COMMENTS: 164
Why Harsh Immigration Crackdowns Will Never Work
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Immigration headlines via email.
Arizona's new "enforcement only" immigration law, which mandates the use of an electronic verification system and subjects employers to the loss of their business license for hiring the wrong person, has turned out to be a disaster that might rank up there with the Edsel or New Coke in the pantheon of bone-headed ideas.
The state had a very low unemployment rate when the law was passed -- it was, at least in part, a "solution" to a problem they didn't have. Unemployment was at 4.1 percent when the law went into effect in January and had been at 3.7 percent when a judge upheld the measure in early 2007.
Lawmakers are now scrambling to undo the shock they've inflicted on the state as up to 8 percent of the population -- according to one estimate -- have decided to hightail it out of Arizona en masse. The people of Arizona are learning that immigrants not only supply labor, but also demand goods and services in turn -- and the labor that goes into them. They're also learning that newer immigrant communities have a mix of people with different legal status all jumbled together, and that when there is a widespread perception that politicians (and citizens) are attacking immigrants, it doesn't much matter that some differentiate between those who are "legal" and "illegal" -- Arizona is losing citizens and lawful permanent residents among that eight percent drop in population.
Arizona is now faced with labor shortages, and when combined with the loss in demand from all those worker-consumers, the whole enchilada might end up costing the state's economy tens of billions of dollars. [In the video window to your upper right is a brief CNN report on the aftermath of the Arizona law.]
The goal of reducing the population of unauthorized workers was accomplished, but it was not a gradual decline so much as a catastrophic shock to the system. The unintended consequences haven't been pretty, and now the very lawmakers that thumped their chest about getting tough on illegal immigration are trying to enact some sort of state-level guest worker program in order to bring those undocumented immigrants back to the state -- workers who would still be considered "illegal aliens" in Uncle Sam's eye if they succeed (Arizona can only make them welcome -- states have no constitutional authority to adjust people's immigration status).
The Arizona law was touted as a model of the get-tough enforcement approach to immigration control, but it should serve as a warning to those engaged in the national debate. Unauthorized immigrant workers now make up an estimated 4 percent of the U.S. work force.
Destined for failure
Advocates of using more law enforcement as the primary mechanism of controlling immigration to the Unites States often portray their opponents as belonging to an "open borders" movement. Obviously, such a "movement" doesn't exist within the mainstream debate, but it's a necessary straw-man. Without it, they'd be left to argue that we should not reform a deeply dysfunctional immigration system and we should not look closely at the pressures and rewards that motivate Americans to hire undocumented workers and immigrants to bypass the legal system -- we should just arrest, detain and deport more people, and otherwise maintain an almost-universally loathed status quo.
That's a very weak hand. It's an approach that violates an iron-clad axiom of public policy: when given the option, it's always -- always -- preferable to get people to choose not to do things that society doesn't want them to do -- in this case, bypassing the legal immigration process -- by adjusting their incentives than it is to wait until they do it and then punishing them for it after the fact.
The 35-year "War on Drugs" offers the best example of how short-sighted ignoring that axiom can be. There's a mountain of data showing that drug treatment -- which decreases the demand for illegal drugs over the long haul -- is far cheaper and much more effective than locking up the users. Yet, in response to public outcry, we spend billions of dollars on law enforcement and give short shrift to treatment. The results speak for themselves: 1 percent of the American population is behind bars, we're loathed in most of the "source countries" where we throw billions of dollars in "security assistance" and, obviously, the illicit drug trade is alive an well in America.
Getting local: A tale of two approaches
Arizona's experience is not unique. A number of communities have passed measures "criminalizing" illegal immigration -- turning what are now misdemeanor violations into serious felonies -- making it a crime to "harbor" or assist an unauthorized immigrant and enacting a variety of other workplace and housing restrictions. Last September, the New York Times reported similar problems with the approach in a number of communities:
A little more than a year ago, the Township Committee in this faded factory town became the first municipality in New Jersey to enact legislation penalizing anyone who employed or rented to an illegal immigrant.
Within months, hundreds, if not thousands, of recent immigrants from Brazil and other Latin American countries had fled...
With the departure of so many people, the local economy suffered. Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet; several closed. Once-boarded-up storefronts downtown were boarded up again.
So last week, the town rescinded the ordinance, joining a small but growing list of municipalities nationwide that have begun rethinking such laws as their legal and economic consequences have become clearer.
"I don't think people knew there would be such an economic burden," said Mayor George Conard, who voted for the original ordinance. "A lot of people did not look three years out."Oklahoma passed a strict ordnance against undocumented immigrants at a time when its unemployment rate was the fourth lowest in the nation. "We have 97 percent employment in Oklahoma," State Sen. Harry Coates told me last year. In the oil fields, starting pay for unskilled labor is $18 to $20 an hour, but employers can't find enough workers in the area to staff their operations. "We've shot ourselves in the foot by running off willing workers for willing employers," Coates said.
Fortunately, expanding the security state to track down unauthorized immigrants is not the only option for lawmakers -- we can do better.
During the 1980s and early 1990s, California saw an explosion of new arrivals, mostly from Mexico and many without proper papers. But beginning in the mid-1990s, Los Angeles successfully "deflected" an estimated one million new Mexican immigrants to other locales by cleaning up the largely unregulated shadow economy that provides the jobs that many come to the United States to work (similar to the approach I advocate on the national level).
In part, the deflection resulted from the local labor market becoming saturated. Researchers talk about the existence of "transnational social networks" -- networks that extend from countries from which people migrate to destination countries -- and have found that those considering emigrating from their homeland generally have a very good idea of the job market in whatever city or state to which they might be headed. When the availability of jobs declines in a given area, new immigrants tend to move elsewhere, to places with a strong economy and available jobs.
But there was also a significant policy component -- California raised the minimum wage several times during the 1980s, and by 1990, it was 12 percent higher than the national minimum. Beginning in the middle of the decade, L.A. then cracked down on employers who ripped off their employees, forced them to work in sweatshops or otherwise violated California's stringent workplace laws.
UCLA sociologist Ivan Light, author of Deflecting Immigration: Networks, Markets, and Regulation in Los Angeles, explained how the use of wage and other workforce enforcement measures played a vital role in the effort:
Slums and sweatshops had long been illegal in Los Angeles, but the enforcement of anti-slum and anti-sweatshop ordinances, as well as the enforcement of minimum wage laws, had been lax.
To combat immigrant poverty, high-profile law enforcement of these ordinances sharply increased beginning in the late 1980s and continued through the 1990s. Although enforcement of ordinances and wage laws did not eliminate sweatshops and slums, enforcement did slow their growth below the rate of immigrant influx.
