Immigration

[Hurlshort]

I thought I'd start a new thread on the immigration angle of the Texas discussion, as we haven't discussed it in awhile. There has been a steady push recently against illegal immigration in the US. Arizona passed a very controversial bill, there has been conflicts over Cinco De mayo, etc.

 

Now a lot of the pressure is brought on by the high unemployment rate in the US, currently hovering around 10% in some states. The idea here is that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from US citizens. We are looking at an estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the US, with California shouldering about a quarter of that and Texas coming in at about 14%. According to the research, about 57% of illegal immigrants come from Mexico.

 

My belief is that the entire idea of patrolling borders and going after illegals is a waste of money. Here is why:

 

1. A large labor force is necessary for our agricultural industry. These are seasonal jobs. Compared to most jobs in the US, they pay poorly. Right now if we were to magically remove everyone that is in the US illegally, this entire industry would collapse. That would devastate the US economy like nothing we have ever seen before. With 10% unemployment, you might think that these jobs can be filled easily, but that is not the case. With our current welfare and minimum wage system, neither employers nor unemployed US citizens are jumping at the chance to work in the fields.

 

2. Patrolling the border is expensive. It is a gigantic border. Having law enforcement dedicated to illegal immigration is also expensive. It takes time and money away from dealing with violent crime. I understand the issue is large, 11.5 million is a lot of people. But are there other alternatives to lowering that number than aggressive deportation?

 

Here are my solutions:

 

1. The Bracero program was a partnership between the US and Mexico that allowed a worker exchange for almost 20 years. At it's height, it brought nearly half a million workers over in one year to fill different gaps in US industries. This type of program is key to keeping US industries stable while legitimizing the needed Mexican labor force. We need many of these program, and they need to be backed by strong Mexican-US business deals that improve the the economies of both nations. This can even create more jobs for US citizens, as the programs themselves will become an industry and need an educated workforce to oversee and coordinate.

 

2. How much does the US spend on the Canadian border? It is an even larger border, so how come we never hear about millions being spent on fences between Seattle and Vancouver? There is a major problem with US-Mexico relations, and it needs to be addressed. First off, it is in the US's best interest to help Mexico become a stable and strong economic power. They are our third largest trade partner. Invest some of that border patrol money into stimulating the Mexican economy, and suddenly you have less people trying to leave Mexico. This is already done to an extent, but it needs to be full scale to make a real difference.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Build a real border fence and patrol it. Send an army division if necessary, they're not doing much in their bases anyway. Problem solved.

[Gfted1]

Oh boy, solution #2 really blew me out of the water. I can never understand the need for self flaggelation and how we deserve these 6,555,000 illegal immigrant because we are more successful then Mexico. And then we should dump money to stimulate their economy?!?! Wow. In case you havent noticed, weve got a few issues of our own. A 14 TRILLION dollar defecit, a faltering economy, an ecological disaster, a TRILLION dollar UHC that my kids kids wont be able to pay off, etc... Wait, lemme guess, we can "tax the rich"? All so we can make Mexico a better place to live and reduce illegal immigration. Unbelievable. Hold up while I go grab my checkbook. Will another TRILLION do?

[Enoch]

Helping to make Mexico a less terrible place to live is a long-term pie-in-the-sky goal, and one that Mexico itself is going to have to do the heavy lifting on. In the near term, focusing on more tangible mutually beneficial goals like helping Mexican authorities reduce the influence of the drug cartels is a good way to start. And making the rules for legal immigration and guest worker-hood more sensible would be an important step.

 

But I do agree that any kind of thorough border policing would very probably cost far more than whatever benefit it would provide.

 

As for dealing with the current population of undocumented immigrants, there are no practical "good" solutions available. Wide-scale amnesty creates moral hazard problems, particularly if it isn't paired with making legal immigration rules more sensible. Wide-scale deportation is expensive, has very little tangible benefit, would likely drive many immigrants deeper into underground/illegal circles, and is pretty pointless if not paired with a huge increase in border patrolling.

 

 

Also, a sidenote to Gfted, your numbers have confused deficit with debt.

