor and capital.  The idea that free movement of labor from beyond the sovereign borders of this country is a right not to be infringed upon by government policy is absurd.  Saying that failure to allow free movement of labor across national borders is caving in to "Labor" and that such concessions are going to leave us in the position of the French and German economies is absurd.  I think it is well established that the types of labor concessions that lead to stagnation and unemployment have more to do with overly generous unemployment compensation and failure to build flexibility into worker training.  Labor demands may not always be friendly towards consumers, but not all policies that are good for labor are bad for the country.  The whole basis of your argument seems to be, "if it is good for labor, it must be bad for the U.S. economy."  That logic simply won't stand up to thorough scrutiny.

How do you detect one or two evildoers in the stream of humanity that is crossing over illegally every day?

By damming up the stream of unnecessary illegal and legal immigrants.  Mohammed Atta and his partners in crime got visas.  If the government can't adequately secure us against criminal legal immigrants now, how is tripling the number by declaring border-hoppers legal going to make it easier?  We need to reduce the numbers and stop treating immigration as a civil right for immigrants and more like a luxury for Americans.

Even if this point were granted, as I have mentioned with respect to mechanization/automation, I think it's safe to say that such innovation and capital expenditure happened in sectors of the economy that doesn't affect the low-skill/no-skill labor either way.  Silicon Valley didn't come out with an automated dishwashing machine, or a table-clearing robot to take the place of dishwashers and busboys upon whom restaurants literally depend.  Capital expenditure and technology innovation did not create or eliminate a significant number of the low-wage jobs over which we are debating.

Why, in the absence of a reduction in the availability of cheap illegal (and legal) labor, would any of those changes that you point out didn't occur, ever occur?

First, what is supported is that despite the illegal immigration of about 1m workers per year, we have fared far better in job creation and in economic growth than any other industrialized country in the world.  At a minimum, that supports the view that cheap labor in the form of illegal immigration is not an economy-killer or a job-killer.

I think that, as the price of remaking America and catapulting the Democrats back in to a permanent majority that will do far more harm to the free market policies you espouse than immigration restrictions ever will, you need to do more than just show that mass immigration doesn't quite kill our economy.  That's not a very ringing endorsement.  You ought to prove that we need it, and neither you, nor Julian Simon, nor Tamar Jacoby has ever proven that.  Indeed, Julian Simon was at least honest enough to admit that we did not, in fact, need mass immigration.  That being the case, why allow it at all?

Let me dispose of a couple of points first, as they aren't necessarily at the heart of my argument.

As to evildoers problem, I submit that it is far easier to have border patrol, INS, and other agencies working on homeland security (including local police) spot evildoers or potential evildoers if they are not spending most of their time tracking down and attempting to dam the flow of "mere" illegals -- a task in and of itself which may or may not be feasible.  To think otherwise is, I believe, contrary to logic.

As to innovation, given sufficient need, we would come up with something, that is true.  However, innovation isn't an instant-on thing; eliminate illegal busboys, and the next day, Intel will have a Robot Busboy on the market.  During that lag, significant damage will be done to sectors of our economy, forcing higher prices, lowering the standard of living (until wages can catch up, if they can), and so on.  And again, my point is that even if innovation is available, that will not help the low/no-skill American worker.  The choice is not between the illegal worker and American worker; the choice is between the illegal worker and automation.  Automation could create American jobs, but they are NOT the jobs that the low/no-skill American worker could get.

Now then, let's turn to the heart of the matter:

I think that, as the price of remaking America and catapulting the Democrats back in to a permanent majority that will do far more harm to the free market policies you espouse than immigration restrictions ever will, you need to do more than just show that mass immigration doesn't quite kill our economy.  That's not a very ringing endorsement.  You ought to prove that we need it, and neither you, nor Julian Simon, nor Tamar Jacoby has ever proven that.  Indeed, Julian Simon was at least honest enough to admit that we did not, in fact, need mass immigration.  That being the case, why allow it at all?

I don't know about Julian Simon or Tamar Jacoby.  I know that I propose expanding legal immigration, or guest workers, for the benefit of the American economy as a whole.  I agree that Democrats becoming a permanent majority will do far greater harm than shutting down illegal immigration; I disagree that we Republicans should therefore abandon our philosophical adherence to principles of free market, free trade, and free labor.  I most emphatically disagree that Democrats own the immigrant vote, unless we Republicans push for policies like "shut down the border, eliminate immigration, to protect the cultural integrity of the United States".  Then yes, we'll be facing permanent exile in a few years' time.