In effect, the enforcement of anti-slum and anti-sweatshop laws helped push, or deflect, Mexican immigrants from Los Angeles to other parts of the United States. At the same time, enforcement succeeded in upgrading the living standards of the 63.3 percent of Mexican immigrants who were not deflected. If the bottom third of any income distribution is removed by deflection, the average income of those remaining will increase.Light neglected to state the obvious: the effort also raised the living standards of U.S. citizens and other residents who were working in the same previously unregulated "Wild West" economy.
Every policy creates some winners and losers, and many come with unintended consequences. L.A.'s crackdown on workplace violations caused some minimum-wage employers to leave the state, or the country, for friendlier climes, and Light noted that while "a higher minimum wage can drive away jobs for low-wage immigrants," it can "also drive away low-wage jobs that native-born teenagers and minorities rely upon." There are additional labor costs, of course, which must be shared by employers and consumers.
The net result, however, was that Los Angeles shifted the incentives that had drawn millions of new immigrants to its environs, and it did so with a policy mix that was far more comprehensive than just locking up or deporting a lot of otherwise innocent working people.
As a local approach, the effort did nothing to change the immigration picture at the national level -- those million immigrants who were deflected from L.A. simply chose other destinations. But if enacted on a national level, and paired with other measures -- like reforming the legal immigration process so it's not an Orwellian nightmare to get through -- we could deflect a large share of new immigrants considering making the move to the United States before they actually make it.
There are a couple of lessons that can be taken away from all this. Both strategies are intended to "deflect" new immigration away from a community. The side effects of the immigration enforcement strategy include shocks to the system: lost business, rapidly declining populations, workers thrown in jail, families divided and communities of legal residents and citizens feeling the same sense of siege as those here "illegally."
The "side effects" -- if you want to call them that -- of deflecting immigration by fixing a dysfunctional process of legal immigration and then enacting higher minimum wage laws and enforcing worker safety, wage and other workplace standards is that both the citizens who work at the lower end of the job market and the immigrants who are absorbed into our communities end up with a significantly better standard of living.
Ultimately, the noisy and often emotionally fraught debate about how people feel about immigration obscures a far more serious one about how best to manage it. Given the option of costly, showy enforcement actions that offer little hope of being effective and cause serious negative consequences, or a comprehensive reform of the system that treats immigrant workers with dignity and raises the living standards of Americans at the bottom of the economy, there's really no contest.
Stay up to date with the latest Immigration headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AlexLawyer on May 13, 2008 12:18 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» is following immigration "too hard for you to understand?"
Posted by: bruiser65
Comments are closed-
» RE: Its never too harsh to enforce the law
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» "Enforcement-only"
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: "Enforcement-only"
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Its never too harsh to enforce the law
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Its never too harsh to enforce the law
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Its never too harsh to enforce the law
Posted by: davidrossi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HBoyer on May 13, 2008 4:30 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that Illegal Aliens were becoming a major cancer on the work force. Yes companies were hurting after 7% of the Illegal Aliens fled but look at the decreased costs for welfare, free medical, crime and schools.
Because business and farmers want to pay poverty wages, they complained the most.
All business have to do it raise the wages and those vacant jobs will be filled.
A free market society has to adjust, that is what the government tells us when jobs are exported to 3rd world countries, so let the business adjust when Illega Aliens are removed from the work force.
I hope more states pass the Arizona Law, because the gutless Federal Government won't do anything to stop this Cancer from spreading.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ready to get your Mukers on and labor in the Fields Yourself?
Posted by: Purple Girl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 13, 2008 5:17 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not the victims of this Corp operated and perpetuated Auction Block thatr is 'stealing' our Jobs it is those who demand we work for the same wages and conditions as they have imposed on the Illegals.The Illegals are not coming in offering to undercut US, It is the Corps & Business Owners who are requiring Americans to accpet the same conditions or Get Fired!Then they can Replace you with a cheaper form of labor (those who are Desperate. They've been doing this with the Forced retirement of older (Higher paid) employees (after decades of service) with Younger -new to the Work force- hiring practices. they do not care about who is the more skilled or knowledgeable- It's who's cheaper (and can be abused more easily) on the Block!
Have No doubt those of US not in the real Boomer Generation- born in the 50's & 60's have little opportunity to Retire until we fall over Dead! The boomers are NOT 1945 to 1963. Boomers are Those born During WW2 and into th eEArly years of the 50's MAX. They are a procuct of a father who nearly died in the War wanting to shower his children with a life style far better then his own, or any generation before. The Siblings of their 'Great Generation' caught on to the 'Dream' but usually did not quite keep up. They are the Parents of the 'Me' Generation..Let's correct a misnomer "ME" in todays World means "Who will never Retire?'" ME, Who will have to clean up the Mess left Behind by the Boomers ME, Who has not done better than their parents- ME-They lil' Sis' & Brothers (Cousins) to the Boomers!We can't afford to be Self indulged, spoiled we are ones still Working, still struggling and will be the ones to help carry the weight of the Boomers with Their Children, and Grand children! I Am Not a Boomer- I'm part of the Pissed Off GenerationS who are to Follow behind these 'Spoiled Brats' (My Mom term for them) and Preceeded them ( The condition of our Long Term Care system alone shows they don't even care about their own Parents who gave their Blood Sweat and Tears to provide a Better life for them!)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Holding th eSlave Masters Personally (crinimally) Liable for their Atrocities
Posted by: desidid
» RE: Holding th eSlave Masters Personally (crinimally) Liable for their Atrocities
Posted by: Cooltruth
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on May 13, 2008 6:24 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently heard her complaining that raspberries at the grocery story that used to come from California are now coming from Mexico, though the brand name is the same. I explained to her that many farmers are now moving from the U.S. side of the border to Mexico because their workers can no longer cross the border into the U.S. This suggestion was met with what I would describe as stunned silence.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Unintended Consequences
Posted by: countingdaisies
» A Clarification
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: A Clarification
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: A Clarification
Posted by: Ratskii
» RE: Unintended Consequences
Posted by: countingdaisies
Comments are closed-
Posted by: war_on_tara on May 13, 2008 6:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Arizona law has gotten a lot of attention, but the Los Angeles "deflection" efforts much less attention I think, so I'm interested to learn about the latter.
We can probably all visualize what "anti-slum" and "anti-sweatshop" ordinances in an urban setting look like. But how would deflection work in agriculture, especially? Or construction, particularly in the very diffuse, small-scale & hard-to-regulate corners of residential painting, roofing and construction?
Even "anti-sweatshop" raises some questions. The quotes don't explain, What are the penalties that employers face? For that matter, how exactly are they so different from the penalties employers in Arizona face under the hiring law?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Deflection"
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Anti-slum, anti-sweatshop, etc.
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Anti-slum, anti-sweatshop, etc.
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Anti-slum, anti-sweatshop, etc.
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Anti-slum, anti-sweatshop, etc.
