John is exactly correct about this; and that is precisely why we need to continue such immigration, albeit with more regularization, because we want the wages of unskilled labor to be depressed. We pay too much for it. We pay more than it is worth in a free market.

?!?!?!?!

Its a mess, i guess, and John and You and me seem quite confused...so to speak.

Mexicans (and other South American immigrants) are all over Florida, digging...lifting...digging...picking...digging...laying...digging. 99.9% of American workers *FEAR* digging?!? Well, nothing gets going until some digging is done, and Americans *FEAR* shovels...even at $50.00 an hour, most Americans will cry if they have to dig a 2' x 2' x 10' ditch. Most of America was trained in 'Da Sand-Box...so, if digging requires more effort than 'Da Sand-Box did, then they won't even take a digging job at $50.00 an hour.

Well, Mexicans can make good money digging ditches, since shovels need to be manned. From there, many can find other trades...like laying tile. Good money in tile...for all who want to do a good job laying it.

Houses, Schools, Business Buildings...all such construction usually starts with digging. How does one train a Doctor or Lawyer or etc without some digging first?!?

OK...now we are at the term "unskilled labor", and what such labor is worth here in America. Far too many American workers have become useless...at best. Yes, i could make $500 an hour with a shovel if not for Mexicans and other illegal immigrants!!!

Kill them or allow them to stay...to come,

KårmiÇåpî†ålîs†

First I want to say this is one of the best pieces on the immigration subject I have read.

Second, a question.

What about the principle of Rule of Law?

There are laws regarding immigration into the United States dictating who, where, how. Are we to just ignore the violation of those laws?

What about the principle of Rule of Law?

Good point...

How many Laws do we need?!? Want?!? Immigration laws are unbelievable, mainly since there is such a large demand to enter America...such laws...as in just immigration laws are unenforceable, and America probably has more laws on the Books than any 50 countries combined.

The only way to stop illegal immigration, is to start killing them on sight...killing them upon capture, and such will never happen.

I've linked to Border Control, Immigration Law Reform, Assimilation, Migrant Protectionism, and Ins and Outs of Immigration from Muy Caliente. My It's past time to turn back the illegal invasion and ¡No! ¡No se pueden! posts also relate to the matter at hand. There are still some things we don't quite see eye-to-eye about but you've softened my stance on the situation at least a little.

I'm going to have to give up the computer for a little bit to keep peace in the family but I'll update my Muy Caliente post as soon as I can manage to include a summary of my current thoughts similar to your Border Control, Immigration Law Reform, Assimilation post.

Stephen Macklin:

What about the principle of Rule of Law?

Rule of law doesn't mean we ruthlessly enforce every law, just because it is a law. Some principles supercede the law: during slavery, wouldn't you have been part of the "underground railroad?"

Rule of law means that the duties of each citizen are spelled out in the law, so that you cannot be prosecuted for something you had no way of knowing was disallowed.

It's not applicable here, as it is a prohibition on government abuse of power -- not a paean to legalism.

Dafydd

Dafydd-

Your point about immigrants (both legal and illegal) depressing wage levels is, I think, valid.

But there is also another economic force working here: Many (most?) illegal immigrants send a large portion of their earnings to relatives back in their home countries.

I'm not an economist, but I'm pretty sure this is mainly a positive for the foreign economies that receive the remittances. But what about our economy? To the extent that US wages are neither spent nor invested here, we lose the economic "multiplier effect". It seems to me that this makes those workers much less valuable to our economy than those who spend or invest all their income here.

Dick E:

It seems to me that this makes those workers much less valuable to our economy than those who spend or invest all their income here.

More or less valuable, would you say, than American citizens who spend their entire lives on welfare?

Dafydd

Dafydd-

The perpetual welfare recipients are not competing for jobs with illegal immigrants (or with anyone else, for that matter).

The point I was trying to make is that, among those who work for a living, it is better for our economy to have their wages spent or invested here, rather than abroad.

Dick E:

The point I was trying to make is that, among those who work for a living, it is better for our economy to have their wages spent or invested here, rather than abroad.