[GreasyDogMeat]

This is essentially Mexico shipping it's poverty over the border. Does any country in the world put up with that? We have the legal immigration process for a reason. Even if you buy into the bleeding heart 'oh they just come for a better life' etc, look at the prison statistics, the deaths by illegal aliens both on purpose (drug cartels. Phoenix has highest kidnap rate in the country) and accident (drunk driving), the drains on our school, medical and legal systems and its clear that the bad far outweighs the good.

 

Yet foreign idiots continue to call us racist etc. while maintaining their own brutally difficult exclusionary immigration policies. It drives me nuts and I'm so proud of Gov. Jan Brewer for the recent Arizona law.

[heathen]

It's pretty funny how americans complain about illegals while at the same time using them as cheap labour. Can't have it both ways, guys.

 

Also it's funny that americans complain about the drugs while basically everyone with money and influence does them or have done them at some point. There'd be no drugs without a market and no illegal aliens without demand for cheaper workforce. Fix those and your problem solves itself.

 

Build a real border fence and patrol it. Send an army division if necessary, they're not doing much in their bases anyway. Problem solved.

 

Seriously this kind of thinking is completely backwards. This would still leave the reason the mexicans are coming to the states: higher standard of living from low end jobs americans don't want to do. It would just make it harder and/or more expensive for the mexicans to get to the states, which would give more money to the criminal gangs who smuggle people in.

Edited July 1, 2010 by heathen

[GreasyDogMeat]

It's pretty funny how americans complain about illegals while at the same time using them as cheap labour. Can't have it both ways, guys.

 

Also it's funny that americans complain about the drugs while basically everyone with money and influence does them or have done them at some point. There'd be no drugs without a market and no illegal aliens without demand for cheaper workforce. Fix those and your problem solves itself.

 

Build a real border fence and patrol it. Send an army division if necessary, they're not doing much in their bases anyway. Problem solved.

 

Seriously this kind of thinking is completely backwards. This would still leave the reason the mexicans are coming to the states: higher standard of living from low end jobs americans don't want to do. It would just make it harder and/or more expensive for the mexicans to get to the states, which would give more money to the criminal gangs who smuggle people in.

You know what... I actually agree with you. Republicans want illegals for the cheap labor, Democrats for voters etc.

 

As for the fence... it might help, but I think putting in law that are actually ENFORCED that made coming across illegally completely pointless would render the need for a fence moot. There are too many incentives for coming across illegally and things like anchor babies just increase the flood. You set the fines steep enough for employers who hire illegals and actually crack down on them, unlike the rare show raid Janet Nepalitano performed and they stop coming.

 

My step-Grandfather spent years preparing to come here legally from Japan. The current situation is just an insult to those who came here legally.

[heathen]

It's pretty funny how americans complain about illegals while at the same time using them as cheap labour. Can't have it both ways, guys.

 

Also it's funny that americans complain about the drugs while basically everyone with money and influence does them or have done them at some point. There'd be no drugs without a market and no illegal aliens without demand for cheaper workforce. Fix those and your problem solves itself.

 

Build a real border fence and patrol it. Send an army division if necessary, they're not doing much in their bases anyway. Problem solved.

 

Seriously this kind of thinking is completely backwards. This would still leave the reason the mexicans are coming to the states: higher standard of living from low end jobs americans don't want to do. It would just make it harder and/or more expensive for the mexicans to get to the states, which would give more money to the criminal gangs who smuggle people in.

You know what... I actually agree with you. Republicans want illegals for the cheap labor, Democrats for voters etc.

 

As for the fence... it might help, but I think putting in law that are actually ENFORCED that made coming across illegally completely pointless would render the need for a fence moot. There are too many incentives for coming across illegally and things like anchor babies just increase the flood. You set the fines steep enough for employers who hire illegals and actually crack down on them, unlike the rare show raid Janet Nepalitano performed and they stop coming.

 

My step-Grandfather spent years preparing to come here legally from Japan. The current situation is just an insult to those who came here legally.

 

Any fence or law would be completely ineffective unless you eliminate the reason why they're coming to the states. As I said, they'd still come and farmers/cab companies and whoever would still hire them. You'd just make their lives much more difficult and possibly make criminal gangs much more powerful.

 

The reason why politicians don't talk about the root of the problem is because they are it, their greed is it. The average americans greed is the problem.