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Crucial point
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Crucial point
Posted by: Joshua Holland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Baal_Labs on May 13, 2008 6:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it a good thing to "deflect" illegal workers from one area or another by enforcing laws, but not a good thing to deflect them by fences? The logic seems hypocritical.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Deflecting"...
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: "Deflecting"...
Posted by: Baal_Labs
» RE: "Deflecting"...
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» the border fence = ecological disaster
Posted by: stilldreaming
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leequinnn on May 13, 2008 7:00 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lauren on May 13, 2008 7:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While we are thinking about management, it would help to also think about it globally. It is a big issue. I gather the neo-con approach was slash and burn.
For example war as a solution to excess populations. Storms will take care of global warming. The extra people will just get washed away. Doesn't that lack imagination?
It is NOT a very good plan for handling any kind of immediate crisis or an example of the reasonable long term planning I expect from a world class government. We can do better.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leftymathprof on May 13, 2008 8:13 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NAFTA changed the rules so that capital could easily cross national boundaries but workers could not. Investors can put their money where labor protection is even weaker than it is in the USA. In effect, it replaces union workers in the USA, and non-union workers in the USA whose wages have been pushed upward by unions, with "scabs" in other countries where union organizers are beaten or shot. The result is that a few corporatists get rich, while wages go down on both sides of the border. NAFTA made Mexicans so poor that many of them came here in order to not starve to death. Some of them respect the law enough that they might have willingly starved to death, but the situation also involved watching their children starve to death; few humans have *that* much respect for the law. And can you blame them?
So anyone who wants to punish the immigrants harshly either doesn't know what is going on, or is incredibly heartless. I don't think most Americans are that heartless, but most of them don't understand what is going on.
To solve the "immigration problem," what we need is stronger support of labor unions, both in the USA and in any country that the USA trades with. "Free trade" meant trade unencumbered of such responsibilities, and we must end that immediately.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Discussing immigrants without mentioning NAFTA is just plain wrong
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Very good point
Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» Compare to EU's improvement of new, poorer countries
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Compare to EU's improvement of new, poorer countries
Posted by: Joshua Holland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SOWILO on May 13, 2008 8:18 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My father in law taught in public schools his entire life and saw the difficulty trying to teach children who spoke no English in his schools. The resources and time spent on this was immense.
All across California in rural and urban communities, we are seeing a rise in violence created by immigrants who join various gangs. This is going to spread.
This country was founded on the Socratic principles of Demokratia, meaning the rule of the most intellectually superior of the greater community. The philosopher king. The failed system we have now is nothing of what was intended by Hamilton, Jefferson, Franklin, etc.
As we move to strengthen our education system, make our infrastructure sustainable, and train our youth to be competitive in a world economy based on knowledge and creativity, how are we going to do this letting in an uneducated, illiterate barbarian horde that will overrun us?
Having an entire population of illiterates in a Western country is dangerous? Why? Because they become culture distorters and bring down the entire thing from the inside out, even if said people have no military means of doing so. Automatically, without thinking, the greater culture brings itself down to accomodate.
Did you know that those who don't read haven't the ability to build new cellular structures in the brain? The process of reading builds neural pathways, and labyrinthine structures. A culture of generations of illiteracy cannot be easily made to change.
What we are about to see is the collapse of the West starting from America (the Far West) and moving throughout Europe.
Though I see Joshua's point about these raids being band-aid solutions that don't work, we need to prepare for a hostile onslaught of anti-intellectualism and Third World conditions once the numbers spread and the culture becomes more entrenched.
These are tough things to think about, and the political correctness adopted by those on the Left is making many move through life in a world of fog on this issue.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The cultural issues behind mass immigration from Latin America.
Posted by: faerietails
» RE: The cultural issues behind mass immigration from Latin America.
Posted by: SOWILO
» Assimilation
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Assimilation
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Assimilation
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Don't Discount Indigenous Knowledge -- in the US or Latin America
Posted by: Lawyer X
» RE: Don't Discount Indigenous Knowledge -- in the US or Latin America
Posted by: SOWILO
» RE: Don't Discount Indigenous Knowledge -- in the US or Latin America
Posted by: Lawyer X
» RE: The cultural issues , glad you're bringing this up
Posted by: stilldreaming
» RE: The cultural issues , glad you're bringing this up
Posted by: SOWILO
» RE: The cultural issues , glad you're bringing this up
Posted by: rhinojos
» RE: The cultural issues , interesting post
Posted by: stilldreaming
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Southern Gal on May 13, 2008 8:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» excellent comment! couldn't have said it better myself
Posted by: zooeyhall
» Makes no sense
Posted by: frantaylor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SOWILO on May 13, 2008 9:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Also Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration.
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Also Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration.
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Also Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration.
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Also Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration.
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Also Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration.
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Also Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration.
Posted by: countingdaisies
» the point is, fairness to all legal immigrants, and those waiting
Posted by: stilldreaming
» RE: the point is, fairness to all legal immigrants, and those waiting
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Oh! NO YOU DON'T LIAR!
Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: Oh! NO YOU DON'T LIAR!
Posted by: SOWILO
» What's up? Our Population Is UP
Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: Oh! NO YOU DON'T LIAR!
Posted by: desidid
» It is true
Posted by: Mexitli
» whoops
Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: It is true
Posted by: desidid
» RE: It is true
Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: It is true
Posted by: desidid
» Excuse Me
Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: It is true
Posted by: Mexitli
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oregoncharles on May 13, 2008 9:23 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A labor shortage should be a bonanza for labor; and sure enough, you mention that unskilled laborers were being offered $18-20/hr., and holding out for more. This is a bad thing? I think it's evidence that unregulated immigration drives down wages.
You're right, of course, that there are right ways and wrong ways to regulate immigration. Ironically, the enforcement examples you give were directed at employers, not workers: usually, we consider that the right way. Nobody was put in jail, were they?
Of course, there are better ways: enforcing worker-protection laws, for instance, that benefit everyone. You've written before that the real solution is to improve the economy in the origin countries: that means big changes in our "trade" and aid policies. I wish you'd bring that up every time: it's the biggest thing we could do, and it's a crucial policy issue that needs more attention. It also cuts against BOTH major parties: the Democrats long since sold out on "free trade" (the Clintons held the auction), and the current nominees aren't really advocating change.
But I still think it's silly to claim that 10-12 million people, or 4% of the work force, focussed on a particular margin (low-skill, low-wage work), don't have an impact on wages and working conditions. I think you just proved that they do.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: So what happened to wages...
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Are American Workers Helped by More Jobs at the Gas Station or the Car Wash?
Posted by: sofla100
» RE: Are American Workers Helped by More Jobs at the Gas Station or the Car Wash?
Posted by: desidid
» RE: Magic words: Entry-level....