But electoral politics aside, I'm sorry if you read my words as not a ringing endorsement.  I was attempting to be more reasoned and less passionate about the subject.  Again, I can't speak for anyone else, but it seems to me that the economic data is pretty compelling that illegal immigration is not a threat to our economy.  Not only that, with the correlation decidedly favoring open borders and open immigration, it does seem to me that having cheap labor -- whether illegal or legal -- is in fact a real benefit to our economy.

I am not aware of any studies done on the subject, so I'm forced to use anecdotal evidence.  Every single house on my block, and I suspect in my town, has landscapers come to mow the lawn, trim the hedges, and so on.  The price is roughly $100 a month or so (according to neighbors, since I'm the odd man out and don't use them).  Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows that those workers are not American citizens.  Nor are they here legally.  Everyone knows and accepts that without illegal workers, the landscaping would become unaffordable.  That particular economic activity would just stop.  Those companies aren't entirely owned, operated, staffed with illegals.  Their suppliers are American companies -- Ford, John Deere, Scott's, and so on.  All of that activity would be dramatically curtailed if we really eliminated illegal workers.

There are over 35,000 restaurants in New York City, many of them small businesses.  There is no doubt that they employ illegal immigrants in the kitchen, as busboys, as dishwashers, etc.  Without that labor force, many of them would just close down; others would have to raise prices.  Consumers are most definitely affected -- less eating out, less going out, less economic activity.  Suppliers are most definitely affected -- fewer restaurants ==> less business.  The chain reaction will not, cannot possibly be, good for the economy.

I am absolutely convinced that there are many labor-intensive industries (agriculture, construction, domestic services, certain manufacturing) where economic activity would either cease or be dramatically decreased were we to go the route of "shut it down now".  Sure, in ten years, with the greater need, John Deere might introduce some robot that does what an illegal worker does now.  Big developers like Pulte Homes could buy hundreds of them; does that mean my local developer can afford one?  Not likely.

Will things eventually normalize?  I suppose.  Does that mean we don't need cheap labor?  Not at all.  Need is relative; one could argue that we don't need cars either -- innovation will eventually develop an alternative, or things will be normalized at a different point with widespread public transportation and telecommuting and so on.  But that, to me, is a fanciful argument.

Fact is, in any economic policy, you have to consider not only the benefits but the cost.  The benefits of "damming the flow" are not at all clear, and I doubt heavily that they exist at all.  The costs, however, do seem pretty clear: lower economic activity, lower consumer spending, higher inflation, less economic growth, fewer jobs created in the long run.  Not to mention the enforcement costs involved in shutting down our border and going after illegals already in-country.

On the other hand, allowing more legal immigration or having guest worker programs, have their benefits: lower cost of production, lower prices on goods, greater consumer spending, more economic activity, and more jobs created in the long run.  (You can argue causation, but the correlation is undeniable.)  The cost is really unclear in economic terms. (I mention this to stave off the "cultural costs" argument, which is dangerous in and of itself, and should be discussed separately.)  Low-skill/no-skill Americans can't get jobs as busboys and landscapers?  Some opportunity cost for innovation and technology, all of which is fanciful projections anyway?  Stresses on social services because illegals don't pay taxes -- that one is partly solved by legalizing the workers and collecting taxes.  Money sent out the country?  A drop in the bucket of the amount of capital that goes in and out of our economy every day as course of international trade.

In conclusion, I say that we define "need" a little differently.  If the benefits of immigrant labor so far outweigh the costs, as I think I have attempted to show, while the "shut it down" strategy has unclear benefits and very real, very high, and very definite costs, then increasing legal immigration as a strategy to combat illegal immigration and the problems associated with it is in fact a need that our economy has.

I hope that is ringing enough an endorsement for further conversation.

-TS

As to evildoers problem, I submit that it is far easier to have border patrol, INS, and other agencies working on homeland security (including local police) spot evildoers or potential evildoers if they are not spending most of their time tracking down and attempting to dam the flow of "mere" illegals -- a task in and of itself which may or may not be feasible.  To think otherwise is, I believe, contrary to logic.

How so?  We know the government is ineffective in locating criminals among legal immigrants for a number of political and organizational reasons, and that your proposals would increase the numbers of immigrants they would have to process.  At what point do they become more effective in doing so?  In any event, the legal/illegal distinction is of only limted interest to me.  I want legal immigration curtailed, too, and think a broad approach is more likely to be successful than one that expensively attempts to determine who is good and who is bad.

