Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Um, okay... Is a tightened immigration policy hurting or helping our economy? Is it helping or hurting our national security? Where on the inscription does it say "forever and ever until the end of time"?

The world changes. It's not static. If it were, we wouldn't have 26 Amendments to our Constitution.

I still don't really get the point of this post... Do you have an opinion one way or the other on this observation?

Posted by John Breen III at June 12, 2007 02:24 PM

Stupid question.

How many legal immigrants did we have last year?

Posted by Big D at June 12, 2007 02:31 PM

Big D: Touche. 1.3 million. About the same as during Ellis Island's peak year of 1907 when the US population was only 87 million.

John: Fewer immigrants is hurting the economy and the polity. Fewer immigrants is hurting national security. I am in favor of my post.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at June 12, 2007 02:42 PM

Legal immigration of high quality contributors - Se!

Illegal immigrants siphoning off more services than they contribute to in taxes, not to mention the odd terrorist - No!

Posted by Orville at June 12, 2007 03:26 PM

"John: Fewer immigrants is hurting the economy and the polity. Fewer immigrants is hurting national security. I am in favor of my post."

Sam - maybe that is true of legal immigrants; non having done the research, I couldn't say. It is completely untrue of illegal aliens - they damage our economy and our national security.

The Golden Door is NOT supposed to open onto a free lunch for anybody who wants to show up.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at June 12, 2007 03:28 PM

"non" = "not"

Nuts.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at June 12, 2007 03:29 PM

Except for Alaska, we are no longer a frontier nation. Why should our goal be an ever-increasing population? They sent their tired, their poor and their teeming masss. They and their decendants are posting in this thread.

We need a new frontier for the new huddled masses, not keep overstuffing the same old ones.

Instead of cheap workers, we need cheap automation.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 12, 2007 03:51 PM

"Except for Alaska, we are no longer a frontier nation. Why should our goal be an ever-increasing population? They sent their tired, their poor and their teeming masss. They and their decendants are posting in this thread."

Mike-

Thank you for stating that more clearly than I was able to. You more or less read my mind.

Posted by John Breen III at June 12, 2007 03:56 PM

I stand with Sam on this one. I think he should have referred to it as the Statue of Insecurity since it is only the pathologically insecure who worry constantly about terrorism and the non-substantiated threat from foreigners.

Posted by Jardinero1 at June 12, 2007 04:00 PM

Well, there's the obvious solution to
the "problem of illegal immigration"...
it's the same as the solution to the "problem
of illegal pot-smoking": legalization!

-dave w

Posted by dave w at June 12, 2007 04:20 PM

Sam, you should be ashamed of yourself for, as so many others do, conflating anti-immigration with anti-illegal immigration.

Posted by Rick C at June 12, 2007 05:38 PM

Sam, you should be ashamed of yourself for, as so many others do, conflating anti-immigration with anti-illegal immigration.

Rick, you've fallen for the spin put out by anti-immigrant groups.

Are any of those groups working to legalize immigration? No. They want to criminalize it, build fences and machine gun towers on the borders, etc.

If what you say were true, the so-called "Minutemen" would be helping people getting green cards instead of camping out in the desert hoping to shoot themselves a "Meksican."

Posted by Edward Wright at June 12, 2007 06:10 PM

Sam,
You're right about the "self-important land of storied pomp" thing, but we can live up to Liberty's inscription without pretending we're still a wide open Promised Land. The key is to look at America not necessarily as the end of people's dreams, but as the golden door itself--whether through scientific and technological research, entrepreneurship, or opening up the unlimited frontier to everyone. We can be the roadbuilders and the shipwrights, the torchbearers and navigators, and the point of embarkation into new chapters in the human adventure. There's no greater freedom we could bring the world, and that is what would be remembered of us--not the vileness and rot of our current stagnation.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 12, 2007 06:23 PM

Sam - maybe that is true of legal immigrants; non having done the research, I couldn't say. It is completely untrue of illegal aliens - they damage our economy and our national security.

Barbara, how are they damaging our economy and national security, and how do you know that if you haven't done any research?

The only immigrants who really damaged our national security were the 9/11 terrorists, and they did not come here illegally.

If you're really concerned about national security, you should call for the government to screen immigrants for genuine threats, if there are any. That's much easier to do if you make immigration legal rather than forcing people to sneak across the border. Diverting law enforcement from catching criminals and terrorists to stopping migrant farm workers does not enhance national security or the economy.

The Golden Door is NOT supposed to open onto a free lunch for anybody who wants to show up.

It wasn't supposed to be a free lunch for *anyone*, Barbara, regardless of whether or not you were born here.

If the argument is that immigrants are taking "your" share of the free lunch, the research you haven't read shows otherwise. Illegal immigrants actually consume a relatively small proportion of government handouts relative to the economic contribution they make. Contrary to popular belief, government transfer payments benefit higher-income people more than lower income -- Milton Friedman called it "Robin Hood in reverse" -- and illegal immigrants tend to be at the low end.

Personally, I think the free lunches should be discontinued, for everyone, but if you disagree then you should be grateful to the immigrants who help to pay for your free lunches.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 12, 2007 06:36 PM

We are stuck in an anti-immigrant rut...

No nicer way to put it, Sam: that's a lie, and you're a liar.

I'm out here in the trenches of the "awl bidness." Illegal and legal immigrants are my neighbors, co-workers, and employees. Among my circle of unwashed rednecks, I know of no one who is anti-immigration or even anti-Mexican. The charge of racism is purely an artifact of hysterical left-wingers pontificating on things they know nothing about, using a bigoted stereotype as the basis of their "reasoning."

We are against saying "Buuuuuuwahahaha! Suc-ker! to tens or hundreds of thousands of people who have worked their butts off, and suffered the elitist sneers of the striped-pantsed assholes at State, in order to complete all the sillyass requirements to get here legally.

We are against having twelve million quasi-slaves, but our ire is not directed at the poor bastards who are trying to make a living, it's against the smarmy jerks who leap on the opportunity to be patrón to ignorant illiterates -- both politicians and "bidnessmen".

We are against a situation where "security" is a laughingstock -- if twelve million people can cross without impinging in any way on the record, what price taking off our shoes at the airport?

We are against having huge numbers of people here who aren't in any sense immigrants, but avoid our folkways, stay away from our culture, and milk us for money to send home -- not to mention being against the moonbat requirement that asking them to learn English and join us, instead of parasitizing us, is an intolerable imposition on their Cultural Identity. What that actually does is replicate, here, the oligarchical culture that sent them here in the first place, and we're damned sure against that.

And we are against the use of that situation to prop up a corrupt class of oligarchs, which we know full well is where the "money sent home" goes.

"Instant citizenship" does not address any of the things we're honestly opposed to, and cannot be tweaked to do anything we want done -- what it does do is say "f* you" to the people who tried to do it legally, and "come on over!" to the next twelve million, or twenty-four million, or thirty-six million, or...; and complaining that "you can't arrest twelve million people" isn't an answer, it's a confession of incompetence.

The minority who want to become Americans are welcome, no conditions. The majority who have no intention of changing their lifestyles, and who insist on importing their coyotes and patróns, their flags and their allegiances, need to go home and clean their own houses. And it is becoming more and more clear that we cannot trust people whose primary interest is more ignorant votes, less aggravation when hiring yard workers, and a nice self-important position as Generous Big Guy With Devoted Followers, to sort the wheat from the chaff. Therefore the draconian solution: Build the --ing wall, then we'll talk. It isn't what we want, but it's clear that it's the most we can possibly get. You dig?

Regards,
Ric

Posted by Ric Locke at June 12, 2007 07:51 PM

"but if you disagree then you should be grateful to the immigrants who help to pay for your free lunches. "

TANSTAAFL

Exactly what free lunch has she gotten? I am still waiting on my mythical free lunch.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 12, 2007 07:51 PM

Edward is disregarding this study about illegal aliens consumption of government resources: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1490.cfm

No country has open borders. We have a quota system for immigration for a reason. Why should people who flout our system be given access ahead of those following the rules? Your arguments make no sense. You act as though resources are limitless. Studies show illegal workers do drive down wages, create more crime(document fraud for one). You haven't had to dodge cows on the road because coyotes cut fences on their route or gone into a rest stop bathroom trashed by 15 illegals in a minivan. Given the choice between doctors from India or Mexico patiently waiting their turn or a cab driver from anywhere who snuck in, I choose the doctors. I AM for LEGAL, controlled immigration and if anybody writes I am secretly a bigot or a racist, you are a coward AND a liar.

