Illegal Immigrants

I would think twice about the Guatamalan painter you let in your house. Tragically, Mary Nagle found out that some of those nice Guatamaln painters have other intentions http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/. Also, you might want to look at the police websites for various cities and check out the Most Wanted to see illegals in action. Doing activities Americans don't want to do?

But what hospital would say that? Everyone speeds on the way to the hospital. Everyone understands that speeding, while always illegal, is only immoral when it endangers. And we pardon speeding under circumstances such as a sick child on the way to the hospital.

Heh. Actually, I remember, and this was documented one time on the TV show "Real TV", a man was speeding while driving his wife to the hospital because she had a heart attack. An officer pulled him over and once the man explained why he was speeding, the officer stalled them there by playing doctor when he obviously didn't know what he was doing, and then forced the man to drive 10 under the speed limit the rest of the way, by following him.

Slightly off-topic, sorry.

Stew, holding an entire group of folks responsible for the immoral actions of a few is unintelligent. That same line of reasoning has led many racists to argue that African Americans should be sent back to Africa.

Russ, I know I'm going to butcher the exact quote by Milton Friedman, but how do you rationalize your viewpoint against his 'You can't have an open border if you have a welfare state' assertion?

I second tw's question. Let's say the Guatemalan painter spends two weeks working at your house. Would you still hire him if you also had to pay the cost of two weeks of social services provided by the government to him and his family?

The "welfare state" argument against illegal workers is largely a red herring. Isn’t that a problem precisely because the worker is here illegally? Let those who want to come here and work do just that, and subject them to the same payroll taxes as any otherwise legitimate worker who would be eligible for social services.

I support immigration liberalization -- even open borders, but am less sure about amnesty absent that liberalization. I am a Canadian who would have little difficulty getting a computer-industry job in the United States and would love to emigrate. I haven't done it because it's virtually impossible to do legally. Is it fair that those who chose to break the law end up with American citizenship _because_ they broke the law? Yes, most of them "needed" to get to America more than I do, but is it just that their desperation trumps the skills I have to offer?

This post makes a good point. However, this isn't what is currently being debated. Instead, we get the talk about the people already here. No, they do not have an excuse like rushing to the hospital. Actually, that legitimate excuse is already there through the sanctuary and political refugee allowance. But just because someone doesn't want to work in Mexico doesn't mean that he should just be allowed in to live here. His life is not in danger and if it is, the government of Mexico is the problem. Once again, not something that is being debated because the government of Mexico is trying to help people flee the country, exactly the opposite of the political refugee scenario. Let's make more visas available without having to have a blanket amnesty allowing people to just automatically become citizens. Let them return to Mexico, turn around, and get in line legally, while focusing on speeding up the process. That is the debate to have.

Freemarket,

By that principle, why even require immigrants to work? There's no law requiring U.S. citizens to work... shouldn't the same standard apply to "illegals" as well?

Reading your post about immigration is like listening to a blind man describe the color blue.

The hospital analogy is completely inappropriate. No one’s life is immediately at risk if a Mexican or any other foreigner DOES NOT cross our border illegally to take a low-skill job.

Now if Mexican father in a border town takes his dying son across the border illegally because an American hospital is closer (and if he happens to speed while doing it), that’s understandable. Life should always take precedence over morally neutral laws.

Granted our immigration system is inadequate. People who want to come here may have to wait 10 years; that’s unacceptable. But so is breaking the law. We need to change the system so people who want to work here (and are deemed safe) can do so.

Inadequacy of the law is not a reason to flout the law.

I want to keep the anti-immigration people out of my house.

Since 1996, welfare has been highly restricted to legal immigrants, not to mention illegal immigrants. Yet illegal immigrants continue to come and better their lives.

Perhaps we could put two and two together and realize that people don't come to America for the welfare.

With current unemployment rates so low, it seems America doesn't want to lock the door. In fact, it puts out a welcome mat of dollar bills for anyone willing to work.

I live in an area affected by illegal immigration, and I see first hand every day the effect of literally “leaving the door open.” It carries with it great costs and negative externalities. I part ways with Professor Roberts here.

His above analogy that “the anti-immigrant [sic] people want to put a lock on my house letting OTHERS control who comes in and out” is inaccurate. The correct analogy is that Professor Roberts wants me to leave the door open so that he can choose who he wants to let in, but I’m forced to pay for it, and bear more of the cost and negative effects such a policy has.

Excellent post. I am in full agreement with the analysis, but the house analogy yields too much to the opposition. A nation's borders are arbitrary accidents of history and nothing more than lines on a map that demarcate areas of the planet where different regimes and, consequently, different rules exist. Though perhaps composed of many parcels of private property, like lots in a neighborhood, a nation-state is a different animal altogether and thus cannot be compared to a private home.