As to innovation, given sufficient need, we would come up with something, that is true.  However, innovation isn't an instant-on thing; eliminate illegal busboys, and the next day, Intel will have a Robot Busboy on the market.  During that lag, significant damage will be done to sectors of our economy, forcing higher prices, lowering the standard of living (until wages can catch up, if they can), and so on.  And again, my point is that even if innovation is available, that will not help the low/no-skill American worker.  The choice is not between the illegal worker and American worker; the choice is between the illegal worker and automation.  Automation could create American jobs, but they are NOT the jobs that the low/no-skill American worker could get.

You're responding to an argument I didn't make.  I simply wrote that such innovation -- Robot Busboy or Lettuce Harvester 3000 -- would never occur as long as the unskilled, cheap labor spigot was turned on.  In the meantime, I would suggest the simple expedient of hiring Americans, who built this country mining coal, picking cotton, and doing all matter of unpleasant things.  Oh wait, Americans, or at least, ahem, certain Americans, are lazy.  I have a certain cynical comment about that, but given the bounds of propriety expected by RedState, I'll refrain.  I'll simply ask you who cleans hotels and mows lawns in Pittsburgh or Cleveland.  Those jobs don't simply go undone.

I don't know about Julian Simon or Tamar Jacoby.  I know that I propose expanding legal immigration, or guest workers, for the benefit of the American economy as a whole.  I agree that Democrats becoming a permanent majority will do far greater harm than shutting down illegal immigration; I disagree that we Republicans should therefore abandon our philosophical adherence to principles of free market, free trade, and free labor.

Apropos of nothing, Julian Simon was an economist, now deceased, who favored mass immigration; Tamar Jacoby is perhaps his most prominent replacement as an open borders lobbyist.  I would simply say that free trade is a very good substitute for free labor, and of far more benefit both to our country, and the countries with which we trade, than mass immigration is.  Lastly, as we have argued elsewhere, mere intellectual adherence to classical economics is not the sine qua non of the Republican party, and is not the primary reason most people who vote Republican do so.

I most emphatically disagree that Democrats own the immigrant vote,

Republicans fare very poorly with most immigrant groups, particularly low-income immigrant groups.  Democrats owned the 1890-1920 immigrant wave into the 1960s, and history shows every sign of repeating itself.  Just look at California.

unless we Republicans push for policies like "shut down the border, eliminate immigration, to protect the cultural integrity of the United States".  Then yes, we'll be facing permanent exile in a few years' time.

Now that is dubious, especially given how many members of this party's base, such as myself, are simply screaming for something to be done.

But electoral politics aside, I'm sorry if you read my words as not a ringing endorsement.  I was attempting to be more reasoned and less passionate about the subject.  Again, I can't speak for anyone else, but it seems to me that the economic data is pretty compelling that illegal immigration is not a threat to our economy.  Not only that, with the correlation decidedly favoring open borders and open immigration, it does seem to me that having cheap labor -- whether illegal or legal -- is in fact a real benefit to our economy.

I suspect that it is pretty much a wash.  I don't think there are strong economic benefits, especially when the negative fiscal consequences are taken into account, but no, obviously it isn't destroying our economy, either.  I'm more afraid it will destroy our polity.

I am not aware of any studies done on the subject, so I'm forced to use anecdotal evidence.  Every single house on my block, and I suspect in my town, has landscapers come to mow the lawn, trim the hedges, and so on.  The price is roughly $100 a month or so (according to neighbors, since I'm the odd man out and don't use them).  Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows that those workers are not American citizens.  Nor are they here legally.  Everyone knows and accepts that without illegal workers, the landscaping would become unaffordable.  That particular economic activity would just stop.    Those companies aren't entirely owned, operated, staffed with illegals.  Their suppliers are American companies -- Ford, John Deere, Scott's, and so on.  All of that activity would be dramatically curtailed if we really eliminated illegal workers.

Come, now.  Will the residents of your (presumably middle, or upper-middle class) neighborhood allow their lawns to return to nature?  Or would local kids (who as recently as fifteen years ago mowed lawns here in NoVa) step into the breach?  Or perhaps your neighbors would buy riding mowers and mow their own lawns, much to the benefit of Ford and John Deere.  Surely middle-class propriety and HOA bylaws would not simply be thrown out the window in the absence of undocumented workers.  They weren't in the 1960s, and they aren't in cities where undocumented workers are largely unavailable.   And anyway, where is it written that there is some sort of right to low-wage lawn care?  Once more to the barricades!