Posted by Bill Maron at June 12, 2007 08:08 PM

"I deem her the Statue of Security. "

The Statue of Limitations would have been funnier.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 12, 2007 08:12 PM

This whole conflation of immigration with illegal immigration really annoys me.

So, 1.3M, then? Is that capped by a wild guess by Congress, or by what the severely broken immigration service can handle the paperwork on? Because if it's the former, I don't see why it couldn't be 2-3M/year--although, to be fair to the *rest* of the world, not all of that increase could go to Mexico. Other folks want to come here, too.

And if it's the latter... well, somebody needs to have their department torn down and rebuilt.

Posted by Big D at June 12, 2007 08:55 PM

Big D, it isn't the Immigration and Naturalization folks -- whatever they're called since the last deck-chair shuffle -- who are the barrier, although they're a problem. It's the State Department that we need to nuke to bedrock and start over pour encourager les autres, as anyone not Politically Significant who has ever visited a U.S. Embassy overseas has discovered.

Regards,
Ric

Posted by Ric Locke at June 12, 2007 09:20 PM

A small but important correction, Sam: Your posting implies that many would-be immigrants were 'detained' on Ellis Island during WWII.
Too bad they didn't get the _chance_ to be detained there. They didn't get that far. Instead they were slaughtered in Europe because of tight immigration quotas from the early '20's onwards.

Posted by Charles Lurio at June 12, 2007 09:36 PM

You act as though resources are limitless.

Resources are limited only by the ability of human beings to discover and produce them. More people means more creativity, more resources, and more wealth. Read "The Ultimate Resource" by Herbert Simon. Or "Free to Choose" by Militon Friedman. Or most any other economist.

Studies show illegal workers do drive down wages,

Yes, and there are "studies" that show Apollo 11 didn't land on the Moon.

Wages in America are much higher now than they were in 1492, before the Pucketts and other illegal immigrants arrived.

If you went to the Moon, you'd have a hard time even finding a job at any wage rate. Not enough immigrants.

Immigrants create wealth, and wealth drives up wages.

As Professor Friedman said, immigrants don't just have mouths and stomachs. They also have hands and minds.

create more crime(document fraud for one).

So, you define a new class of "crime" and that causes "crime" to go up. Does that surprise you?

You could outlaw baldness, and the next day there would be millions of middle-aged men committing "crime." Most of whom had never broken the law in their lives.

So? Those are artificial, victimless "crimes," not to be confused with, say, bank robbery.

You haven't had to dodge cows on the road because coyotes cut fences on their route

LOL. You have no idea the things I've dodged on the road, Mike. One time I had an entire herd of wildebeest get spooked by lightning and charge through a gate I was driving through from the opposite side. I was sure one of them would end up on my hood.

And not an immigrant in sight. So what? Those things happen.

If you don't want smugglers cutting fences, don't pass laws that make immigrant smuggling a profitable business -- and don't raise my taxes to pay for your laws.

Outlawing immigration and complaining about smuggling is like prohibiting outlaw and complaining about bootlegging. In either case, it's the law that created the problem.

I AM for LEGAL, controlled immigration

You don't need thousands of miles of fence and machine gun towers all along the border to have legal, controlled immigration -- unless "controlled immigration" is a euphemism for "almost no immigration."

If you want to deport people because you found a messy restroom, I hope you don't have teenagers. You'll have to deport them, too.

The funny thing is, Texas probably has more immigrants than any other state but almost no one in Texas complains about immigration. Most people there have learned to live together. In California, almost everyone seems to be seething about the Latino that served them their latest latte. In Washington State, there aren't many Mexicans but people complain about immigrants from other parts of the United States -- especially California. When I first moved here, most cars were sporting "Washington Native" bumperstickers.

Should Washington State put up machine gun towers to keep you immigrants out, Mike? So they don't drive down wages? If such a policy makes sense on a Federal level, it should make just as much sense on the state level.

Exactly what free lunch has she gotten? I am still waiting on my mythical free lunch.

I guess you don't watch late night teevee. Matthew Lesko has an entire book on government handouts you can apply for, Mike.

Did you miss the whole debate over free prescription drug bennies? How do you think George W. Bush managed to increase spending so much? Most of it is not going to the military, no matter what the media tells you.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 12, 2007 10:00 PM

I somehow fused Bill and Mike. Sorry about that.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 12, 2007 10:03 PM

Hi All,

A history of U.S. Immigration law might put this into context.

http://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/USMigrat.html

It is also important to note that seasonal workers from Mexico have been coming into the U.S. for over a hundred years for agricultural work. It was only under the 1965 law they became “illegal”. Yet without them many of the nation’s corps would go unharvested. The reality is that the continuation of historical labor patterns are critical to the nation’s economy. Legalizing them is no different then admitting that outlawing alcohol won’t stop folks from drinking it. This nation was smart enough to admit it made a mistake and repeal prohibition. Its time it did the same for immigration. Otherwise well will become like Japan where 80 year old men are harvesting oranges because no one else is available.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/24/international/asia/24JAPA.html?ei=5007&en=53c7315175389e69&ex=1374379200&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all&position=

Incidentally another factor to consider. Like Japan the U.S would be losing population if it wasn’t for immigration.

And as for those dollars they send home. Guess what those folks do with them? Usually they buy goods from the U.S. Folks forget Mexico is one of out biggest trading partners. I could just see our balance of payments if they actually did go home and their relatives didn’t have the money to buy goods from the U.S.

Posted by Thomas Matula at June 12, 2007 10:37 PM

Edward 5, Straw Men 0

Way to go Edward!

Posted by Doc at June 12, 2007 11:35 PM

...Sam: Your posting implies that many would-be immigrants were 'detained' on Ellis Island during WWII.

Ellis Island was a detention center for residents and not would-be immigrants.

Posted by D Anghelone at June 13, 2007 04:17 AM

Gee Doc, Your strawman score....is a strawman!

Edward, I live in Texas and people complain about the illegal problem alot. We obviously need a fence since millions of people cross the border and are here illegally. BTW where did I mention machineguns? I see you can't let go of that if you're for border control, you're against immigration meme. If you want to conflate legal citizens moving freely within a country with those entering a country illegally, help your self. Just don't expect me to take you seriously with that kind of fallacy. The point of the restroom is, you get problems that you wouldn't have otherwise if they weren't here.

Posted by Bill Maron at June 13, 2007 04:31 AM

it is only the pathologically insecure who worry constantly about terrorism and the non-substantiated threat from foreigners.

Non-substantiated is three thousand dead on our shores. It happened once, it could happen again.

Posted by Mac at June 13, 2007 05:29 AM

Incidentally another factor to consider. Like Japan the U.S would be losing population if it wasn’t for immigration.

Thomas, I have heard that the US population is slightly positive growth even in the absence of immigration. But part of this is probably due to subsequent generations of immigrants that have somewhat greater fertility.

Non sequitur for a couple of reasons. First, there's no machine towers planned. Second, controlled immigration implies that one has some degree of control over who enters the country. What control currently exists over that in the border with Mexico? Hence, the fence and other such ideas.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at June 13, 2007 05:33 AM

Bah. Arguing about details and specifics is a waste of time.

What Sam, and the rest of the proponents of this travesty, want is to mount the pedestal of Saintliness, there to bask in the adulation as the péons genuflect in humble gratitude to the Warm-Hearted Benefactor of the Little Brown People. Since that's the nastiest expression of the attitude that causes the problem in the first place, their halos are lookin' a little dim from here.

Regards,
Ric

Posted by Ric Locke at June 13, 2007 07:02 AM

Sam, when you're sitting in a traffic jam, how do you feel about the people who illegally dart by on the shoulder and then cut in at the last minute? Does it bother you at all? How would you feel if you saw it happen, while a cop was there and just looked the other way? Are you the kind of person who engages in that sort of activity?

The reason that the debate about immigration is so personal to many people (besides the economic, assimilation, crime & security issues) is that it raises the general issue of fairness. It bothers me that our gov't is attempting to turn all those people, who are waiting in line to come here legally, into suckers.

For the record, I have no problem increasing our legal immigration quota for ANY nation, including Mexico. But I do have a problem with millions of people illegally cutting the line.

Posted by kayawanee at June 13, 2007 07:07 AM

Again with the strawmen, Sam? I dont' recall hearing of any Minutemen with a desire to shoot them a beaner: they're calling the border patrol when they see illegal crossings, is all.

But it's nice of you to point out that you're an open-borders type. I've said before in other places, and maybe here, I'm in favor of increasing legal immigration. I don't want people sneaking over here, sending money back to Mexico, not assimilating, and taking up social services, etc., etc. You're apparently OK with that, tho.