What is your point, Dick E? It's their money; they earned it. They can do what they want with it.

There are many frivolous uses of money that harm the economy... driving to Las Vegas and gambling it all away, for example, or drinking oneself into a stupor. But we do not discriminate against people on the basis of what legal way they choose to dispose of their personal property; and we shouldn't raise that irrelevant argument in a debate over immigration.

Otherwise, we're put in the ridiculous position of admitting somebody who promises to spend all his money on sex toys and Jack Daniels sold in American stores, but rejecting some hard-working fellow who wants to send some of his money back to support his invalid mother in Guadalupe.

Dafydd

Dafydd-

Are you saying we should ignore the various effects on our economy when discussing immigration? Wow -- that's a shocker! I certainly hope you were just being facetious.

I would be the last to deny that it is bad for individuals and for our economy when people destroy their lives with drugs, booze, or gambling.

And it would be impossible (as well as being wrong) to try to discriminate among potential immigrants based on how each individual will spend their money. They are, as you point out, free to spend it, give it away, or squirrel it under a mattress, however they (legally) please.

My point is, when looking at the big picture of immigration, both legal and illegal, we should consider the effect on our economy caused by a significant number of immigrants, especially those at the lower end of the economic totem pole, sending a substantial amount of their earnings out of the country. It's just one piece of a very complex puzzle, and it shouldn't be the only consideration -- it may not even be one of the top issues -- but it shouldn't be ignored.

Dick E:

Are you saying we should ignore the various effects on our economy when discussing immigration? Wow -- that's a shocker! I certainly hope you were just being facetious.

No, Dick E; just the opposite. We already know what makes an economy works and what kills it.

Protectionism does not work. You advocate "migrant protectionism," trying to save Americans from having to compete in the real world.

When people talk about immigrants "artificially lowering wages," as I heard yesterday on Medved, they have it exactly backward (and they don't understand economics, either, no matter what degrees they have): what is "artificial" is to prevent the free movement of labor to find jobs.

If Juan would do a job just as well but for cheaper than Bob, then the natural value of that job is the Juan value, not the Bob value. If you won't let Juan do it -- because you want Bob to have it, or because you think it ought to be more valuable a job -- then it is you who ignores the various highly negative effects of protectionism on our economy.

A national-security interest, where it actually exists, trumps the free-movement interest... even economically, since a terrorist attack has a devastating effect on the economy.

But when you separate those immigrants who are a real threat from those whose only "threat" is that they're willing to clean hotel rooms for less than an American would demand, you admit that the much larger latter category does not pose a real national-security threat.

Only two groups of people have a rational, albeit anti-economic, reason to oppose regularizing the non-dangerous immigrants currently here illegally and setting up a guest worker program and a citizenship path for would-be workers and immigrants:

• A small number of companies that exploit illegals and who fear that if they were regularized, they would no longer be helpless -- causing certain labor costs, for jobs that only illegals do, to rise;
• A much larger number of people, and their friends and supporters, who worry that if previously illegal immigrants were allowed to surface and join the economy, they would spread away from those "traditional illegal-immigrant jobs" into other areas of the economy... and because they are good workers and willing to accept less, cause those wages to drop.

You are a protectionist; I am a free marketeer. I am quite certain which of the two of us is more concerned about the American economy.

Dafydd

Dafydd-

Jeez -- a protectionist! Nobody's ever called me that before. At least no one who knows me.

The point I was making referred to low wage workers only because they are the most likely to send money to relatives abroad. Where did I say that the fact they earn low wages is a problem?

What you say above truly qualifies you as a free marketeer. If we did what you propose, the only reason for passports and border guards is to protect us against threats to national security. We'd be the first country in the world with such a policy, as far as I know. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a bad idea. It's just that no other developed nation has such a policy.)

By the way, how do you reconcile what you say here to what you posted on your previous page, Ins and Outs of Immigration: "I truly and actually believe in the American ideal; but my ideological creed must be tempered by the forge of reality: we obviously cannot simply open the borders and let a firehose of immigration spray across."