There are over 35,000 restaurants in New York City, many of them small businesses.  There is no doubt that they employ illegal immigrants in the kitchen, as busboys, as dishwashers, etc.  Without that labor force, many of them would just close down; others would have to raise prices.  Consumers are most definitely affected -- less eating out, less going out, less economic activity.  Suppliers are most definitely affected -- fewer restaurants ==> less business.  The chain reaction will not, cannot possibly be, good for the economy.

Or, as fewer people eat out, they cook more at home, thereby losing weight -- people tend to eat smaller, healthier portions at home -- and reducing healthcare costs.  Plus, with the money they don't spend eating out, they buy other goods and services, or they invest the money.  They're not just going to stuff it under a mattress.

Low-skill/no-skill Americans can't get jobs as busboys and landscapers?

They can't compete with immigrants, who are, rightly or wrongly perceived to be more industrious, in greater need, and a great deal more pliable.

Stresses on social services because illegals don't pay taxes -- that one is partly solved by legalizing the workers and collecting taxes.

Again, someone living on $12 an hour effectively doesn't pay taxes.  He still requires roads, sewers, trash pickup, police protection, healthcare in the emergency room, education for his kids ($5000 a year), and expensively-hired workers who can speak his language at municipal offices.  But he pays for none of it, regardless of whether he's officially on the tax rolls, because we, rightly in my opinion, have progressive taxation.  I, and the rest of Americans who actually pay taxes, pay for it.  And what do we, or some of us, anyway, get?  Slightly cheaper labor-intensive luxuries like maids, busboys, and lawn care.

In conclusion, I say that we define "need" a little differently.  If the benefits of immigrant labor so far outweigh the costs, as I think I have attempted to show, while the "shut it down" strategy has unclear benefits and very real, very high, and very definite costs, then increasing legal immigration as a strategy to combat illegal immigration and the problems associated with it is in fact a need that our economy has.

Where is the clear evidence that the economic benefits far outweigh the economic and fiscal costs?   It seems to be a wash, with most of the benefits going to the immigrants themselves and to the rentier class, whose returns on capital increase when wages go down.  For those of us in the middle, who keep foolishly pulling the lever for the Elephant, the cost is mainly in reduced quality of life from more crowding, more open spaces being paved over, and the need to move further and further away to keep our children in safe and decent schools.  Though all the extra fuel burnt, and the parts in our cars that wear out more often because we drive more would appear, under the sort of economic analysis you're doing, to be benefits, since they result in greater economic activity.  Phooey.

Let's note that we differ on legal immigration, so we're going to differ clearly on illegal immigration.  I suspect your reasons are other than economic -- that's for another time and another place.

To the economic arguments:

Or, as fewer people eat out, they cook more at home, thereby losing weight -- people tend to eat smaller, healthier portions at home -- and reducing healthcare costs.  Plus, with the money they don't spend eating out, they buy other goods and services, or they invest the money.  They're not just going to stuff it under a mattress.

I think the scenario described here is pretty much a classic definition of reduction of economic activity.  That's fine if you think this is good; I do not.  The money they don't spend eating out doesn't get spent on additional goods and services -- remember that with agricultural workers now being paid $5/hr, lettuce is $4 a head.  They're not going to stuff it under a mattress: they're going to spend the same amount of money buying fewer goods and services.  Let's be clear that this is what you are arguing for.

The same goes for the lawn care example.  You're probably right that my neighbors would end up doing it themselves -- but it isn't only the illegal immigrant worker that suffers.  The landscaping companies -- who I'm sure you'd rather see bankrupt -- also get punished, their suppliers and their legal employees get punished, and so on and so forth.  We'll get by -- but at a reduced level of economic activity ==> reduced standard of living all around.  Again, let's be clear that this is what you are arguing for.

I, and the rest of Americans who actually pay taxes, pay for it.  And what do we, or some of us, anyway, get?  Slightly cheaper labor-intensive luxuries like maids, busboys, and lawn care

My argument is that we taxpayers get:

• 16% job growth
  
• Highest per capita GDP
  
• 5.4% unemployment with only 8.5% long-term
  
• 3.3% average annual growth rate

because an economy that stresses consumer benefits over worker/producer benefits performs at the above rates.  Free flow of labor across borders, whether as immigrants or as guest workers, is a feature of such a consumer-based capitalist economy.