Posted by Rick C at June 13, 2007 07:22 AM

Check the figures -- on state revenues: exploding; on Federal revenues: growing at three times the rate of inflation; on GDP -- it's one-third larger than it was five years ago.

We've got twelve million people who easily flouted the law to get here -- the main hazards they have, and will, encounter are physical.

They're getting away with it because the entire society is getting away with it.

They're here because this is the most successful polity on Earth.

The "Golden Door" was slammed shut during the Roaring Twenties. The last big foofaraw over immigration started up three years into a huge recovery after the deepest recession since the 1930s. This one is happening on the heels of the creation of eight million jobs in less than four years.

Posted by Jay Manifold at June 13, 2007 08:46 AM

"The last big foofaraw over immigration"

The "foofaraw" IS NOT about IMMIGRATION. It is about ILLEGAL immigration.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 13, 2007 09:14 AM

Edward: How many "Meksicans" have the Minutemen shot? None, that I know of.

They do, last I checked, give them water while waiting for ICE to come deport them.

Your cheap stereotyping doesn't make your argument stronger; rather the opposite, since it makes me assume you have nothing stronger to offer.

Those Minutemen need not be pro-immigration activists to be in favor of legal immigration, even if you insist they must. Since they do not evidently protest or act against legal immigration, they're under no obligation to actively aid people getting green cards in order to be only "anti-illegal-immigration".

Fairly simple logic there, honestly. Being an activist against illegal X does not entail being an activist for legal X. There's just no inherent connection.

Posted by Sigivald at June 13, 2007 10:24 AM

Edward, I live in Texas and people complain about the illegal problem alot.

I just spent 10 days in Texas, and things haven't changed a lot since I lived there. The immigrants people complain about most are Yankees, not Mexicans, but -- with the rare exceptions -- those are *jokes*.

If you want proof, look what happened when Pat Buchanon brought his anti-immigrant act to Texas. He went over big in California but his campaign was a dud.

We obviously need a fence since millions of people cross the border and are here illegally.

Nah. Pat Buchanon and his ilk may be annoying, but it's not worth spending billions of dollars on a fence just to keep them out.

Just declare an open hunting season on them and the problem will take care of itself. (Again, that's a joke, son.)

BTW where did I mention machineguns?

You didn't, but you are not my only source of information. Do a little searching and you'll find Boeing's got a multi-billion dollar contract to build gun towers along the border.

I see you can't let go of that if you're for border control, you're against immigration meme.

Let's be honest here, Rick. "Control" is a euphemism for "stop."

I support legal immigration, Rick. You? Not so much. We don't need fences and gun towers to legalize immigration.

The point of the restroom is, you get problems that you wouldn't have otherwise if they weren't here.

Laugh. "Problems you wouldn't otherwise have?" You think gringos never trash a restroom?

Posted by Edward Wright at June 13, 2007 10:33 AM

I don't want people sneaking over here... and taking up social services,

Thank you, Rick, for stating it so clearly.

As Milton Friedman said, the United States can afford to have free immigration or a welfare state but not both.

You've chosen the welfare state and don't want immigrants "taking up" any of the welfare services.

I'm on the side of liberty. I would rather have free immigration and chuck the welfare state.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 13, 2007 10:44 AM

Ugh egads, I'm with Ed Wright.

1.3M legal - what is that made up of? There were only 160,000 or so H visas for skilled migrants, which were capped at something like 70,000 for 2007/8 (much to Bill Gates displeasure)

There's lots of different types of visa, but getting a skilled migrant or entrepeneur visa is a nightmare. My L visa was pretty straight forward, but I work for a multinational in a senior role, so that's not an issue.

Getting here is much much harder than it should be legally, especially in skill sets that are needed.

I've got a few friend's who've moved in the other direction and they found getting work permits for the UK to be a lot lot easier than getting one for the US.

Of course, one solution would be to ensure that the economy of Mexico grows so fast there's less reason to come here. I don't see quite so many Canadian coyotees running the border a few miles north of here... ;)

Posted by Dave at June 13, 2007 11:39 AM

"Let's be honest here, Rick. "Control" is a euphemism for "stop."" EW.

Great job! You call me a liar and get my name wrong in the same sentence. Well Carnak, it's obvious you won't debate in a honest way so I'll move on to something else.

Posted by Bill Maron at June 13, 2007 11:40 AM

"As Milton Friedman said, the United States can afford to have free immigration or a welfare state but not both...I'm on the side of liberty. I would rather have free immigration and chuck the welfare state."

Posted by Edward Wright at June 13, 2007 10:44 AM

Wow!

So, you are seriously suggesting that the following is likely to happen in our near future:

1) The U.S. (federal, state, and local governments) will likely dismantle the entire welfare state;

2) Aid to Parents of Dependent Children will be eliminated;

3) Medicaid medical services for the poor will be eliminated;

4) Medicare medical services for the elderly will be eliminated;

5) Social Security for the disabled and/or the retired will be eliminated;

6) Free emergency room care will be eliminated, and hospitals and emergency rooms are going to start turning away those who can't pay;

7) Free compulsory education will be eliminated;

8) The Food Stamps program will be eliminated?

Believing that it SHOULD happen and believing that it WILL happen are two completely different things. So, just on the off-hand chance that the disintegration of the welfare state is not imminent, and assuming you believe M. Friedman is correct, then we're gonna have a real problem on our hands, aren't we?

On a practical level, it must be a hell of a lot easier (both physically and politically) to build a wall, then it is to tear down 70+ years of entitlement programs. So, if we can't have both (free immigration & welfare), then it makes the most sense to set a more achievable objective.

Posted by kayawanee at June 13, 2007 11:43 AM

"The world changes. It's not static."

That's just a cheap-ass way of saying that principles don't matter.

Posted by Billy Beck at June 13, 2007 12:04 PM

So, you are seriously suggesting that the following is likely to happen in our near future:

1) The U.S. (federal, state, and local governments) will likely dismantle the entire welfare state;

I didn't say it was likely. I said it was preferable.

Believing that it SHOULD happen and believing that it WILL happen are two completely different things.

I never said it will happen. I don't claim to have a crystal ball or predict the future.

I suspect the welfare side will continue to win the freedom-vs-welfare debate, at least in the near term. That doesn't change my opinion. I won't change my principles just to be on the winning side.

assuming you believe M. Friedman is correct, then we're gonna have a real problem on our hands, aren't we?

Supporters of the welfare state have a problem. Since I'm not a supporter of welfare, it's not a problem for me.

On a practical level, it must be a hell of a lot easier (both physically and politically) to build a wall, then it is to tear down 70+ years of entitlement programs.

Yes, just as it was easier for East Berlin to build a wall rather than overthrow Communism.

Nevertheless, I was opposed to the Berlin Wall and not in favor of Communism.

if we can't have both (free immigration & welfare), then it makes the most sense to set a more achievable objective.

Illogical. Just because an objective is achievable does not mean it's worthwhile.

Bad outcomes are usually the most achieable. Bankruptcy is easier to achieve than wealth. Suicide is easier than living to a ripe old age in good health. Continuing down the Road to Serfdom is easier than dismantling the welfare state. I do not choose the easy road because I want the benefits of the hard road.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 13, 2007 12:29 PM

6) Free emergency room care will be eliminated, and hospitals and emergency rooms are going to start turning away those who can't pay;

Prior to government health care, it used to be standard for physicians and hospitals to donate a percentage of their services to providing free care for those who couldn't pay. Even today, there are still private charity hospitals.

Why do you assume that only the government can provide free care?

7) Free compulsory education will be eliminated;

The government is not the only group that can provide education. There are private schools, religious schools, home schools -- and yes, they do often provide services free of charge to those who can't pay.

Public schools are not "free" to taxpayers. They aren't even cheap. The average cost per student in a public school is about twice that of a private school.

Most Americans *can* afford to pay for health care and education. When they say the government should give them those things for "free," they are only fooling themselves. They end up paying twice as much for them, through taxes.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 13, 2007 12:45 PM

Ed, are you really comparing the Berlin Wall (a wall to keep people imprisoned within the Iron Curtain) to a wall to keep people from entering a sovereign country?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 13, 2007 12:49 PM

Edward Wright: "Personally, I think the free lunches should be discontinued, for everyone, but if you disagree then you should be grateful to the immigrants who help to pay for your free lunches."

What free lunch? I've never gotten one, and don't want one. I've worked all my life, and plan to continue to do so well past "retirement" age.