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Here Is What Renowned Economist Study Shows
Posted by: desidid
» The Borjas Exception
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: The Borjas Exception
Posted by: desidid
» RE: The Borjas Exception
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: The Borjas Exception
Posted by: desidid
» RE: The Borjas Exception
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» will you address the environmental angle?
Posted by: stilldreaming
» I will ...
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: The Borjas Exception
Posted by: desidid
» RE: The Borjas Exception
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: The Borjas Exception
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oregoncharles on May 13, 2008 9:39 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bigger argument, of which each of these articles is only intended to offer a small piece, is that viewing "illegal immigrants" as some sort of isolated phenomenon that can be addressed with enforcement alone will never work -- we've got to look at the issue in all of its complexity and address the incentives that exist for both the buyers and the sellers of illegal labor (which I think should include all illegal labor, rather than just the labor of unauthorized immigrants)."
Joshua, in a sub-sub-comment most of you probably didn't read.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Something that should have been in the article:
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on May 13, 2008 10:57 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Illegal Immigration Helps the USA
Posted by: countingdaisies
Comments are closed-
Posted by: frantaylor on May 13, 2008 11:39 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Who will pick the crops? ---YOU CAN !
Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Who will pick the crops?
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zeezil on May 13, 2008 11:56 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please review the following report on the FISCAL COST OF IMMIGRATION by economist Edwin Rubenstein released in April 2008:
http://www.esrresearch.com/Rubensteinreport.pdf
A partial summary of the report:
The impact on 15 Federal Departments surveyed was: $346 billion in fiscal related costs in FY 2007.
Each immigrant cost taxpayers more than $9,000 per year.
An immigrant household (2 adults, 2 children) cost taxpayers $36,000 per year.
Legal immigrants were not separated out from illegal immigrants for the fiscal impact study, but if they had been, the fiscal cost per ILLEGAL immigrant would be even more shocking than the figures quoted above.
The most extensive and authoritative study, prior to economist Edwin Rubenstein's "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration" (April 2008) , is the National Research Council (NRC)’s The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (1997).
The NRC staff analyzed federal, state, and local government expenditures on programs such as Medicaid, AFDC (now TANF), and SSI, as well as the cost of educating immigrants’ foreign- and native-born children.
NRC found that the average immigrant household receives $13,326 in federal annual expenditures and pays $10,664 in federal taxes—that is, they generate a fiscal deficit of $2,682 (1996 dollars)per household.
In 2007 dollars this is a deficit of $3,408 per immigrant household.
With 9 million households currently headed by immigrants, more than $30 billion ($3,408 x 9 million) of the federal deficit represents money transferred from native taxpayers to immigrants.
Our national immigration policies have to work for the United States. While improving the plight of the world’s poor is a laudable goal, the finite resources we have available to fulfill that goal would be swamped if there wasn’t some orderly and manageable system in place to limit entry into the United States to what this nation can actually support. The more illegal aliens that are permitted to subvert the immigration system, the fewer immigrants we can accommodate who might actually produce a positive benefit for our country.
The more we become a nation of illegal immigrants, the deeper we fall into anarchy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The FISCAL COST OF IMMIGRATION
Posted by: SOWILO
» Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zeezil on May 13, 2008 11:58 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nope
Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: Nope to YOU.
Posted by: SOWILO
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zeezil on May 13, 2008 12:00 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Besides, if fences don't work then why is there one around the White House?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Uh-huh
Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: Fences Work:
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Fences Work:
Posted by: zeb
» RE: Fences Work:
Posted by: Joshua Holland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zeezil on May 13, 2008 12:02 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Second, it seems far too easily forgotten that one must be an U.S. citizen in order to warrant the rights afforded to a citizen. That should be the end of discussion.
Third, legal immigrants working alongside native born citizens have made this country what it is. We have thrived on the contributions of immigrants and will usually need them, though to varying degrees, throughout most sectors of our economy. The problem is that we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to those who enter illegally, ignore our laws and seek to subvert our culture and national values. We welcome those who follow the rules, learn the English language, and respect our sovereignty. As illegal immigrants, it is not only offensive but also ridiculous to ask for rights, which they have not earned nor are entitled to.
Let's secure our borders by building the fence so we have an effective and controlled immigration system at the same time as we enforce our currently existing immigration laws. During this interval we encourage illegals to depart (attrition through enforcement). Once our borders are secured and we have a grip on a functional system of immigration, we move against those illegals that have refused to leave. We should never ever grant amnesty.
We tried 'comprehensive immigration reform' in 1986. We gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens in exchange for the government promising to secure the borders, conduct workplace enforcement and enforce immigration law. It didn't work because the government lied and did nothing other than process the amnesty paperwork. Due to that folly, we now have 20 Million or more illegal aliens here demanding amnesty.
Don't you think it is far beyond time that we engage in Comprehensive Immigration ENFORCEMENT rather than Comprehensive Immigration Reform?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Last Chance on May 13, 2008 12:05 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Illegal immigration can be summed up as a crystal clear issue - the desperate need for birth control by giving all women the legally protected right to decide if, when and how many children to birth. Only a few women want a lot of children, a few want none, but the great majority want only 1, 2 or 3, which, if they had the freedom to choose, would return the human race to a livable balance with the natural Earth. Then there would be no illegal immigrants because everyone would prefer to build a better life in their own country! If Saving the Earth
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Report: Immigrants will drive American population growth
Posted by: zeezil
» RE: Report: Immigrants will drive American population growth
Posted by: zeezil
» Immigrants ARE driving American population growth and
Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Immigrants ARE driving American population growth and
Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: Immigrants ARE driving American population growth and
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: As usual,
Posted by: SOWILO
» RE: As usual,
Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: As usual,
Posted by: desidid
» RE: As usual,
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Actually, much of rural northern Mexico IS "a land of ghost towns"!
Posted by: war_on_tara
Comments are closed-
Posted by: teresam on May 13, 2008 3:02 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Under current immigration laws, there is virtually no way for unskilled laborers such as farmworkers to immigrate to the U.S. legally from Mexico. A close friend (a citizen) is trying to sponsor her brother's admission (he's a CPA) and was told the wait list is 11 years. But it could be worse--another friend is trying to bring her elderly mother here from the Philippines, only to be told the wait list is 23 years.
Until the many flaws in our current system are fixed, I believe illegal immigration will only continue and grow.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Our arcanely convoluted immigration process
Posted by: zeezil
» RE:In The Meantime
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JimmyVaughan on May 13, 2008 3:16 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For example, a $10,000 fine for every immigrant illegally employed by business. The second incident should involve both a heavy fine and imprisonment.
If the laws I've suggested are enforced the problem will disappear by itself.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on May 13, 2008 4:39 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if you dry up the employment base thats attracting these illegals then the illegals will stop being illegal now wont they!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: end illegal immigrants by going after employers that hire illegals!