Dick E:

If we did what you propose, the only reason for passports and border guards is to protect us against threats to national security. We'd be the first country in the world with such a policy, as far as I know. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a bad idea. It's just that no other developed nation has such a policy.)

Yes, you've pretty much gotten my position. And of course it's fairly unique; there is even a name for it: American exceptionalism.

But it's certainly not new: this was always our policy, more or less, until the early twentieth century, when we began to put the brakes on immigration for purely racial reasons: too many Eastern European (Jews) and Southern European (dark-skinned) immigrants coming in to mess up the white Anglo-Irish-Nordic race.

I want us to get back to the nineteenth- and very-early-twentieth-century immigration policy:

1. We keep out those who would demonstrably be bad for America: terrorists, criminals, layabouts, and people with mental problems.
2. We make permanent residency realtively easy (with background checks, etc.), and citizenship difficult but doable, with a clearly defined path the immigrant can follow.
3. We demand assimilation as part of that path.
4. We also let in those who simply want to work here for a while then return home (with scrutiny, of course).

America is not overcrowded, for heaven's sake; we can use anybody willing and able to learn and work. And there are many foreigners we send away now who are better people than much of the native American stock; we could use the invigoration of fresh blood -- from places other than Latin America, the region currently favored over all others: Asia, for example, and Africa. Europe, too, especially from the former Soviet captive States. And yes, even from Arabia: give them special scrutiny (I have no objection to national profiling); but if they're clean, welcome them in!

By the way, how do you reconcile what you say here to what you posted on your previous page, Ins and Outs of Immigration: "I truly and actually believe in the American ideal; but my ideological creed must be tempered by the forge of reality: we obviously cannot simply open the borders and let a firehose of immigration spray across."

See step 1 above. If we're not scrutinizing everyone who comes in, how could we segregate out that lot? That is what I meant.

Dafydd

Dafydd-

OK, I suppose you could interpret "...we obviously cannot open the borders and let a firehose of immigration spray across" to be consistent with letting in everybody but the 4 categories of baddies you list.

But on March 13 in Please Fence Me In you blogged, "Today, millions flood across the border, desperate ... to build a world where their own babies and children can grow up without knowing starvation of body or soul, wracked by poverty and crushed by oppression. They come for the same reason my own ancestors came -- back when we welcomed the tired, the poor, the huddled masses. * * * Today, for reasons entirely understandable, we simply cannot take them all; we would quickly lose our country."

I think a reasonable person would interpret "we simply cannot take them all" to exclude more immigrants than the demonstrable bad guys.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree -- I would just like to know where you stand.

Dick E:

Today, for reasons entirely understandable, we simply cannot take them all; we would quickly lose our country.

You're probably right that my thinking has evolved on this point the more I think about it. That often happens with me; I have always been willing to change my mind about various issues in response to new facts -- or even new analysis of old facts.

For example, I hadn't thought much about the distinction between temporary guest workers and permanent immigrants until just a few days ago, when I first segregated them in a post here, I forget which one. My thinking evolves, and it does so very visibly on the blog.

It has not reversed, however.

I believe that a very large chunk of the people trying to get into the United States, probably a majority, have no real desire to stay here permanently; they just want to work, then go home again (where it's a lot cheaper to live).

We shouldn't admit such people as immigrants but rather as guest workers. There was no such distinction in the early days of immigration in this country (that's a major change from the past I support): everyone admitted was assumed to be intending to stay permanently. Today, we should split them out into a separate group.

We're mostly talking about the category of "unskilled labor" -- as opposed to "skilled labor," who mostly want to move here permanently so they can live the American dream.

(I'm not saying no unskilled labor should be admitted as immigrants; type of employment shouldn't be the criterion, rather the willingness and ability to support oneself and one's family. I'm just talking tendencies.)