Now, the interpretation of this sort of data, which doesn't prove causation, is something that is left to the individual.  You are free to, as you have done, argue that these numbers are all fine and good, but the middle class is losing standard of living vis-a-vis crowding, bad schools, etc. etc.  Those are choices we make as a society -- I am but advocating making one set of choices that I believe leads to greater prosperity for ALL Americans at the end of the day, at the lowest cost.

Seems to me that you are advocating another set of choices, designed to lead to greater cultural integrity, lower economic activity, and less prosperity for all Americans.  We can do that, because as has been pointed out, we're not just economic labor units -- we're human beings who can choose to forego economic benefits for other benefits.  But let's at least be clear about the tradeoff.

If eliminating illegal immigration is going to lead to GREATER economic growth, MORE job creation in the overall economy, and MORE activity... this is an argument that I have not yet heard from opponents of immigration.

-TS

High job growth, low unemployment, and a high standard of living in periods when we had low immigration, and other countries have managed the same thing at various times and places.  Conversely, we've had poor economic conditions at times of high or laxly restricted immigration, such as the late 1970s and early 1980s, or in the 1870s.  The correlation between a lax immigration regime and economic growth, is far from absolute, and there is no logical or legal necessity that would demand that restricting immigration would somehow destroy "consumer capitalism," which got along fine in the absence of low immigration when it was tried.  

I suspect your reasons are other than economic -- that's for another time and another place.

No need to suspect it - I've been quite clear here and elsewhere that this is the case.  I suspect your reasons for supporting open immigration aren't primarily based on economic factors, either.  

They're not going to stuff it under a mattress: they're going to spend the same amount of money buying fewer goods and services.  Let's be clear that this is what you are arguing for.

If I cut back on dining out because the price of busboys goes up, there are numerous other luxuries I can, and will, buy.  In general, the tendency will be to spend on other luxury goods where illegal labor is not a major factor of production.  Am I really worse-off as a result?  Of course, if I don't change my spending habits, there are more things on which the higher-priced busboy can spend his money.

The same goes for the lawn care example.  You're probably right that my neighbors would end up doing it themselves -- but it isn't only the illegal immigrant worker that suffers.  The landscaping companies -- who I'm sure you'd rather see bankrupt -- also get punished, their suppliers and their legal employees get punished, and so on and so forth.  We'll get by -- but at a reduced level of economic activity ==> reduced standard of living all around.  Again, let's be clear that this is what you are arguing for.

No, I'd rather not see them or anyone else bankrupt, but I'm not too concerned about it, either, as firms go bankrupt every day.  I don't think the common good requires that they receive a subsidy in the form of taxpayer-supported illegal immigration.  It seems as if you're arguing that we need to maintain illegal immigration and/or eliminate worker protection to maintain landscaping companies (and unscrupulous restaurateurs and lettuce farmers).

Seems to me that you are advocating another set of choices, designed to lead to greater cultural integrity, lower economic activity, and less prosperity for all Americans.  We can do that, because as has been pointed out, we're not just economic labor units -- we're human beings who can choose to forego economic benefits for other benefits.  But let's at least be clear about the tradeoff.

There may be such a tradeoff, but since immigration advocates have been signally unsuccessful in demonstrating a strong link between the otherwise highly destructive policies they advocate and economic growth, I remain sceptical.  So far, you have only unconvincingly presented unrestricted immigration with a host of other features of our successful economy and then, begging the question, simply declared that it is an important part of the whole, much the way old ads for unhealthy breakfast cereals would place their product in a tableau with bananas, milk, and whole-wheat toast and tell us that "chocolate sugar bomb cereal is an important part of this nutritious breakfast."  I can't agree:  the most important part of our economy is skilled, flexible people, and that is precisely what we're not getting from south of the border.

If eliminating illegal immigration is going to lead to GREATER economic growth, MORE job creation in the overall economy, and MORE activity... this is an argument that I have not yet heard from opponents of immigration.

It might, since there have been times and places with strong economic growth and low immigration.  How could we prove that such a thing would happen, however?  No one can see the future.  I think there's a good case to be made that a smaller stream of highly-skilled immigrants would contribute far more to our economy than our current large stream of (mostly) poorly-skilled ones.  The former are more productive and less burdensome.