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: end illegal immigrants by going after employers that hire illegals!
Posted by: Joshua Holland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: frantaylor on May 13, 2008 6:30 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This loss of farmland is NOT going to be made up for by volunteers picking apples in the fall. These farms will close up shop and sell out to developers, and the farmland will be gone forever.
This is happening RIGHT NOW. Read about the orchards going out of business and look at where your produce in the grocery store is coming from. Do we want to rely on other countries for our food as well as our energy?
Close the borders if you must, but this problem must be solved!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Losing farms and farmland
Posted by: desidid
» working on farms, it's as if we were in a Spanish-speaking country
Posted by: stilldreaming
» RE: Cheap food?
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Losing farms and farmland
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: I'd Give You A 10 Rating If I Could
Posted by: desidid
» RE: You, Too!
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: You, Too!
Posted by: desidid
» RE: Losing farms and farmland
Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: Losing farms and farmland
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on May 14, 2008 3:17 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The pathetic excuse making that has erupted since, where law-abiding Americans are blamed for the problem, has failed to look starkly at the problem. People on the ground can see it is n't working and they can see why.
And the solution will not be to open the borders up and stop managing immigration: that would pile disaster on to disaster.
Countries become successful not because of their geographical bounty, but how they deal with it. Africa as a continent is extremely bountiful. Israel, is a barren desert and tiny. Yet in Sudan people kill villagers in the thousands; in Israel, they irrigate the desert and export fruits and vegetables around the world. It is a cultural choice that is made.
America's economic and social decline can be traced to its weakening of its culture and values; the ones that made the country so successful in the past.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bill Clinton destroyed the integrity of immigration
Posted by: OK Granny
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mario Ramos on May 14, 2008 7:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To put this in perspective this would be as if the fourth largest employer of Nashville were to leave in one year. By this time next year 287g will have deported over 6,000 persons; putting in 2nd place of largest employers.
The Nashville Hispanic Chamber of Commerce will host a forum regarding 287g to see if an exodus has already begun from Nashville.
I have personally spoken to numerous immigration clients who have told me they are leaving or have been forced to leave.
In the zeal to up hold the law 287g has not created a welcoming atmosphere in Nashville. Immigrants are mobile and there are more welcoming places live in the United States.
Enforcement only is not the solution the US needs comprehensive immigration reform to allow working taxpayers to gain lawful status. We need to replace politicians who care more about their career than the city, state and country.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nashville TN joins Phoenix AZ in 287g frenzy
Posted by: countingdaisies
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kyledeb on May 14, 2008 8:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just getting to reading your immigration pieces in depth. You've done a lot of research here and I appreciate you're addition of a pro-migrant voice to this debate.
That being said, this talk of deflection is dangerously close to attrition through enforcement in my mind. How do you see it as different
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Talk of "Deflection"
Posted by: Joshua Holland
Comments are closed-
Comments are closed-
Posted by: desidid on May 14, 2008 7:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Proposed Fix To This Problem
Posted by: Joshua Holland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on May 15, 2008 5:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to employ... you would need a SSN in order to collect and submit taxes for the federal, state and municipality... so social security numbers would/should be mandatory...
people without a SSN shouldn't be able to be employed!
Current practices support black market labor and slavery!
Once people realize this simple fact... you can then eliminate the border police, minutemen and other "GRAFTED" policing agencies... which are responsible for gross neglect ions of duty and constitutional laws...
just by being in existence!
going after people that technically don't exist?... and when found... locking them up till they can prove there in country legally... or they're deported...
This is not only an abuse of power, its an abuse of authority!
To me, all this is proof that these so called policing agencies are nothing more than
"GRAFT ENGINES" for politicals and their fiends!
use your head....
if you see a problem, deal with it at its source...
BTW... just how many policing agencies do you Yanks need anyways? how many jails?...
how much fear must you encourage!
It's so disturbing in so many ways,
and really isn't a problem if employers would just follow existing laws!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: immigrationman on May 18, 2008 11:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think if there is to be more enforcement over the long haul, it should be related to legal immigration. We should provide everyone with a legal option and then enforce corporate employers who violate their options. I just read the new book "Legal US Immigration: Truth, Fraud and the American Way" by Adam Edward Rothwell, an immigration lawyer, and I couldn't believe how hard it can be to hire a foreigner legally. The book's website (www.immigrationisamess.com ) says it all.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AlexLawyer on May 13, 2008 12:18 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» is following immigration "too hard for you to understand?"
Posted by: bruiser65
Comments are closed-
» RE: Its never too harsh to enforce the law
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» "Enforcement-only"
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: "Enforcement-only"
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Its never too harsh to enforce the law
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Its never too harsh to enforce the law
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Its never too harsh to enforce the law
Posted by: davidrossi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HBoyer on May 13, 2008 4:30 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that Illegal Aliens were becoming a major cancer on the work force. Yes companies were hurting after 7% of the Illegal Aliens fled but look at the decreased costs for welfare, free medical, crime and schools.
Because business and farmers want to pay poverty wages, they complained the most.
All business have to do it raise the wages and those vacant jobs will be filled.
A free market society has to adjust, that is what the government tells us when jobs are exported to 3rd world countries, so let the business adjust when Illega Aliens are removed from the work force.
I hope more states pass the Arizona Law, because the gutless Federal Government won't do anything to stop this Cancer from spreading.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ready to get your Mukers on and labor in the Fields Yourself?
Posted by: Purple Girl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 13, 2008 5:17 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not the victims of this Corp operated and perpetuated Auction Block thatr is 'stealing' our Jobs it is those who demand we work for the same wages and conditions as they have imposed on the Illegals.The Illegals are not coming in offering to undercut US, It is the Corps & Business Owners who are requiring Americans to accpet the same conditions or Get Fired!Then they can Replace you with a cheaper form of labor (those who are Desperate. They've been doing this with the Forced retirement of older (Higher paid) employees (after decades of service) with Younger -new to the Work force- hiring practices. they do not care about who is the more skilled or knowledgeable- It's who's cheaper (and can be abused more easily) on the Block!