Of those who do try to get in to stay permanently, a significant portion shouldn't be admitted:

• A small number are criminals or terrorists.
• Others cannot demonstrate that they actually will work and support themselves and their families; there really are some layabouts and people coming here for the welfare. This would include senior citizens without means and without a family to support them, who might just want to come here as their "retirement plan."
• Others are just somewhat squirrely; they've never really committed any serious crime, but they have associations that, in my opinion, should bar them from entry -- at least as immigrants, maybe as a guest worker.

I don't know what portion this adds up to; we'll find out. But I would suspect (based upon my gut feeling) that we're talking between 25% and 40% of all persons who at least attempt to enter the country with the intention of staying more or less permanently.

The ones I want to see admitted -- which is what I had in mind in the older post, too -- are those who would benefit the country... which means they are industrious, honest, decent people who have the desire and capacity to earn their own way (by any honest means). I would give preference to anyone who had supported a family (his children or his parents, whichever).

But there are a lot we should keep out... hence the wall, hence scrutiny, hence a bunch of high-tech hardware and software to determine as best we can who really just doesn't belong here.

I'm not switching positions; I'm switching focus, because I don't want to be a pot-and-pan banger. Sometimes, as in Please Fence Me In, I'm focusing on who should be kept out; in other posts, such as the last few, I focus on who we should let in. If my language isn't always mathematically precise, I apologize; I will be happy to clarify.

We can't let everyone in; there are many classes of people we would have admitted for immigration in 1920 that we just can't today. Back then, a mere desire to immigrate here (plus the immigrant's own statement that he would work) was enough. (If I said we should get back to that, I meant back to the rational criteria... not necessarily the exact same loose criteria used back then.)

But we need to make our immigration criteria more rational and predictable, and we need to create a path to citizenship that immigrants can follow. We want to admit those who really want to live here because they really believe in America. We want to keep out not only those who would be dangerous -- but as well those who just "sorta kinda" want to live here because they think everyone here becomes rich... "Lotto immigrants," I guess I would call them.

Dafydd

Dafydd-

If I follow your argument correctly, you propose to give a green card to anyone who wants to establish permanent residency, as long as they are ready, willing and able to work and they don’t have criminal, moral or other specified undesirable qualities. I won’t hold you to a complete list of undesirable qualities -- that would probably require considerable thought.

Fair summary? If not, please stop reading immediately and inform me how I have erred. ( I know you’ll keep reading anyway -- or at least I hope so.)

Now, is this just a theoretical ideal that you would like to see happen, or do you think it is actually possible to put into practice? If the former, OK, I understand, nuff said, goodbye (but please read the last paragraph). If the latter, please read on.

OK. Well I think I see some implementation issues, or at least one major one. How the heck do we compile a data base of everyone in the WORLD who has an association with an organization that is “somewhat squirrely”? (I won’t get in to how we determine which organizations in Nepal or Benin or Uruguay are squirrely.) Those organizations tend to be very secretive about their activities and membership. And the immigration candidate’s government might not have compiled membership lists or might not share the information with us -- it’s even possible that one or both of those actions would be illegal in the foreign country. What do we do then? Get the information ourselves? That is a huge job that, while diplomatic immunity might protect us from consequences of violating a local law, would certainly be looked upon by the locals as the big bully US running roughshod over the locals. And doing the entire job surreptitiously, including the constant updates it would require, strains credulity.

Plan B would be for us to do an exhaustive investigation of each candidate for immigration, presumably by the local US embassy or consulate. They already take forever to do the investigations they are charged with today. The manpower required to do the additional millions of investigations boggles the mind. Not impossible, mind you, just mind boggling. You referred earlier, on another blog page, to your wife’s unfortunate experience with naturalization. Well, as I said before, my wife’s naturalization went very smoothly. But to emigrate to the US after we were married in Mexico took a US senator’s influence to expedite the process. (OK, that’s ancient history, but I’ll bet it still takes a long time.) What we experienced would be nothing compared to investigating the additional millions who would apply if we just opened the floodgates. (Hey! I built on your water metaphor!) To say nothing of the candidates whose files just sit on some bureaucrat’s desk gathering dust as did your wife’s naturalization petition.