To "Idiot" above, I would only add that the right to travel is one of our most fundamental rights as individuals. Imagine if you had to show your papers when travelling from California to Nevada or even worse from Las Angeles to San Diego. That's the type of world you're advocating when you deny people the chance to find a better life solely on the basis of their birthplace.

By far the best post I've seen on the relevance of the legal/illegal distinction is from Will Wilkinson: Justifying the System of States. He draws an analogy to property rights that's quite useful. His ultimate point: we must justify the entire system of nation-states, not just our own. As it is, the system of nation-states in which the blessings of citizenry are conferred and barred based on the accident of geographical birth cannot be morally just because it makes and keeps most people worse off.

The other line of reasoning I love from the anti-immigration crowd is that people need to speak English. Imagine taking your son to the hospital, going the speed limit of course. You get there and ask "where is the emergency room at?". And of course, the nurse on duty says "Here in America, we don't end our sentences in prepositions".

But seriously... when was the last time anyone here went to Mexico, was careful to not traffic drugs or kill anyone, and got any kind of hassle or was told to speak Spanish? It seems clear to me that in the dangerous world we live in, it makes far more sense to have 109 million people to our south as close friends rather than people we despise. But hey, I'm fascinated by geography, and others are more intrigued by fence construction.

Russ,

I personally favor open immigration, though I am not sure that position is consistent with the classical liberal one I tend to hold.

A colleage of mine makes my point better than I can, he says:

"The issue with immigration is the property rights of the pre-existing holders. Does the latest arrival off the boat enjoy the same full load of property rights as those who created the society in the first place? Locke and Jefferson say no, for good and sufficient reason, and I am inclined to say no, too. George Mason says, "Let each community decide whom it wants to be a part of that community." You have no natural right to insist that you, the latecomer, be included.




(Citizenship should be defined by the pre-existing community, and you have to live by those rules if you want to be a citizen and enjoy the full load of rights and privileges of the citizen. You may choose to be something less than a citizen, I suppose, but having done so, you have to shut up at voting, taxing, and law-abiding time. The community may choose to expand the categories of citizenship, but you have no natural right to force the community to do so.)"

I am still a little uneasy about this position, for precisely the reason that Don favors immigration - who the heck is the community to prevent me from peacefully transacting with anyone I wish to?

I get all squeamish thinking about this!

"Inadequacy of the law is not a reason to flout the law."

Sometimes it is a reason to flout the law, and that's the whole problem with the immigration debate. The laws are so bad, so arbitrary, and so impossible to comply with that the only rational options are (1) ignore them, or (2) completely forget about immigrating to America forever.

Many, many educated foreigners that I've spoken to choose option #2 because they have other options, and don't want to deal with our process anymore, so they turn down work in New York and go to London instead.

Many poor Mexicans (and that is what we're really talking about, right?), encouraged by their own government, choose #1.

It's like trying to figure out your health insurance policy. Everyone tries to understand and comply with the rules, for a while, but eventually most people give up and figure that they'll go to the doctor when they want to and if the bills get bad enough, they'll just go bankrupt. At some point, you just have to throw up your hands at bad rules and go on with your life.

Also, many Mexican illegals do pay payroll taxes -- their employers take the taxes out before the workers get the money, and then the illegals don't file tax returns in April so they don't get to claim any deductions or their earned income tax credit. I think a lot of them end up paying more in tax than they would if they were citizens.

It seems to me that we have two decisions to make: first, how to treat the individual Mexicans who want to cross our border, and second, how to deal with the Mexican government in light of its policy of pushing its poor at us.

As for the individual immigrants, I don't see why we don't get rid of our quotas, and let anyone in who can pass a background check (and health screening?), possibly restricting their access to welfare benefits if that really bothers people. More workers working = more economic activity = more wealth all around, right? As long as we're not admitting Al Qaeda members, I don't see what the problem is.

As for the Mexican government, I think they need a lot of help. We need a Peace Corps of economists to send around to all the countries of the world that don't seem to have a clue. That's a lot of countries.

Mike & Russ,

If you have a factory somewhere in the Arizona desert with sleeping quarters, a cafeteria, hospital and cemetary, surrounded by fences, landmines and Coyotes, many people would be willing to allow you to hire as many immigrants as you wanted. Their concern is not so much with your decision to hire them, as much as it is with what they do when they're not working for you. (And, sometimes, when they are.)

Immigration has externalities. The challenge is to construct an immigration policy where the benefit isn't outweighed by negative externalities.

Here's an example: In 1980, Jimmy Carter opened immigration, allowing anybody from one Latin American country to come to the US. In response, Fidel Castro sent the residents of Cuba's prisons and asylums.