But I'm sick to death of taxes being confiscated from me to pay for those who do expect - and get - one, whether they were born here or not. I'm also sick of illegals (illegal means criminal, by the way) bankrupting hospitals getting "free" medical care, and committing crimes that would not otherwise have been committed, and sneaking across the border just in time to give birth so they AND their baby can get that automatic free lunch.

We are supposed to be a sovereign nation; let's pretend we are and SECURE OUR BORDERS.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at June 13, 2007 01:14 PM

I suspect the welfare side will continue to win the freedom-vs-welfare debate, at least in the near term. That doesn't change my opinion. I won't change my principles just to be on the winning side.

Supporters of the welfare state have a problem. Since I'm not a supporter of welfare, it's not a problem for me.

So, if I read you correctly, you believe the following:

1) The country CANNOT afford both free immigration AND the welfare state;

2) You predict that welfare statism will either maintain itself or grow, at least in the near future;

3) You believe that the costs of such welfare statism will be a problem not for you, but for (and I quote you) "Supporters of the welfare state...".

So your position can be summarized as:

- Practicality be damned;
- Let's open the borders regardless of the consequences to the nation; and
- The costs of illegal immigration upon the welfare state won't affect Edward Wright.

I must say, Edward, you are indeed ideologically pure.

Posted by kayawanee at June 13, 2007 01:33 PM

If I understand you correctly, kayawanee, you favor practicality over freedom. Or, are we just talking semantics here?

I'm not Edward, and I hope he doesn't mind me answering some of your points.

1. If practicality interferes with freedom, then it must be damned. What's so hard to understand about this point?

2. There is no nation without the individual.

3. This is circular logic. Take the phrase "welfare state" out of that sentance and see how it reads.

Posted by Justin M. Stoddard at June 13, 2007 01:56 PM

Um...sentance should read "sentence" Jeez.

Posted by Justin M. Stoddard at June 13, 2007 02:02 PM

You ignore that the statue holds a torch in one hand, but a law book in the other... We are very generous - almost all of us - to legal immigrants.

Posted by wayne s at June 13, 2007 02:35 PM

Ed, I didn't choose the welfare state *or* open immigration.

"I support legal immigration, Rick. You? Not so much. We don't need fences and gun towers to legalize immigration."

Ah, more straw men. We need fences to attempt to stop *illegal* immigration.

Posted by Rick C at June 13, 2007 02:45 PM

If I understand you correctly, kayawanee, you favor practicality over freedom. Or, are we just talking semantics here?

Umm, not sure what semantics your talking about, but maybe addressing your next point will help.

1. If practicality interferes with freedom, then it must be damned. What's so hard to understand about this point?

Do you mean the freedom to cross national borders illegally, particularly when the effect of such illegal border crossings is national economic woe? Then yes, I have a problem with that kind of "freedom".

2. There is no nation without the individual.

There is also no nation without legitimately defined and defended borders.

3. This is circular logic. Take the phrase "welfare state" out of that sentance and see how it reads.

I'm not exactly sure which part of my post (or even which post) you are referring to. It would help if you included my quote in italics, so I could respond better.

Regardless, I'll try to make myself clear.
National borders are a priority for me for reasons of national financial solvency, societal cohesion, security, etc. I believe the gov't should at least make an attempt to limit illegal immigration.

Edward quotes Milton Friedman suggesting that you can't have both a welfare state and open borders. I do not see welfare statistm disappearing anytime soon, and neither does Edward. That means that the choice is not between freedom vs. practicality as you suggest, but rather, the choice here is between open borders or national financial solvency. And if THAT is the choice, then I'll take financial solvency for $1000, Alex!

This may seem like circular reasoning, but I'm trying take into consideration the reality within which we live. If you or Edward seriously believes that the welfare state can be dismantled anytime soon, that would change the question, wouldn't it? I still would not agree to open borders (for a whole host of other reasons), though I would agree to rapidly increasing LEGAL immigration. But if that dismantlement is not imminent, then I believe the question becomes comes one of financial solvency vs. open borders. And you know where I stand on that.

Posted by kayawanee at June 13, 2007 02:49 PM

(That "law book" references 7/4/1776, the implications of which are a bit different.)

Not to make anybody's head explode, but I once again raise the issue of numbers.

The revenue impact estimate I've seen of immigration (taxes paid minus services used) is negative half a trillion dollars over the next generation.

If we're out $500B over, say, 20 years, how big a problem are we really talking about?

Obviously in terms of either GDP or government spending, not much. That's on the order of one percent of Federal spending; less than one percent of Federal & state spending combined. Around two-tenths of a percent of GDP.

The obvious question, then, is: is $500B a wild underestimate?

Because unless it is, I keep coming back to ... this is a non-issue, at least economically.

Now, there is another aspect, and that is the danger to life and limb near the border itself, associated with narcotics trafficking.

Quite a few of us here incline toward a non-Prohibition approach (broadly speaking, everything from simple decriminalization to a taxation/regulatory approach similar to that for tobacco and alcohol) which would, we believe, eliminate the violence associated with the drug trade.

The feasibility of such an approach being adopted aside, what other risks are we trying to manage?

"No one ever spoke of national insecurity, which would have been much more appropriate." -- Oliver Lange, Vandenberg

Posted by Jay Manifold at June 13, 2007 03:09 PM

Jay,

Did that half trillion include the secondary revenue taxes companies paid out of the profits generated by those employees?

I am in favor of changing laws to provide incentive for people to do the right thing, both for the individual and the country. Some of the illegals I have met have broken a total of one law, coming here. Others are more careless since they are outlaws no matter what they do.

The type of laws I would suggest would be along the lines of fairly easy guest worker programs. Full taxes same as citizens. No deductions for dependants not living in this country. No free services beyond those specifically arrainged to be self supporting by the guest workers. Registration to be simple enough that deporting those that don't would have much more support.
In general, create a situation in which people can come to this country to build a better life.
Screen those that want a free ride or to do us harm.

Though I can't afford to hire illegals, I am somewhat on their side. If I was born in a country with near zero prospects of moving forward, I would look for greener pastures. If the country of choice offered jobs but no realistic chance of legal immigration, I hope I would have the guts to jump the fence to attempt to better my life and that of my family.

Posted by john hare at June 13, 2007 04:12 PM

But I'm sick to death of taxes being confiscated from me to pay for those who do expect - and get - one, whether they were born here or not.

Yet, your policy is aimed solely at those who weren't born here.

Contrary to media claims, illegals actually use a disproportionately small amount of government services. Social service activists in California have actually complained that Latinos are too self-reliant and don't apply for enough welfare.

If you're really fed up with "free lunches," your anger should be directed first at those who consume most of those lunches and those who vote for them. That's not illegal immigrants.

We are supposed to be a sovereign nation; let's pretend we are and SECURE OUR BORDERS.

One has nothing to do with the other. A nation doesn't need to imprison immigrants to be sovereign. The United States was once a sovereign nation that believed in freedom and welcomed freedom-loving people. We can be one again, if we choose to do so.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 13, 2007 05:08 PM

Ed, I didn't choose the welfare state *or* open immigration.

These are your exact words, Rick: "I don't want people sneaking over here... and taking up social services."

What "social services" are you afraid immigrants will take up? If you mean services you pay for, there's no reason to fear that immigrants will use them all up. When services are traded on the market, producers adjust production to meet demand. No, Rick, it's obviously that you meant free (welfare) services -- the only services in danger of being used up.

> "I support legal immigration, Rick. You? Not so much. We don't need fences and gun towers to legalize immigration."

Ah, more straw men. We need fences to attempt to stop *illegal* immigration.

No, it only takes a pen and a signature. The moment the President signs a bill making immigrant legal, illegal immigration will cease to exist. By definition. No one will sneak into the United States because no one will have to. No need for billions of dollars worth of fences and gun towers.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 13, 2007 05:25 PM

So, if I read you correctly, you believe the following:

3) You believe that the costs of such welfare statism will be a problem not for you,

No, I believe the costs of the welfare state are and will continue to be a problem.

But I don't believe I can solve that problem by blaming it on scapegoats who did not cause the problem.

- Practicality be damned;

No, I disagree with your premise that welfare is practical and freedom isn't.

- Let's open the borders regardless of the consequences to the nation;

No, let's open the borders being fully mindful of the consequences, which are generally beneficial to the nation even if they're detrimental to the welfare state.

- The costs of illegal immigration upon the welfare state won't affect Edward Wright.