Have No doubt those of US not in the real Boomer Generation- born in the 50's & 60's have little opportunity to Retire until we fall over Dead! The boomers are NOT 1945 to 1963. Boomers are Those born During WW2 and into th eEArly years of the 50's MAX. They are a procuct of a father who nearly died in the War wanting to shower his children with a life style far better then his own, or any generation before. The Siblings of their 'Great Generation' caught on to the 'Dream' but usually did not quite keep up. They are the Parents of the 'Me' Generation..Let's correct a misnomer "ME" in todays World means "Who will never Retire?'" ME, Who will have to clean up the Mess left Behind by the Boomers ME, Who has not done better than their parents- ME-They lil' Sis' & Brothers (Cousins) to the Boomers!We can't afford to be Self indulged, spoiled we are ones still Working, still struggling and will be the ones to help carry the weight of the Boomers with Their Children, and Grand children! I Am Not a Boomer- I'm part of the Pissed Off GenerationS who are to Follow behind these 'Spoiled Brats' (My Mom term for them) and Preceeded them ( The condition of our Long Term Care system alone shows they don't even care about their own Parents who gave their Blood Sweat and Tears to provide a Better life for them!)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Holding th eSlave Masters Personally (crinimally) Liable for their Atrocities
Posted by: desidid
» RE: Holding th eSlave Masters Personally (crinimally) Liable for their Atrocities
Posted by: Cooltruth
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on May 13, 2008 6:24 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently heard her complaining that raspberries at the grocery story that used to come from California are now coming from Mexico, though the brand name is the same. I explained to her that many farmers are now moving from the U.S. side of the border to Mexico because their workers can no longer cross the border into the U.S. This suggestion was met with what I would describe as stunned silence.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Unintended Consequences
Posted by: countingdaisies
» A Clarification
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: A Clarification
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: A Clarification
Posted by: Ratskii
» RE: Unintended Consequences
Posted by: countingdaisies
Comments are closed-
Posted by: war_on_tara on May 13, 2008 6:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Arizona law has gotten a lot of attention, but the Los Angeles "deflection" efforts much less attention I think, so I'm interested to learn about the latter.
We can probably all visualize what "anti-slum" and "anti-sweatshop" ordinances in an urban setting look like. But how would deflection work in agriculture, especially? Or construction, particularly in the very diffuse, small-scale & hard-to-regulate corners of residential painting, roofing and construction?
Even "anti-sweatshop" raises some questions. The quotes don't explain, What are the penalties that employers face? For that matter, how exactly are they so different from the penalties employers in Arizona face under the hiring law?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Deflection"
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Anti-slum, anti-sweatshop, etc.
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Anti-slum, anti-sweatshop, etc.
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Anti-slum, anti-sweatshop, etc.
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Anti-slum, anti-sweatshop, etc.
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Crucial point
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Crucial point
Posted by: Joshua Holland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Baal_Labs on May 13, 2008 6:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it a good thing to "deflect" illegal workers from one area or another by enforcing laws, but not a good thing to deflect them by fences? The logic seems hypocritical.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Deflecting"...
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: "Deflecting"...
Posted by: Baal_Labs
» RE: "Deflecting"...
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» the border fence = ecological disaster
Posted by: stilldreaming
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leequinnn on May 13, 2008 7:00 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lauren on May 13, 2008 7:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While we are thinking about management, it would help to also think about it globally. It is a big issue. I gather the neo-con approach was slash and burn.
For example war as a solution to excess populations. Storms will take care of global warming. The extra people will just get washed away. Doesn't that lack imagination?
It is NOT a very good plan for handling any kind of immediate crisis or an example of the reasonable long term planning I expect from a world class government. We can do better.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leftymathprof on May 13, 2008 8:13 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NAFTA changed the rules so that capital could easily cross national boundaries but workers could not. Investors can put their money where labor protection is even weaker than it is in the USA. In effect, it replaces union workers in the USA, and non-union workers in the USA whose wages have been pushed upward by unions, with "scabs" in other countries where union organizers are beaten or shot. The result is that a few corporatists get rich, while wages go down on both sides of the border. NAFTA made Mexicans so poor that many of them came here in order to not starve to death. Some of them respect the law enough that they might have willingly starved to death, but the situation also involved watching their children starve to death; few humans have *that* much respect for the law. And can you blame them?
So anyone who wants to punish the immigrants harshly either doesn't know what is going on, or is incredibly heartless. I don't think most Americans are that heartless, but most of them don't understand what is going on.
To solve the "immigration problem," what we need is stronger support of labor unions, both in the USA and in any country that the USA trades with. "Free trade" meant trade unencumbered of such responsibilities, and we must end that immediately.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Discussing immigrants without mentioning NAFTA is just plain wrong
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Very good point
Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» Compare to EU's improvement of new, poorer countries
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Compare to EU's improvement of new, poorer countries
Posted by: Joshua Holland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SOWILO on May 13, 2008 8:18 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My father in law taught in public schools his entire life and saw the difficulty trying to teach children who spoke no English in his schools. The resources and time spent on this was immense.
All across California in rural and urban communities, we are seeing a rise in violence created by immigrants who join various gangs. This is going to spread.
This country was founded on the Socratic principles of Demokratia, meaning the rule of the most intellectually superior of the greater community. The philosopher king. The failed system we have now is nothing of what was intended by Hamilton, Jefferson, Franklin, etc.
As we move to strengthen our education system, make our infrastructure sustainable, and train our youth to be competitive in a world economy based on knowledge and creativity, how are we going to do this letting in an uneducated, illiterate barbarian horde that will overrun us?
Having an entire population of illiterates in a Western country is dangerous? Why? Because they become culture distorters and bring down the entire thing from the inside out, even if said people have no military means of doing so. Automatically, without thinking, the greater culture brings itself down to accomodate.
Did you know that those who don't read haven't the ability to build new cellular structures in the brain? The process of reading builds neural pathways, and labyrinthine structures. A culture of generations of illiteracy cannot be easily made to change.
What we are about to see is the collapse of the West starting from America (the Far West) and moving throughout Europe.
Though I see Joshua's point about these raids being band-aid solutions that don't work, we need to prepare for a hostile onslaught of anti-intellectualism and Third World conditions once the numbers spread and the culture becomes more entrenched.
These are tough things to think about, and the political correctness adopted by those on the Left is making many move through life in a world of fog on this issue.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The cultural issues behind mass immigration from Latin America.
Posted by: faerietails
» RE: The cultural issues behind mass immigration from Latin America.
Posted by: SOWILO
» Assimilation
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Assimilation
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Assimilation
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Don't Discount Indigenous Knowledge -- in the US or Latin America
Posted by: Lawyer X
» RE: Don't Discount Indigenous Knowledge -- in the US or Latin America
Posted by: SOWILO
» RE: Don't Discount Indigenous Knowledge -- in the US or Latin America
Posted by: Lawyer X
» RE: The cultural issues , glad you're bringing this up
Posted by: stilldreaming
» RE: The cultural issues , glad you're bringing this up
Posted by: SOWILO
» RE: The cultural issues , glad you're bringing this up
Posted by: rhinojos
» RE: The cultural issues , interesting post
Posted by: stilldreaming
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Southern Gal on May 13, 2008 8:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» excellent comment! couldn't have said it better myself
Posted by: zooeyhall
» Makes no sense
Posted by: frantaylor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SOWILO on May 13, 2008 9:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Also Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration.
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Also Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration.