 

One possible solution would be making hiring illegals heavily fined and actually enforcing it. This would make Hurlshots option #1 viable and reduce illegal aliens without the need for fences.

Edited July 1, 2010 by heathen

[GreasyDogMeat]

You set the fines steep enough for employers who hire illegals and actually crack down on them, unlike the rare show raid Janet Nepalitano performed and they stop coming.

 

One possible solution would be making hiring illegals heavily fined and actually enforcing it. This would make Hurlshots option #1 viable and reduce illegal aliens without the need for fences.

Uh... like I just said?

 

As for the 'average American', polls seem to show they support the new Arizona law. I have an extremely liberal family member and the one thing we can talk about and agree on as far as politics go is immigration.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, simple solution, make people not greedy. Enforcing the illegal hiring law might work as a disinsentive (although it'll create a huge outcry if the government really starts enforcing it) but it won't secure our borders against drug smugglers and terrorists. Only a patrolled fence will do that. To say the cost of the fence is excessive is ridiculous, we've probably build more than a million miles of roadway as part of the interstate highway system. To patrol it would be roughly equivalent to one large city police department.

[Aram]

I say we annex Mexico. 51st state and all that.

[heathen]

You set the fines steep enough for employers who hire illegals and actually crack down on them, unlike the rare show raid Janet Nepalitano performed and they stop coming.

 

One possible solution would be making hiring illegals heavily fined and actually enforcing it. This would make Hurlshots option #1 viable and reduce illegal aliens without the need for fences.

Uh... like I just said?

 

Haha, right you are. I'm dead tired, long day behind be and a longer in front. Reading comprehension isn't at it's highest

 

As for the 'average American', polls seem to show they support the new Arizona law. I have an extremely liberal family member and the one thing we can talk about and agree on as far as politics go is immigration.

 

Well, most who I've talked to, which isn't a lot, are liberal and are against the law if not for immigration. It is pretty harsh and could easily be abused. Still, I guess the problem is big enough that some action needs to be taken. Too bad it just has to be a ineffective, overly harsh one.

 

Yes, simple solution, make people not greedy. Enforcing the illegal hiring law might work as a disinsentive (although it'll create a huge outcry if the government really starts enforcing it) but it won't secure our borders against drug smugglers and terrorists.

 

Uh, so you support the use of illegals as cheap labour yet want them out of the country? How's that work exactly?

 

I can assure you terrorists aren't coming to the states illegally. Hell, most of your terrorists are of domestic breed. And as I said, drugs is high risk / high gain, no matter how well guarded a fence would be it wouldn't stop the flow of drugs since there's such a huge, insanely high profit market for it.

 

Only a patrolled fence will do that. To say the cost of the fence is excessive is ridiculous, we've probably build more than a million miles of roadway as part of the interstate highway system. To patrol it would be roughly equivalent to one large city police department.

 

I see you're pulling numbers out of your arse again.

Edited July 1, 2010 by heathen

[GreasyDogMeat]

Well, most who I've talked to, which isn't a lot, are liberal and are against the law if not for immigration. It is pretty harsh and could easily be abused. Still, I guess the problem is big enough that some action needs to be taken. Too bad it just has to be a ineffective, overly harsh one.

If it turns out to be innefective its going to be because the officers refuse to enforce it. From what I've read, just the threat of passing this law cut down on illegal aliens crossing the border into Arizona and many have left for other states.

 

Once the leak is plugged THEN we can worry about 'comprehensive immigration reform' aka amnesty for those already in the country. The Democrats seem to want to do that first... then 'maybe if they feel like it' address the real problem of an unsecure border. Next major terrorist attack in America and we will likely find out they crossed our unsecure border.

 

I can assure you terrorists aren't coming to the states illegally. Hell, most of your terrorists are of domestic breed.

Really? http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_centr...er-into-u.s.%3F

Edited July 1, 2010 by GreasyDogMeat

[heathen]

Well, most who I've talked to, which isn't a lot, are liberal and are against the law if not for immigration. It is pretty harsh and could easily be abused. Still, I guess the problem is big enough that some action needs to be taken. Too bad it just has to be a ineffective, overly harsh one.

If it turns out to be innefective its going to be because the officers refuse to enforce it. From what I've read, just the threat of passing this law cut down on illegal aliens crossing the border into Arizona and many have left for other states.