Your rant makes no sense. If immigration is legalized there will be no "illegal" immigration, therefore no "costs of illegal immigration." There will be more productive workers in the United States, hence more wealth, which you can use to pay for more welfare programs, if that's what you want. But if legal immigration does damage the welfare state, even if it kills it, I won't complain.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 13, 2007 05:46 PM

Good God, I'm beginning to think the open borders crowd have some sort of brain disease. You know what? I think I'm going to find out where Edward Wright lives, and move into his house, and start eating his food. After all, I'm kind of poor, and I'll bet you that Ed being a guy makes more money than a little ol' middle-aged spinster. What? Poor spinsters have no right to the food and shelter of just anyone they please to take it from? I can't even sleep in his basement? I have to ask permission first??? Oh, the humanity!

Posted by Andrea Harris at June 13, 2007 07:50 PM

Good idea Andrea.

Ed, I do hope you don't lock your house doors, I would be shocked if you even have locks on your doors. If you do you must be anti "everyone who might want to come in your house, eat your food and sleep in your bed".

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 13, 2007 08:20 PM

Tear Down That Wall!

America is a sovereign nation and we have the precise border enforcement levels that folks inside the Beltway want us to have. Just enough enforcement to keep those Mexicans scared into NOT asking for social benefits but not enough enforcement to keep them from coming to work.

That compromise will remain in effect no matter what Congress does or does not pass into law.

Posted by Ronald Reagan at June 13, 2007 08:49 PM

Unfortunately Ronald, the 'just enough enforcement' that this idiotic congress (both parties) have implemented over the last decade has now made it piss easy for unskilled third world migrants to jump the fence, but impossible for intelligent degree qualified and highly productive scientists and engineers to get H1B's and green cards.

This is the worst of all possible outcomes for future American properity.

Posted by Adrasteia at June 14, 2007 07:02 AM

Posted by Edward Wright at June 13, 2007 05:46 PM

Your rant makes no sense. If immigration is legalized there will be no "illegal" immigration, therefore no "costs of illegal immigration."

Edward, you're a bright guy. Playing silly, semantic games does not become you. If you prefer we can call it "costs of unsecured borders". Does that make you feel better?

There will be more productive workers in the United States, hence more wealth, which you can use to pay for more welfare programs, if that's what you want.

If you really believe that, then why did you quote Milton Friedman in the first place? Do you believe the choice he suggested between open borders vs. welfare state is correct or not?

Either way, I'm not really interested in new welfare-state programs. But I am interested in the financial solvency of this nation.

But if legal immigration does damage the welfare state, even if it kills it, I won't complain.

And now I think we have reached the crux of our debate. You seem to be minimizing the consequences of the damage or collapse of the welfare state. Again, you seem to think it will have little effect upon you. You suggest that you "wouldn't complain".

Politicians approach problems by throwing money at them--taxpayers' money--our money. When entitlement solvency is at risk, our gov't is going to raise taxes to pay for it. You won't complain when your taxes are raised? Somehow, I really doubt that, unless of course you're one of those people who never files a tax return, shifting the burden to the rest of us who play by the rules.

Now, I think the possibility of a COMPLETE welfare-state collapse under the weight of immigration is extremely remote. But you did bring it up, so I'll just say this. I can't begin to calculate the repercussions that would have upon U.S. economic solvency, world economic solvency, and political stability here in the U.S. and around the world. Imagine millions of seniors no longer receiving Social Security checks. Imagaine hospitals and doctors no longer getting paid for medical services to the poor and aged. It seems to me that the economic consequences of that could be quite severe. Of course, I could be completely wrong about that.

You seem quite calm about the potential financial problems within the welfare state. From where I sit that could mean one of three things:

1) You don't believe the financial woes of the welfare state will result in negative economic consequences for your nation or yourself.

2) You don't care about the negative economic consequences to your nation or yourself. As long as the welfare-state is destroyed and complete individual self reliance is restored, that's all that matters.

3) Both.

Does that about cover it?

Posted by kayawanee at June 14, 2007 07:06 AM

We are against a situation where "security" is a laughingstock -- if twelve million people can cross without impinging in any way on the record, what price taking off our shoes at the airport?

If you'll look at the budget, you'll find that the price of checking shoes at the airport is about $10B per year. But no, no price is too high to pay for freedom.

Posted by Adrasteia at June 14, 2007 07:07 AM

I do hope you don't lock your house doors, I would be shocked if you even have locks on your doors. If you do you must be anti "everyone who might want to come in your house, eat your food and sleep in your bed".

You're ignoring the difference between welfare benefits and private property, Cecil.

My food and my bed are my property. I worked for them; I paid for them.

People who receive welfare don't work for it. They vote for it. That's not the same thing.

If you guys are afraid immigrants will "take up" all the lovely social services the government provides, you're wrong. The proportion of welfare benefits used by immigrants is actually quite small.

Even if we ignore those facts, I would still have little sympathy. I don't believe Cecil Trotter has a right to free prescription drug benefits (for example) in the first place. Why should I care if Jose Mexicano "takes" your share? Welfare is justified as aid to the poor -- not aid to middle-class gringos. I don't like paying taxes for welfare programs, but if I have to do so, I would rather the money go to the people who need it most.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 14, 2007 10:40 AM

If you prefer we can call it "costs of unsecured borders". Does that make you feel better?

Nope. Not until you present evidence that immigration is a cost rather than a benefit. Economists like Julian Simon have shown the opposite. Again, read "The Ultimate Resource."

If you really believe that, then why did you quote Milton Friedman in the first place? Do you believe the choice he suggested between open borders vs. welfare state is correct or not?

Not necessarily, but obviously the people arguing for turning the border into an armed camp do.

Either way, I'm not really interested in new welfare-state programs. But I am interested in the financial solvency of this nation.

In that case, you should be interested in maximizing productivity. That will make the US more solvent, and economists have shown that immigration helps to maximize productivity.

And now I think we have reached the crux of our debate. You seem to be minimizing the consequences of the damage or collapse of the welfare state.

On the contrary, if the welfare state collapses, I think the consequences would be enormous -- and generally beneficial.

You're right, this is the crux of the debate: whether you believe the welfare state is an economic good or an economic bad.

Politicians approach problems by throwing money at them--taxpayers' money--our money. When entitlement solvency is at risk, our gov't is going to raise taxes to pay for it.

That's one option. I would prefer to limit or cut government spending.

Don't tell me it can't be done. If Californians made as much noise about cutting spending as they do about "controlling" immigration, the Gubernator and legislature would have a sudden conversion to fiscal conservatism.

If you aren't willing to consider those options, okay, but I've made my original pointing: Kicking the immigrants out is not really a conservative issue. It's a welfare-state issue.

Imagine millions of seniors no longer receiving Social Security checks. Imagaine hospitals and doctors no longer getting paid for medical services to the poor and aged.

Then people would turn to churches, families, private charities, and personal charity.

Is that a bad thing?

Only if you think the government does a better job of directing charity dollars than private individuals can. Do you believe that?

Do you really believe it?

Posted by Edward Wright at June 14, 2007 11:08 AM

Nope. Not until you present evidence that immigration is a cost rather than a benefit. Economists like Julian Simon have shown the opposite. Again, read "The Ultimate Resource."

On the contrary, if the welfare state collapses, I think the consequences would be enormous -- and generally beneficial.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 14, 2007 11:08 AM

Then your answer to my query is #1. Thank you.

Posted by kayawanee at June 14, 2007 11:29 AM

Almost everyone who doesn't own a share in a ca-sin-o has immigrant ancestors aplenty including me. Both sides of my family came over around 1907 as did both sides of my wife's. We can shut the door behind us on legal and/or illegal immigration, but we should change the inscription if so. I am in favor of skilled immigration. Unskilled immigration leads to skilled workers in a generation as their kids get educated and assimilated. It is common in Texas for a low-skilled US citizen with little more than knowledge of English and Spanish and a smattering of subject knowledge to lead work teams of non-English speaking immigrants. That's pretty good leverage. Those are the kinds of jobs that low-skilled residents can move up to when their job of doing the work no longer pays well enough to retain them.

Security is enhanced by having a dynamic, open economy with people of all income levels. Think of how we found out about 9/11. It was via cell phones, TV and the internet, not the emergency broadcast system. A democratic system of stakeholders growing at a healthy pace (e.g., no more than 1/6 of our citizens foreign born which was the peak in the past), will outgrow China and India and keep the US economy growing fast and staying at the highest per capita income level. The alternative is being like Japan or Italy with human capital degradation and flight.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at June 14, 2007 12:40 PM

"We are stuck in an anti-immigrant rut." "lie!"