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Also Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration.
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Also Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration.
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Also Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration.
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Also Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration.
Posted by: countingdaisies
» the point is, fairness to all legal immigrants, and those waiting
Posted by: stilldreaming
» RE: the point is, fairness to all legal immigrants, and those waiting
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Oh! NO YOU DON'T LIAR!
Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: Oh! NO YOU DON'T LIAR!
Posted by: SOWILO
» What's up? Our Population Is UP
Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: Oh! NO YOU DON'T LIAR!
Posted by: desidid
» It is true
Posted by: Mexitli
» whoops
Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: It is true
Posted by: desidid
» RE: It is true
Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: It is true
Posted by: desidid
» Excuse Me
Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: It is true
Posted by: Mexitli
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oregoncharles on May 13, 2008 9:23 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A labor shortage should be a bonanza for labor; and sure enough, you mention that unskilled laborers were being offered $18-20/hr., and holding out for more. This is a bad thing? I think it's evidence that unregulated immigration drives down wages.
You're right, of course, that there are right ways and wrong ways to regulate immigration. Ironically, the enforcement examples you give were directed at employers, not workers: usually, we consider that the right way. Nobody was put in jail, were they?
Of course, there are better ways: enforcing worker-protection laws, for instance, that benefit everyone. You've written before that the real solution is to improve the economy in the origin countries: that means big changes in our "trade" and aid policies. I wish you'd bring that up every time: it's the biggest thing we could do, and it's a crucial policy issue that needs more attention. It also cuts against BOTH major parties: the Democrats long since sold out on "free trade" (the Clintons held the auction), and the current nominees aren't really advocating change.
But I still think it's silly to claim that 10-12 million people, or 4% of the work force, focussed on a particular margin (low-skill, low-wage work), don't have an impact on wages and working conditions. I think you just proved that they do.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: So what happened to wages...
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Are American Workers Helped by More Jobs at the Gas Station or the Car Wash?
Posted by: sofla100
» RE: Are American Workers Helped by More Jobs at the Gas Station or the Car Wash?
Posted by: desidid
» RE: Magic words: Entry-level....
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Here Is What Renowned Economist Study Shows
Posted by: desidid
» The Borjas Exception
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: The Borjas Exception
Posted by: desidid
» RE: The Borjas Exception
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: The Borjas Exception
Posted by: desidid
» RE: The Borjas Exception
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» will you address the environmental angle?
Posted by: stilldreaming
» I will ...
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: The Borjas Exception
Posted by: desidid
» RE: The Borjas Exception
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: The Borjas Exception
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oregoncharles on May 13, 2008 9:39 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bigger argument, of which each of these articles is only intended to offer a small piece, is that viewing "illegal immigrants" as some sort of isolated phenomenon that can be addressed with enforcement alone will never work -- we've got to look at the issue in all of its complexity and address the incentives that exist for both the buyers and the sellers of illegal labor (which I think should include all illegal labor, rather than just the labor of unauthorized immigrants)."
Joshua, in a sub-sub-comment most of you probably didn't read.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Something that should have been in the article:
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on May 13, 2008 10:57 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Illegal Immigration Helps the USA
Posted by: countingdaisies
Comments are closed-
Posted by: frantaylor on May 13, 2008 11:39 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Who will pick the crops? ---YOU CAN !
Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Who will pick the crops?
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zeezil on May 13, 2008 11:56 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please review the following report on the FISCAL COST OF IMMIGRATION by economist Edwin Rubenstein released in April 2008:
http://www.esrresearch.com/Rubensteinreport.pdf
A partial summary of the report:
The impact on 15 Federal Departments surveyed was: $346 billion in fiscal related costs in FY 2007.
Each immigrant cost taxpayers more than $9,000 per year.
An immigrant household (2 adults, 2 children) cost taxpayers $36,000 per year.
Legal immigrants were not separated out from illegal immigrants for the fiscal impact study, but if they had been, the fiscal cost per ILLEGAL immigrant would be even more shocking than the figures quoted above.
The most extensive and authoritative study, prior to economist Edwin Rubenstein's "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration" (April 2008) , is the National Research Council (NRC)’s The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (1997).
The NRC staff analyzed federal, state, and local government expenditures on programs such as Medicaid, AFDC (now TANF), and SSI, as well as the cost of educating immigrants’ foreign- and native-born children.
NRC found that the average immigrant household receives $13,326 in federal annual expenditures and pays $10,664 in federal taxes—that is, they generate a fiscal deficit of $2,682 (1996 dollars)per household.
In 2007 dollars this is a deficit of $3,408 per immigrant household.
With 9 million households currently headed by immigrants, more than $30 billion ($3,408 x 9 million) of the federal deficit represents money transferred from native taxpayers to immigrants.
Our national immigration policies have to work for the United States. While improving the plight of the world’s poor is a laudable goal, the finite resources we have available to fulfill that goal would be swamped if there wasn’t some orderly and manageable system in place to limit entry into the United States to what this nation can actually support. The more illegal aliens that are permitted to subvert the immigration system, the fewer immigrants we can accommodate who might actually produce a positive benefit for our country.
The more we become a nation of illegal immigrants, the deeper we fall into anarchy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The FISCAL COST OF IMMIGRATION
Posted by: SOWILO
» Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Distortions are a serious reason we can't make progress on this issue
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zeezil on May 13, 2008 11:58 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nope
Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: Nope to YOU.
Posted by: SOWILO
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zeezil on May 13, 2008 12:00 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Besides, if fences don't work then why is there one around the White House?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Uh-huh
Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: Fences Work:
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Fences Work:
Posted by: zeb
» RE: Fences Work:
Posted by: Joshua Holland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zeezil on May 13, 2008 12:02 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Second, it seems far too easily forgotten that one must be an U.S. citizen in order to warrant the rights afforded to a citizen. That should be the end of discussion.
Third, legal immigrants working alongside native born citizens have made this country what it is. We have thrived on the contributions of immigrants and will usually need them, though to varying degrees, throughout most sectors of our economy. The problem is that we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to those who enter illegally, ignore our laws and seek to subvert our culture and national values. We welcome those who follow the rules, learn the English language, and respect our sovereignty. As illegal immigrants, it is not only offensive but also ridiculous to ask for rights, which they have not earned nor are entitled to.
Let's secure our borders by building the fence so we have an effective and controlled immigration system at the same time as we enforce our currently existing immigration laws. During this interval we encourage illegals to depart (attrition through enforcement). Once our borders are secured and we have a grip on a functional system of immigration, we move against those illegals that have refused to leave. We should never ever grant amnesty.
We tried 'comprehensive immigration reform' in 1986. We gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens in exchange for the government promising to secure the borders, conduct workplace enforcement and enforce immigration law. It didn't work because the government lied and did nothing other than process the amnesty paperwork. Due to that folly, we now have 20 Million or more illegal aliens here demanding amnesty.