 

Once the leak is plugged THEN we can worry about 'comprehensive immigration reform' aka amnesty for those already in the country. The Democrats seem to want to do that first... then 'maybe if they feel like it' address the real problem of an unsecure border.

 

Still, I'd be careful passing laws that are basically ethnic profiling. It's a slippery slope.

 

Next major terrorist attack in America and we will likely find out they crossed our unsecure border.

 

I don't understand what terrorists have to do with illegal aliens? IIRC all of the 9/11 terrorists were in the country legally and most if not all other big terrorist attacks have been made by US citizens.

 

Really? http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_centr...er-into-u.s.%3F

 

Huh, haven't read about that. Still, I see little proof and lots of speculation. In the past all major terrorist attacks on US soil, excluding 9/11 have been done by american citizens. Al Qaeda or similar muslim terrorist groups are targeting muslim countries now. That's not to say that they won't hit the US in the future, but bringing it as a point in a discussion about illegal aliens is just populism and fear mongering.

Edited July 1, 2010 by heathen

[HoonDing]

I'd be very surprised if some wingnut hasn't yet proposed landmines and/or automated turrets on the border yet.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Next major terrorist attack in America and we will likely find out they crossed our unsecure border.

 

I don't understand what terrorists have to do with illegal aliens? IIRC all of the 9/11 terrorists were in the country legally and most if not all other big terrorist attacks have been made by US citizens.

I'll repost the link I edited into last post. http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_centr...er-into-u.s.%3F

 

I'd be very surprised if some wingnut hasn't yet proposed landmines and/or automated turrets on the border yet.

And I'm surprised some idiot hasn't proposed we give Arizona & California back to Mexico. Oh wait... someone has! http://obamacom.blogspot.com/2010/05/teach...volt-in-us.html

Edited July 1, 2010 by GreasyDogMeat

[heathen]

I'll post this here then.

 

Really? http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_centr...er-into-u.s.%3F

 

Huh, haven't read about that. Still, I see little proof and lots of speculation. In the past all major terrorist attacks on US soil, excluding 9/11 have been done by american citizens. Al Qaeda or similar muslim terrorist groups are targeting muslim countries now. Their influence and power is diminishing fast and they're trying to hold on to whats left, mainly be trying to scare other more moderate muslims to their cause. That's not to say that they won't hit the US in the future, but bringing it as a point in a discussion about illegal aliens is just populism and fear mongering.

Edited July 1, 2010 by heathen

[Enoch]

To say the cost of the fence is excessive is ridiculous, we've probably build more than a million miles of roadway as part of the interstate highway system. To patrol it would be roughly equivalent to one large city police department.

Um, what? You do realize that roads have positive externalities on the rest of the economy, right? Goods purchased everywhere end up being cheaper if the cost of moving them and their component parts around the country is lower. Fences don't do that.

 

And have you got any kind of source for that cost estimate? A city like, say, Houston, employs 5400 cops, and has a budget of about $650M/year. Apply that to the border, and you have 2 3/4 people per mile. That would certainly catch some people, but coverage would be well short of 100%.

 

Then, you've got to consider the other half of the equation-- what would be a fair dollar-figure estimate of the benefits of "securing the border"? (Accounting for the costs, too, like how much more expensive domestically grown produce will be when the industry is forced into using a wholly legal workforce. And construction. And childcare. And on and on. The prevalence of the illegal workforce is a bad thing for a lot of reasons, but getting rid of it does mean that costs for a lot of things are going go up.)

[heathen]

^^ And it all boils down to greed. Americans want to pay as little as possible for everything. Too bad it just comes with side effects like illegal aliens.

[Wrath of Dagon]

To say the cost of the fence is excessive is ridiculous, we've probably build more than a million miles of roadway as part of the interstate highway system. To patrol it would be roughly equivalent to one large city police department.

Um, what? You do realize that roads have positive externalities on the rest of the economy, right? Goods purchased everywhere end up being cheaper if the cost of moving them and their component parts around the country is lower. Fences don't do that.

 

And have you got any kind of source for that cost estimate? A city like, say, Houston, employs 5400 cops, and has a budget of about $650M/year. Apply that to the border, and you have 2 3/4 people per mile. That would certainly catch some people, but coverage would be well short of 100%.