My mistake: anti-immigration rut. We are not voting in favor in Congress of increased skilled or unskilled immigration. (The legal/illegal red herring is moot.)

Posted by Sam Dinkin at June 14, 2007 12:42 PM

kayawanee: I don't like scofflaws, but I blame the law makers. Building a big wall at the border will not stem illegal immigration much. Just compare the cost of a coyote and their success rate to the wage difference between Mexico and the US. Is our international image better with a torch or a fence?

As the Austin Lounge Lizards say: All of our problems are caused by "Teen age immigrant welfare mothers on drugs."

Posted by Sam Dinkin at June 14, 2007 12:48 PM

kayawanee: I don't like scofflaws, but I blame the law makers.

That's exactly why our lawmakers need to have their feet held to the fire about this. They have a constitutional duty to protect our borders, and they refuse to do it.

Look, Sam. I have no problem with rapidly increasing LEGAL immigration into this country. Let's sreamline the bureaucratic process for all those waiting in line. But the order of operations should be:

1) Start controlling the borders. This is the single most important job of any national gov't.

2) If you're on the list to legally come here, let's speed up your application time.

3) If you're not on the list, then get on the list, or you will NEVER gain legal status.

4) Provide tamper proof ID's for immigrants.

5) Slowly begin enforcing immigration law, whereby businesses must employ only those who have those valid ID's.

But the worst thing we could do is just legalize everyone who has illegally crossed the border. That just reinforces the notion that crossing illegally is the way to go. Waiting on line is for suckers.

Building a big wall at the border will not stem illegal immigration much.

That's a HUGE assumption. How do you know that doing such will not stem the tide? Walls have been used all over the world for that very purpose. In Israel, the number of suicide bombings dropped dramatically once the Israelis had completed much of their wall and were enforcing their borders. Granted, we've got A LOT more boarder to cover, but we also have SIXTY times their population.

Much to Robert Frost's chagrin, good fences do indeed make good neighbors. Here there are cows.

Just compare the cost of a coyote and their success rate to the wage difference between Mexico and the US. Is our international image better with a torch or a fence?

I don't understand why we can't have both. People come to this country for a variety of reasons, but the most important one is the wage discrepancy of which you speak. And, regardless of the "icon" with which we are associated, they will continue to come. Bottom line: I know the truth about this country, and I really don't care what the rest of the world thinks. They're nothing but a collection of socialists, communists, theocratics fascists, and kleptocrats anyway.

Finally, if we fail to hold our gov't accountable, and they continue to ignore our borders, then we will be rewarding scofflaws. If you do that, then eventually we will become nothing but a nation of scofflaws--coarse and antagonistic towards each other. I think we should consider that, just as we consider all of the economic benefits and costs associated with illegal immigration.

Posted by kayawanee at June 14, 2007 02:14 PM

> 1) Start controlling the borders. This is the single most important job
> of any national gov't.

Huh??? Do you really think that preventing an illegal immigrant from getting a job in a restaurant is more important than preventing Iraq from getting nuclear weapons (for example)? Or arresting murderers?

> I think we should consider that, just as we consider all of the economic
> benefits and costs associated with illegal immigration.

The problem, Kayawanee, is that you are not considering any of the economic benefits. You are only considering the costs (most of which are greatly exaggerated).

If the benefits of immigration outweigh the costs, why should the US spend a single dollar to stop immigration? Let alone billions?

Posted by Edward Wright at June 14, 2007 05:58 PM

"You're ignoring the difference between welfare benefits and private property, Cecil."

And you are assuming the argument is about welfare benefits. That has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned.

It is simply a matter of security. You lock your doors to control who comes into your house primarily for security reasons, not to protect your property but to protect your life and the lives of your family.

We should control our border with as much diligence.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 15, 2007 05:34 AM

I said that it is the most important job of the national (READ FEDERAL) gov't to secure the borders. That means exercising control over the borders, knowing who is attempting to cross our borders and who exactly should be permitted to do so. It means knowing what goods are crossing our borders and prohibiting some of them. Protecting and controlling our borders is an issue of national security, and it is national security which is the number one job of the national government.

Personally, I believe that any state gov't can chase down a murderer, but only the national gov't can enforce our borders. If you feel differently, if you think our national gov't should be chasing down murderers rather than securing our borders, then so be it. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

The problem, Kayawanee, is that you are not considering any of the economic benefits. You are only considering the costs (most of which are greatly exaggerated).

Please, don't tell me what I'm considering, Edward. From my point of view the benefits of LEGAL immigration far outweigh the costs. With regard to legal immigration, we are probably on the same page. But it's not legal immigration I was addressing. It's the national government's abandonment of its responsibilities to secure our borders that I take issue with.

Secondarily, it's the absolute INJUSTICE perpetrated upon people patiently waiting in line to come to this country legally, which really bothers me. These people wait so that our gov't can do background checks on them. They wait because of outmoded policies that our national government will not even feign interest in addressing. They wait in good faith to play be the rules. And they become the suckers, while millions flood over the borders.

Some peple might wish to make an argument such as: "Well if we made all immigrants legal, there wouldn't be such a problem."

The problem is that there are many people we DON'T want in this country: drug dealers, murderers, terrorists, people with infectious diseases, etc. By "making them all legal", the benefits of immigration that you spoke of earlier start to get watered down by the costs of dealing with those issues. And some of those issues can have deadly consequences.

If the benefits of immigration outweigh the costs, why should the US spend a single dollar to stop immigration? Let alone billions?

Becasue the costs/benefit ratio of legal immigration is a lot better than the cost/benefit ratio of illegal immigration. Because it is extremely important that we know who and what are crossing our borders--whether that's people looking for job, criminals, drugs, or weapons. Is that worth billions? I think so, but only if our gov't actually does the job we pay them to do.

This is an issue of national security, Edward. I'm not really sure why you treat this so cavalierly.

Posted by kayawanee at June 15, 2007 07:12 AM

I take offense to the notion that we are no longer a frontier nation (Mike Puckett at June 12, 2007 03:51 PM). Readers of this site, of all people, should know that we still are; it's just that some of the frontiers have changed. We look to the stars, as well as to the innermost workings of matter and energy, rather than exploring the layout of land and ocean. We are also still exploring human liberty, and all of its implications. We do these things better than any other nation on Earth, and a great number of people from around the world want to be part of it. Before we close our doors, we should consider how locking them out will affect our nation's future. We need to be careful that we do not fall into the trap of admitting only "well-qualified" immigrants. Part of the genius of the United States of America is that we never know who will turn out to be successful in life. We can't forget that.

Posted by Sean at June 15, 2007 10:23 AM

Personally, I believe that any state gov't can chase down a murderer,

What about the Federal military installations, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam...? Do you think the states have jurisdiction in those areas?

Do you believe it's less important to protect the US Capitol from terrorist bombers than to arrest the illegal immigrant who served you a coffee at Starbuck's?

but only the national gov't can enforce our borders.

Nonsense. Every time I drive across the California border, I have to stop for agricultural inspection. I didn't see any national government there.

The State Police and National Guard have access to the same kind of ammunition as the US Border Patrol. They could shoot immigrants just as easily as as Federales can.

You still haven't answered my question. Why is protecting you from illegal immigrants "the single most important job of any national government"? Why is it more important than stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, for example?

It's the national government's abandonment of its responsibilities to secure our borders that I take issue with.

The national government did not "abandon" closed borders, Kayawanee. It didn't have them in the first place. When the United States was founded, people were welcome to come here. The anti-immigrant acts came much later.

What the Federal government abandoned is open borders.

it's the absolute INJUSTICE perpetrated upon people patiently waiting in line to come to this country legally, which really bothers me. These people wait so that our gov't can do background checks on them.

No, they wait because of quotas imposed by anti-immigrant laws. It doesn't take years to perform a background check.

The problem is that there are many people we DON'T want in this country: drug dealers, murderers, terrorists, people with infectious diseases, etc. By "making them all legal",

I specifically stated that I was *not* including criminals and terrorists when I said we should legalize immigration. I am not Brian Swiderski. I am not insane. I went out of my way to point that out. Why do you assume I am insane?

If immigration were legalized, it would be much easier to spot the real criminals and terrorists who are trying to get into this country. All law-abiding immigrants would go through official entry points. Just as I do when I visit a foreign country. The only people trying to sneak across the border would be those who couldn't pass a background check. They would be much easier to spot because there would be no mass of illegals they could blend in with and no large immigrant-smuggling industry to take advantage of. And it wouldn't require billions of dollars to be spent on fences and gun towers.