Don't you think it is far beyond time that we engage in Comprehensive Immigration ENFORCEMENT rather than Comprehensive Immigration Reform?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Last Chance on May 13, 2008 12:05 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Illegal immigration can be summed up as a crystal clear issue - the desperate need for birth control by giving all women the legally protected right to decide if, when and how many children to birth. Only a few women want a lot of children, a few want none, but the great majority want only 1, 2 or 3, which, if they had the freedom to choose, would return the human race to a livable balance with the natural Earth. Then there would be no illegal immigrants because everyone would prefer to build a better life in their own country! If Saving the Earth
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Report: Immigrants will drive American population growth
Posted by: zeezil
» RE: Report: Immigrants will drive American population growth
Posted by: zeezil
» Immigrants ARE driving American population growth and
Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Immigrants ARE driving American population growth and
Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: Immigrants ARE driving American population growth and
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: As usual,
Posted by: SOWILO
» RE: As usual,
Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: As usual,
Posted by: desidid
» RE: As usual,
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Actually, much of rural northern Mexico IS "a land of ghost towns"!
Posted by: war_on_tara
Comments are closed-
Posted by: teresam on May 13, 2008 3:02 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Under current immigration laws, there is virtually no way for unskilled laborers such as farmworkers to immigrate to the U.S. legally from Mexico. A close friend (a citizen) is trying to sponsor her brother's admission (he's a CPA) and was told the wait list is 11 years. But it could be worse--another friend is trying to bring her elderly mother here from the Philippines, only to be told the wait list is 23 years.
Until the many flaws in our current system are fixed, I believe illegal immigration will only continue and grow.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Our arcanely convoluted immigration process
Posted by: zeezil
» RE:In The Meantime
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JimmyVaughan on May 13, 2008 3:16 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For example, a $10,000 fine for every immigrant illegally employed by business. The second incident should involve both a heavy fine and imprisonment.
If the laws I've suggested are enforced the problem will disappear by itself.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on May 13, 2008 4:39 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if you dry up the employment base thats attracting these illegals then the illegals will stop being illegal now wont they!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: end illegal immigrants by going after employers that hire illegals!
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: end illegal immigrants by going after employers that hire illegals!
Posted by: Joshua Holland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: frantaylor on May 13, 2008 6:30 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This loss of farmland is NOT going to be made up for by volunteers picking apples in the fall. These farms will close up shop and sell out to developers, and the farmland will be gone forever.
This is happening RIGHT NOW. Read about the orchards going out of business and look at where your produce in the grocery store is coming from. Do we want to rely on other countries for our food as well as our energy?
Close the borders if you must, but this problem must be solved!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Losing farms and farmland
Posted by: desidid
» working on farms, it's as if we were in a Spanish-speaking country
Posted by: stilldreaming
» RE: Cheap food?
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Losing farms and farmland
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: I'd Give You A 10 Rating If I Could
Posted by: desidid
» RE: You, Too!
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: You, Too!
Posted by: desidid
» RE: Losing farms and farmland
Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: Losing farms and farmland
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on May 14, 2008 3:17 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The pathetic excuse making that has erupted since, where law-abiding Americans are blamed for the problem, has failed to look starkly at the problem. People on the ground can see it is n't working and they can see why.
And the solution will not be to open the borders up and stop managing immigration: that would pile disaster on to disaster.
Countries become successful not because of their geographical bounty, but how they deal with it. Africa as a continent is extremely bountiful. Israel, is a barren desert and tiny. Yet in Sudan people kill villagers in the thousands; in Israel, they irrigate the desert and export fruits and vegetables around the world. It is a cultural choice that is made.
America's economic and social decline can be traced to its weakening of its culture and values; the ones that made the country so successful in the past.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bill Clinton destroyed the integrity of immigration
Posted by: OK Granny
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mario Ramos on May 14, 2008 7:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To put this in perspective this would be as if the fourth largest employer of Nashville were to leave in one year. By this time next year 287g will have deported over 6,000 persons; putting in 2nd place of largest employers.
The Nashville Hispanic Chamber of Commerce will host a forum regarding 287g to see if an exodus has already begun from Nashville.
I have personally spoken to numerous immigration clients who have told me they are leaving or have been forced to leave.
In the zeal to up hold the law 287g has not created a welcoming atmosphere in Nashville. Immigrants are mobile and there are more welcoming places live in the United States.
Enforcement only is not the solution the US needs comprehensive immigration reform to allow working taxpayers to gain lawful status. We need to replace politicians who care more about their career than the city, state and country.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nashville TN joins Phoenix AZ in 287g frenzy
Posted by: countingdaisies
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kyledeb on May 14, 2008 8:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just getting to reading your immigration pieces in depth. You've done a lot of research here and I appreciate you're addition of a pro-migrant voice to this debate.
That being said, this talk of deflection is dangerously close to attrition through enforcement in my mind. How do you see it as different
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Talk of "Deflection"
Posted by: Joshua Holland
Comments are closed-
Comments are closed-
Posted by: desidid on May 14, 2008 7:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Proposed Fix To This Problem
Posted by: Joshua Holland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on May 15, 2008 5:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to employ... you would need a SSN in order to collect and submit taxes for the federal, state and municipality... so social security numbers would/should be mandatory...
people without a SSN shouldn't be able to be employed!
Current practices support black market labor and slavery!
Once people realize this simple fact... you can then eliminate the border police, minutemen and other "GRAFTED" policing agencies... which are responsible for gross neglect ions of duty and constitutional laws...
just by being in existence!
going after people that technically don't exist?... and when found... locking them up till they can prove there in country legally... or they're deported...
This is not only an abuse of power, its an abuse of authority!
To me, all this is proof that these so called policing agencies are nothing more than
"GRAFT ENGINES" for politicals and their fiends!
use your head....
if you see a problem, deal with it at its source...
BTW... just how many policing agencies do you Yanks need anyways? how many jails?...
how much fear must you encourage!
It's so disturbing in so many ways,
and really isn't a problem if employers would just follow existing laws!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: immigrationman on May 18, 2008 11:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think if there is to be more enforcement over the long haul, it should be related to legal immigration. We should provide everyone with a legal option and then enforce corporate employers who violate their options. I just read the new book "Legal US Immigration: Truth, Fraud and the American Way" by Adam Edward Rothwell, an immigration lawyer, and I couldn't believe how hard it can be to hire a foreigner legally. The book's website (www.immigrationisamess.com ) says it all.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Did the Mafia Set Off a Series of Racial Battles with African Migrants?
Officials Hid Truth of Migrant Deaths in Jails
Lou Dobbs, Looking at Public Office, Says He's in Favor of Policy He Used to Spin as "Shamnesty for Illegals"