And another thing: How do we determine which candidates “demonstrate that they actually will work and support themselves and their families”? Age? Marital status? Prior work record ? (Remember, most of them are coming here to FIND work.) Subjective evaluation of the candidate’s motives? Hmm, that would certainly “make our immigration criteria more rational and predictable”. Or maybe we should just let them in and weed out the bad apples after the fact. Now that’s an orchard that the ACLU and the trial lawyers would love to harvest. (Sorry for the strained metaphor.)

Oh yeah, and what do we do about guest workers? Do they have to pass the same test? After all, they’ll only be here for a limited amount of time, so it doesn’t matter if they’re terrorists, drug dealers, etc.

Finally, you obviously are a very independent thinker, but I don’t know of anyone else, anywhere on the political spectrum, who even remotely agrees that we should adopt a “come one, come all” (except for 25 to 40%) philosophy. (Vicente Fox excluded.) And no, they’re not all xenophobes or worried about competition. One dissenter, whom I assume you respect, is Paul Mirengoff -- see his March 31 post “Follow the Money”. At least you SHOULD respect Paul. After all, Powerline directed this gadfly to your site. (Which, by the way, I have found immensely entertaining, usually on the mark and often informative. Sorry, I‘m still going to Powerline first for my daily fix of non-MSM information. Keep trying, though -- I too can change my mind.)

Dick E:

You are confusing improvement with perfection.

• We do a criminal background check on the applicant's fingerprints.
• We set up a data-mining operation to create a database of associations. We autocheck each applictant against that database. If there is a match, then and only then do we do an extensive search.

How do we determine which candidates “demonstrate that they actually will work and support themselves and their families”?... Subjective evaluation of the candidate’s motives? Hmm, that would certainly “make our immigration criteria more rational and predictable”

• Evaluators evaluate the applicant's answers to questions. "Will you work?" "Uh... yeah" is not good enough. "Yes, I have experience repairing automobiles, and I will work as a mechanic" is good enough to pass that part. That is what evaluators are supposed to do and what they did in the past... just like when cops begin questioning someone and swiftly evaluate whether he is telling the truth or lying.
• Finally, we track every entrant as best we can, and when we discover (by any means) that an entrant has not obeyed the rules or done what he said he would do, and we determine he was at fault (we don't oust him for not working if he got injured, for example) -- out he goes with some suitable punishment (such as a six-month ban on re-entering).

So in general, we're talking about:

1. A background check including medical evaluation (that's already the law, as you must remember);
2. A set of questions the applicant must answer, evaluated by persons trained in making such evaluations;
3. Follow-up tracking as best we can, facilitated by smart "intellicards" we all must use for various purposes (such as getting a job), replacing or supplementing the old paper Social Security cards, Green Cards, visas stamps on the passport, and so forth.

And yes, this would be a great improvement in rationality and predictabiliy: immigrants will soon know that they had better have good answers to those questions, which forces them to think (in advance) about what they will do when they get here. Which is just what we want.

Those we want to keep out as lazy slobs are the sort who wouldn't bother thinking about their answers even if you explicitly told them in advance. Which, by the way, I think we should do: a pamphlet titled something like "Who Gets In," which lays out -- in general terms -- what we're looking for... you know, like Australia does.

(Australia actually uses a point system for immigrants; and they publish what characteristics get how many points.)

Bad guys, like terrorists, would be trained how to pass the questions; we should use many of the same techniques the Israelis use, including facial-recognition software and that database.

My suggestion is how to make a better and more rational immigration system... not a perfect one. I anticipate failures, even bad ones; I anticipate fewer than with the system we have now or any other system so far proposed.

Yes, I know Paul and I disagree. So do Hugh and I and Captain Ed and I. Dick E, bear in mind that I am not a conservative; I am an anti-liberal, but not all anti-liberals are conservatives. I wouldn't say I'm an iconoclast, but I come fairly close.

And I have said repeatedly that Power Line is my own favorite blog -- not even excepting Big Lizards!

Dafydd

Dafydd-

Uncle!

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)