Becasue the costs/benefit ratio of legal immigration is a lot better than the cost/benefit ratio of illegal immigration.

Evidence? The largest difference between legal and illegal immigrants is that illegals are much less likely to apply for welfare benefits. The benefits you're afraid immigrants will take up. So, if that's your biggest concern, the best policy is the current one -- keep immigration illegal but don't enforce the law any more than necessary to keep illegals away from government offices.

Because it is extremely important that we know who and what are crossing our borders--whether that's people looking for job, criminals, drugs, or weapons. Is that worth billions?

Probably not, but it doesn't have to cost billions, either. If we were to legalize immigration and concentrate on looking for criminals and weapons, it would cost less than what we spend right now.

Drugs are another matter. If you want to continue prohibition, there's no limit to what you can pour down that rathole, but stopping drugs is not "national security" any more than stopping Al Capone was national security. It's just enforcing prohibition.

The current tendency to call every domestic issue from education to immigration "national security" simply robs the term of all meaning. It's an insult to the military men and women who protect our real national security.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 15, 2007 02:10 PM

I lock my doors, Cecil, but I don't shoot a Latino who knocks on my door just on the off chance that he might be a murderer. Or lock him in my jail cell.

In America, we assume that people are innocent until proven guilty. Or at least, we ought to.

Harvesting lettuce is not a threat to your life, Cecil. Neither is working construction, serving coffee at Starbucks, or a thousand other jobs performed by 99.9% of illegal immigrants.

Punishing an entire group of people because some of them might be criminals is wrong.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 15, 2007 02:24 PM

What about the Federal military installations, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam...? Do you think the states have jurisdiction in those areas?

Citing these few exceptions proves the rule, thank you very much. I'm sure local authorities in PR can handle murder investigations.

Do you believe it's less important to protect the US Capitol from terrorist bombers than to arrest the illegal immigrant who served you a coffee at Starbuck's?

I'll repeat myself: National security is the primary duty of the national gov't. I believe dealing with BOTH borders AND terrorist threats falls under that category.

As far the coffee jockeys are concerned, why exactly do our immigration and naturalization procedures apply to only those who attempt to come here legally, while those who jump the turnstiles get special dispensation?

Nonsense. Every time I drive across the California border, I have to stop for agricultural inspection. I didn't see any national government there.

Really? You mean you drive to Mexico via CA and U.S. Customs is nowhere to be found? I guess border control is even worse than I had feared.

The State Police and National Guard have access to the same kind of ammunition as the US Border Patrol. They could shoot immigrants just as easily as as Federales can.

The authority for maintaining our borders is federal and enforced via the INS, ICE, and the U.S. Border Patrol. The local and state police should be chasing murderers. As far as the Guard goes, I'm sorry, I'm not sure what kind of authority they have, but they have been activated by the Federal gov't to do just that about a year ago.

Why do you have to build up strawmen arguments? Neither I nor anybody else here suggested that border jumpers or Starbucks employees be shot or harmed in any way.

Yes, I have answered your question. And this is the last time I'm going to explain it to you. As I have stated several times before, national security is job #1 for our national gov't. Both border security and "preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons" fall into that category. If Iran ever does get such a weapon, you'd better hope our border control works!

I understand the history of immigration, Edward. But the world is a hell of a lot different today, than it was during the 1870's. For one thing, the world is a far more dangerous place than it was back then. Second, transportation advances have made the potential flow of people to our nation much greater. And finally, the gov't has accepted that responsiblity when they chose to implement a system of background checks to ensure that the people coming here aren't going to create problems once they get here. That means the federal gov't has defacto taken on the role of controlling our border. It seems that we have one of two legitimate choices:

1) Let everyone in without papers or background check.

2) Screen everyone who comes to our shores.

Turning a blind eye for those ignore our laws, while forcing those who play by the rules to wait just seems very unfair to me. If you want to fix the quota system, fine.

Anyway, I opt for #2, because I want some screening process for those who come here. I really don't think that it's that much to ask.

No, they wait because of quotas imposed by anti-immigrant laws. It doesn't take years to perform a background check.

You're cherry picking at my quotes now, Edward. That's very disengenous. As I said before:

"They wait because of outmoded policies that our national government will not even feign interest in addressing."

As I have said NUMEROUS times in this thread, I am all for greasing the wheels of the screening and quota process. I want greater LEGAL immigration to our nation. I just want people to be screened. And we should give everyone from aournd the world an opportunity to come here. Not just those who share a border with us. And again, I don't think it's too much to ask.

I'm sorry, but you gave me the impression that the U.S. should haven open borders. As you pointed out, that was our nation's policy during its early years. I'm not trying to insult you Edward, but if we don't enforce our immigration laws, then how exactly do you propose screening for criminals, terrorists, and those with infectious diseases?

I think we both agree that the LEGAL immigration procedures should be streamlined, yes? And I think both of us believe that some background checks and screenings are necessary, yes to that too? Where we depart is on the necessity of strict border monitoring and control. I'm not anti-immigrant. I want more people to come here. But I don't have a problem with a quota system. Should proximity dicatate who gets preferencial treatment in being permitted to come here? Furthermore, I want all immigrants screened and the border secured. I don't know about gun towers, but surely a fence is not too much to ask for to ensure that people enter this country in places where we can screen them.

Evidence?
Inductive logic. I would think you could figure that out for yourself. Do you think criminals or disease carriers are more likely to enter this country legally or illegally?

The largest difference between legal and illegal immigrants is that illegals are much less likely to apply for welfare benefits. The benefits you're afraid immigrants will take up. So, if that's your biggest concern, the best policy is the current one -- keep immigration illegal but don't enforce the law any more than necessary to keep illegals away from government offices.

I really don't know which group is more likely to get free bennee's. While it's true that illegal aliens are less likely to apply for certain benefits, they might be more likely to drain local services in with regard to emergency rooms. But I'm really not sure. Either way. National security is my primary concern. National financial solvency comes second for me. So, the status quo is not acceptable.

Probably not, but it doesn't have to cost billions, either. If we were to legalize immigration and concentrate on looking for criminals and weapons, it would cost less than what we spend right now.

I'm sorry, Edward. I have to disagree. If it costs billions to prevent those who wish to blow up bridges, engage in criminal activity, or bring in infectious diseases, then I think it's worth it. If you think you can do it on the cheap, then hey, write up a proposal and send it to your Congressman!

I'm not going to argue that point with you. I have my own reservations about that policy. I can go either way on that one.

I couldn't disagree with you more on this. For me, national security begins at home. I understand the importance of dealing with potential rogue regimes, but knowing who's coming and going from our country and what they're carrying across our borders is essential to protecting this nation.

Posted by kayawanee at June 15, 2007 04:27 PM

Ed: "but I don't shoot a Latino who knocks on my door just on the off chance that he might be a murderer. Or lock him in my jail cell."

I'll just file this under "definition of strawman"

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 15, 2007 05:27 PM

> Do you believe it's less important to protect the US Capitol from terrorist bombers than to arrest the illegal immigrant who served you a coffee at Starbuck's?

I'll repeat myself: National security is the primary duty of the national gov't.

Actually, you said the most important duty of the national government was "controlling the borders," not national security.

And no, they are not the same. If you don't see a difference between what the US military does and hunting down an 18-year-old pregnant mother who wants nothing but a better life for herself -- well, I really don't know what to say except you have no idea of the horrors that are out there.

>Nonsense. Every time I drive across the California border, I have to stop for agricultural inspection. I didn't see any national government there.

Really? You mean you drive to Mexico via CA and U.S. Customs is nowhere to be found? I guess border control is even worse than I had feared.

No, not from Mexico, from the United States. If you ever vist the People's Republic of California by car, you'll find out.

The authority for maintaining our borders is federal and enforced via the INS, ICE, and the U.S. Border Patrol.

Are you saying those guys in uniforms had no authority to stop me at the California State border?

How does this prove that only the Federal government guard borders?

Why do you have to build up strawmen arguments? Neither I nor anybody else here suggested that border jumpers or Starbucks employees be shot or harmed in any way.

You don't think Border Patrol agents carry guns? How do you think they stop people who are fleeing if they're not allowed to harm them? Why do think Boeing's building all those towers on the Mexican border? So agents can wave at illegals as they scramble across the fence?

Both border security and "preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons" fall into that category.

You just said you don't want border jumpers shot or harmed in any way. So, despite your hysterical use of the term "national security," you obviously recognize that border jumping that it's a pretty minor offense.

Supplying nuclear nuclear weapons to Iran, on the other hand, is a very serious matter. I don't know about you, but I want the US government to stop that any way it can. With bullets, if necessary.