The counter-example is the poor Guatemalan who comes to the US, starts mowing lawns, keeps out of trouble and off the welfare roles to eventually opens his own landscaping business. In this case, the US appears to have a net gain.

Let's say I'm a wealthy entrepreneur. I make an open offer to anybody in the world. I'll pay for your transportation to the United States, plus $1000 in startup capital, in exchange for 5% of your lifetime earnings. Imagine how many millions -- perhaps hundreds of millions -- of people around the world would take me up on this offer. No doubt the capital could be raised to fund this business. Under the Cafe Hayek immigration policy, would anything prevent me from doing this? Would this opportunity help or hurt the U.S.?

Make something illegal when there are willing parties to the exchange; a black market ensues.

Real world.

What about a "members only" resort? I don't know any members, so, is it okay for me to dig a hole under the fence and sneak in with the flower cart?

And, I know when I get in that I can get a job working in the kitchen.

I don't think there is a real political argument about immigration taking place in this country. What we are witnessing is a large number of our legislators acknowledging that they don't have the will to deal with the issue. We can fight conventional wars with nations -- we've got a great military -- but we have no means to deal with one million illegals marching in LA. We can't fight a war in our streets. What are we going to do? Shoot at them? We can't win a war in our streets. And if we declared war -- we know that the declared enemy is both among us and organized.

I would guess that there are probably 50 million pot smokers in this country -- and the government is more than willing to arrest them as they are found, and punish them. Yet, they tell us that they can't do that with illegals. Is it because pot smokers aren't organized?

I think there are also a lot of people who don't want to lose their low wage domestic help. I suspect that a lot of people in Washington have a Zoe Baird or Kimba Wood problem.

The reality is that the government is impotent.

About Welfare state: Claims that illegal immigrants move across the border to benefit from the welfare state benefits is largely exaggerated. In fact, its a non sense as illegals don't get benefits (apart from say a few minority)

The fact is there: Illegals crossed the country to make their living, to improve their life and probably to help their family in their home country.


Has any country ever tried guest immigration program where a person can move and work legally for a couple of years abroad in his lifetime? I am sure that given the choice the immigrants would be willing to work in a country, save money in a blocked account, and go back home with the sum in the account..

Jacoby's speeding analogy was perhaps the long way around to this question: Does the penalty for crossing the border illegally include temporary or permanent denial of the opportunity for a temporary visa? Public services? Citizenship? If the answer to either question is yes, can the Government please begin to enforce that law(s)? If it's no, can the anti-immigrant people please remove the illegal-crossing argument from their rhetoric?

CD: Didn't they try something similar in colonial times called indentured servitude?

Alton: Private property is not the same thing as a government's jurisdiction.

Hans, the difference is that I'm not attaching any strings. I'm not requiring them to work on my land, or even work at all. But if they do choose to work, as many presumably will, they would owe me 5% of their lifetime earnings. For the right price, I would happily sell 5% of my lifetime earnings. For many, that price is a plane ticket. I don't see anything morally wrong with such a transaction.

My argument is that there are perhaps hundreds of millions of people in the world who would likely exchange 5% of their lifetime earnings for a plane ticket and the opportunity to live permanently in the United States. This would place an unbearable strain on our welfare system.

Here's the rub: there is a presumption that the only way for Mexicans (or other Latin Americans) to improved their situation is to steal across the border.

What happened to NAFTA and all of the North American economic building that was supposed to happen? What happened to the right to vote in those countries to change their system? Why should the U.S. shoulder the responsibility to provide opportunities for people everywhere?

Aren't these the same people who vote time and time again for the socialist approach to their government and economy?

Time to look at the economic issues at this economics blog. Forget being sociologists.

Bruce Hall --

I also wonder what happened to NAFTA. I suspect that much of it is a dead letter because the Congress has stood in the way, as it did in refusing to allow Mexican Truck Drivers into the country. Apart from that, I have no real evidence.

The thing that will stop illegal immigration is an improved quality of life in Mexico.

CD:

Fair enough. It might be hard to enforce, but that's a mere technical consideration. I agree with you in that I see nothing morally objectionable to anyone consenting to this arrangement. I'm not totally comfortable with it, but that's probably my issue.

Bruce:

You may be dealing with false aggregates. The Mexicans crossing the border may not be the same ones voting for socialism, nor may they be the ones who benefit from NAFTA (if we assume anyone does). Also, I for one am not presuming that crossing the border is the only way for them to improve their lives; I assert that it's one way to improve their lives, that it's a valid option, & I don't see how you have a right to deny it to them (deny them welfare all you want, because no one has a right to state subsidies).

CD: It's an interesting question.

How bout adding somthing though. Government charges for green cards and your venture capitalist helps immigrants pay.