 

Then, you've got to consider the other half of the equation-- what would be a fair dollar-figure estimate of the benefits of "securing the border"? (Accounting for the costs, too, like how much more expensive domestically grown produce will be when the industry is forced into using a wholly legal workforce. And construction. And childcare. And on and on. The prevalence of the illegal workforce is a bad thing for a lot of reasons, but getting rid of it does mean that costs for a lot of things are going go up.)

2 3/4 people per mile is plenty to patrol a fence. I think LA has something like 15000 cops. The benefits would be enormous, we would dramatically cut crime, drug smuggling, and illegal immigrant social care costs. Plus we wouldn't lose our country, like every other dumb**** in history.

 

Edit: And your argument is what, we should take advantage of the cheap illegal labor, while hypocritically passing minimum wage laws?

Edited July 1, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

I'd be very surprised if some wingnut hasn't yet proposed landmines and/or automated turrets on the border yet.

And I'm surprised some idiot hasn't proposed we give Arizona & California back to Mexico. Oh wait... someone has! http://obamacom.blogspot.com/2010/05/teach...volt-in-us.html

And people have proposed anarchist revolts. How that relates to the situation at hand is confusing. The blog you posted implies that Obama is seriously thinking about giving two states back.

 

If we did just outright remove the illegals you'd probably see the California farm industry just collapse because they don't have the money to stay alive, either that or food prices would SKYROCKET on produce.

[Enoch]

My argument is to make the process of legitimate legal immigration easy enough that it can satisfy domestic labor market demand, get businesses employing legitimate guest workers rather than under-the-table illegals, and try to figure out the least-bad way of dealing with the millions of undocumented people already here. Do that, and won't be any reason to sink billions into fences.

 

Also,

Plus we wouldn't lose our country, like every other dumb**** in history.

I have no idea what this means.

[Calax]

Also,

Plus we wouldn't lose our country, like every other dumb**** in history.

I have no idea what this means.

Best guess is he's referring to a few empires in the past (rome in particular) who've fallen because the "barbarians" got in so deeply that when a normal roman tax was enacted they revolted and burned it to the ground.

[Oerwinde]

Also it's funny that americans complain about the drugs while basically everyone with money and influence does them or have done them at some point. There'd be no drugs without a market and no illegal aliens without demand for cheaper workforce. Fix those and your problem solves itself.

 

Legalizing and regulating narcotics and converting it into legitimate business would reduce crime, create jobs, and increase tax revenue. Treat it like tobacco and require narcotic companies to fund rehabilitation programs and drug education as well as using a portion of the tax revenue to do the same.. This would offset the short term increase in drug use caused by legalization. If this was done internationally, latin american economies could benefit from a legitimate narcotic industry. Basically, IMO, the pros outweigh the cons, and with proper education and regulation, you would likely see the same trends that are going on with Tobacco(something like 80% reduction in tobacco use in the last 20 years)

[Hurlshort]

Oh boy, solution #2 really blew me out of the water. I can never understand the need for self flaggelation and how we deserve these 6,555,000 illegal immigrant because we are more successful then Mexico. And then we should dump money to stimulate their economy?!?! Wow. In case you havent noticed, weve got a few issues of our own. A 14 TRILLION dollar defecit, a faltering economy, an ecological disaster, a TRILLION dollar UHC that my kids kids wont be able to pay off, etc... Wait, lemme guess, we can "tax the rich"? All so we can make Mexico a better place to live and reduce illegal immigration. Unbelievable. Hold up while I go grab my checkbook. Will another TRILLION do?

 

I don't remember any self-flagellation in my reasons. We are already throwing money at the border issue. My idea is to pull back from that, as it has proven to be ineffective, and reinvest it in the Mexican economy. It is a long term investment. As Mexico grows stronger, the US benefits with increased trade dividends.

 

Of course this is already happening, plenty of US corporations have already committed to Mexican growth. But it should be a priority to help Mexico strengthen their economy, as that will only strengthen the US in the long run.

 

Again, look at Canada. The US has the ability to share a long border and create a successful economic partnership. US-Mexico is obviously a much more complex scenario than the relatively small population of Canada, but that is exactly why more emphasis needs to be placed on the building of relationships and less on giant fences.