The two are not in the same category at all.

I'm sorry, but you gave me the impression that the U.S. should haven open borders. As you pointed out, that was our nation's policy during its early years.

An open-border policy does not mean authorities can't arrest known criminals they find at the border. Or anywhere else. Canada has had an open-border policy with the US for many years. That doesn't mean that if they catch a criminal at the border they won't arrest him.

I'm not trying to insult you Edward, but if we don't enforce our immigration laws, then how exactly do you propose screening for criminals, terrorists, and those with infectious diseases?

By checking IDs at border entry points, instead of forcing people to climb fences then chasing them all over the desert. The same way they do when you visit a military installation or a government office building. Authorities don't need an anti-immigrant act to arrest someone who's a wanted criminal, a terrorist, or violating a public health law. They can do that at any time.

I'm not anti-immigrant. I want more people to come here. But I don't have a problem with a quota system. Should proximity dicatate who gets preferencial treatment in being permitted to come here?

Why shouldn't it? Proximity dictates which restaurants I can eat at, where I'm likely to go on my next vacation, even which women I can date. It may not be fair that someone born near the US border has a shorter walk, but that's life. And don't forget that people born in the United States get automatic citizenship.

Furthermore, I want all immigrants screened and the border secured. I don't know about gun towers, but surely a fence is not too much to ask for to ensure that people enter this country in places where we can screen them.

There are already fences. Fences don't step people from crossing, they simply slow them down long enough for the men with the guns to arrive. A bigger fence will slow them down a bit longer, that's all. As long as you have prohibition, the system will eventually become overloaded, just as it did during alcohol prohibition.

Inductive logic. I would think you could figure that out for yourself. Do you think criminals or disease carriers are more likely to enter this country legally or illegally?

I have no idea. The 9/11 terrorists entered this country legally. A system that spends 99% of its time looking for migrant workers trying to coming into the US without the proper visa stamp is not much of a deterent to real criminals.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 15, 2007 09:16 PM

"An open-border policy does not mean authorities can't arrest known criminals they find at the border."

Anyone coming into the United States without proper documentation, without permission, IE crossing in the middle of the night and evading authorities is by definition a criminal.

Therefore it seems we are in agreement, we all want border guards to stop the criminals.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 17, 2007 06:30 AM

Anyone coming into the United States without proper documentation, without permission, IE crossing in the middle of the night and evading authorities is by definition a criminal.

Chances are the Trotters entered the United States without documentation or permission. Chances are even better that you're now living on land stolen from the native residents.

Should your family be hunted down, imprisoned, and deported?

Or do Anglo-Germans get a special dispensation?

Therefore it seems we are in agreement, we all want border guards to stop the criminals.

No, we are not in agreement. You can "define" anyone who wasn't born into your tribe as a "criminal," but don't impute your prejudices to me.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 17, 2007 02:09 PM

Actually, you said the most important duty of the national government was "controlling the borders," not national security.

I answered that 4 or five times during this thread. Last time I believe I told you that I would not be answering that again. You don't like my answer? Too bad.

Oh, boo hoo! Using a sympathetic icon to cast a pall upon entire issue. How touching. How inspired. How ridiculous. What the U.S. military does and what the CIA does is different. And yet both involve national security. And what the State Deparment and the CIA do is different. And yet they both involve national security. And knowing who's in this country, why they're here, and what they've brought with them from wherever they came is different from what Marine Private First Class Smith does. But both are national security.

No, not from Mexico, from the United States. If you ever vist the People's Republic of California by car, you'll find out.

California is like another country, isn't it?

Are you saying those guys in uniforms had no authority to stop me at the California State border?

They cannot refuse you passage for failure to provide a passport, visa, etc. Do they have the authority to search your vehicle without probable cause? I know Customs officials can. I'm not sure if state authority stretches that far, but I'm not a lawyer. I'm not sure.

How does this prove that only the Federal government guard borders?

We're talking about national borders. I believe that's under the authority of the federal gov't, no?

Well the last time the Border Patrol shot a drug smuggling border jumper, two of their agents ended up in prison, and are serving 10 year sentences. And the drug dealer they shot, and who testified against them, got over a million dollars in recompense. That about sums up our national border policy.

So, I'm "hysterical" because I think controlling the borders is an issue of national security. I see. And because I don't subscribe to a "kill 'em all now and let God sort it out" policy, somehow controlling the borders is not really that important. Right. Gotcha. Now you're just getting silly.

Supplying nuclear nuclear weapons to Iran, on the other hand, is a very serious matter. I don't know about you, but I want the US government to stop that any way it can. With bullets, if necessary.

Well, We know that Russia is supplying nuclear technology to Iran. Which Russian do you suggest that we "off" first? =)

The two are not in the same category at all.

Frame it any way you want. Knowing who's coming into this nation, knowing their intentions, and knowing what they bring in is a question of national security.

The U.S. and Canada are a little bit different in terms of their draw of immigrants. And Canada has not been the target of international terrorism the way the U.S. has been. By the way, in 2008 or 2009, you're going to need an official U.S. Passport if you wish to travel to Canada and come back.

With the plethora of forged documentation, somehow I don't think "checking IDs" like a bouncer at the bar down the street is going to quite cut it. To do what you say, we would need a foolproof (as far as possible) form of ID to ensure that the people who are coming in are who they say they are. Furthermore, you'll need a database to ensure that these people are not threats to the nation. Finally, you need to ensure chokepoints to enforce that type of screening. That means walls, fences, etc. That requires immigration legislation.

It dicates the restaurants at which you are likely to eat, not where you are permitted to eat. Convenience and permission are two different things.

As far as the fairness thing goes, I'm sorry you think that Canadians and Mexicans should get an advantage in coming to the U.S. over Asians, Africans, and Europeans. I guess we just have different concepts of fairness and justice.

As far as citizenship goes, you make a good point. But it goes hand in hand with the idea of a nationhood. I'm not yet ready to yield control to a one world gov't, at least not with the U.N as that gov't.

Yes, creating chokepoints and stemming the tide of illegal crossings...that's called border control.

Only half true. Yes, they did enter legally. But if I'm not mistaken, at least several overstayed their visas, and had interactions with local police. Had they been deported, maybe a few hundred or a couple thousand of your fellow countrymen would still be alive.

Posted by kayawanee at June 18, 2007 08:18 AM

I have a solution to the national border problem which would appeal to anyone who plays Risk: form a North American unions with Canada and Mexico so we have a very small southern land border and the rest would be ice, water and air.

I'm glad most people arguing would embrace a Bracero-type legal guest worker program. I don't see how illegal immigration is hurting us, but legal immigration would not be worse.

National security is bolstered by a strong economy as we will find out the easy way through the school of hard knocks when China and India (and Pakistan, Indonesia and Mexico?!) have bigger economies than we do. To keep the doors mostly closed like Japan is a deep mistake.

I am glad some of the people who are arguing for keeping out illegal immigrants are comfortable to shuck the trappings of a welcoming past. To do less would be hypocrisy. I would be gladder if more preferred to remain a melting pot and a frontier even if primarily only in spirit.

I don't agree that national security warrants expensive border measures to stop people. Spies and detectors to stop WMDs from coming to our shores via shipping container and over the border is good. Money would be better invested in flu vaccine, heart defibrillators and other public health measures if increased life expectancy is our goal.

It's time for the novelty of a terrorist attack in the US to be deescalated sufficiently so it can be treated like any other threat to life, liberty or property.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at June 19, 2007 08:56 AM

Ed:"Chances are the Trotters entered the United States without documentation or permission."

Except that the facts are they did not, my earliest Trotter ancestor to come to America entered legally from Scotland into Virginia in 1720. But don't let facts get in the way of your strawmen.

Ed: "Chances are even better that you're now living on land stolen from the native residents."

Chances are so are you, your point? But it's all ancient history with respect to the current issue.

Ed "You can "define" anyone who wasn't born into your tribe as a "criminal," but don't impute your prejudices to me."

Place of birth is not the issue, it's your attempt at derailing the issue into accusations of prejudice since you have no defendable position on the issue. Place of birth does not make them a criminal, entering the US in a illegal manner does. I know several people who were born outside the US yet now live here legally because they took the time and effort to enter via legal means.

Ed, do you have ANY non straw ladened reasons for wanting to allow people to break US immigration laws?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 20, 2007 05:25 AM

Here's a funny story I find most relevant: http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i10414

It says it all and much more!

Posted by Jeff Vachon at July 14, 2007 08:59 AM

Post a comment