Banks do this kind of thing all the time.

Hans,

Have you recently checked on border crossing and residency requirements for all other countries of the world?

Your position is that borders make no sense either economically, politically or ethically. I might agree somewhat with economics, but the other two I would not. It is a combination of our economic freedom and our political and legal processes that make the U.S. a desirable nation in which to live.

Flooding our nation with those who are not prepared in any fashion to be anything other than servile workers or outlaws is hardly a good thing.

And your contention that we can simply deny them social service (welfare as you lump those services together) is hardly possible at this point.

Just control the process at its roots... employers who facilitate the illegal migration.

http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2007/06/immigration-bill-failure-to-communicate.html

Why would you ever punish someone for breaking a law that was unjust? To argue that those who are now "illegal" immigrants should be allowed to enter is to implicitly argue for amnesty, just as any time you repeal a law you must pardon those convicted under it.

Sorry, here’s Rector’s analysis [Heritage]:

www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1490.cfm

Mexican immigrants tend to bring their culture of dependency with them. Unfortunately, our welfare state nurtures that culture (just as it nurtures the black redneck culture of the ghetto). If it didn't, they would change and become more productive with successive generations. Mesa Econoguy's post points out that there is no such change in successive generations.

It is always forgotten that these people usually work for minimum wage or below and can't receive hand-outs (barring healthcare) until they are citizens. So, of course they work. They don't have a choice. As soon as they do have a choice, they stop working and get on the dole in large numbers.

We get more nationalistic because our growing welfare state makes us protective of our culture and our wealth and whom we have to share it with. What probably turns Mike's stomach is that an individualist doesn't much care about borders and Mike is an individualist. A classical liberal. But when we are forced to "spread the wealth" in a collecitivist fashion, we become very much more protective of it and don't wish to share it with the world. Didn't Hayek point that out?

A poster above said that we should make illegal immigrants legal and tax them. The top 40% of earners pay 99.1% of all income taxes. How much do you think low-skilled illegals will contribute to tax revenue compared to how much they will take out via the welfare system?

I find it interesting that people constantly reference hispanics abverse effects on welfare rolls. However, they never mention the great impact that illegal hispanics have on Social Security and taxes in general.

This is because most people think that illegal immigrants are working for cash payment and completely ignoring the government/tax component. This idea, for the most part, is a fallacy.

The majority of illegal immigrants work for companies that require SSNs to be hired. Those immigrants are actually paying into Social Socurity with no hope of ever seeing a dime of that money. Reuben Navarratte column quoted a BLS & SSA amount of ~$7 Billion was paid into SSI by illegal immigrants.

Now tell me, who does that benefit?

According to the Wall Street Journal, 1/3 of illegal immigrants pay taxes.

Did the article also mention how much illegal immigrants are cost the economy?

So, is the problem that illegal immigrants are using the "safety net systems" that we have put into place or is the problem that we have the "safety net" in place in the first place?

I wonder if anyone has figures that compare percentages for the number of illegals on welfare vs. the numbers of other groups.

One of my degrees is in Spanish and during my studies I had a large amount of contact with the hispanic community through outreach programs and such that the school supported. I realize that there could be some confirmation bias, but I did not meet many hispanics illegal or otherwise who were on the Dole. But of the family's I met, I did meet quite a few where the wife kept the children during the day and the husband at night (or visa versa) so that each could work and support their families. By doing so, most of them made it nearly impossible for them to get welfare.

Of course, those are just my observations.

Adam,

The problem is that we have the "safety net" in the first place. If we didn't have one they couldn't use it and the largest problem would be solved. Also, would that it were a safety net only. That would be okay. But it's blown up into a full fledged, all-services, entitlement program. The fact that they use it is secondary, but for those paying into the system, you can see why adding more members is not in their interest.

Illegal immigrants are not elligable for the dole. So, you won't find them sitting on it. Once they are made legal, however, they are elligable.

They do avail themselves of things like healthcare and public education and those are shared costs. Worse, they complicate both systems.

The Heritage Institute did a study to find out how much low-skilled labour costs the economy (the study is available at Heritage.org). Low-skilled workers are a net cost to the economy because of the $%#@ welfare state. In addition, several other posters here have posted links to studies that show that these immigrants tend to vote for more entitlement programs and a large percentage of their offspring end up on welfare. Again, the existence of the welfare state and the ability of people to vote to compel others to pay for their lunch is the problem, not the low-skilled immigrants per se.

I'm not saying that these are bad people who came here to live on the dole instead of working. But I bet you didn't find education and progressing to higher skilled jobs part of the general culture. That would be okay, if there were no all-encompassing welfare state to subsidize those personal choices. Instead, the second generation grows up to be just as low-skilled, infused with a sense of entitlement and much more likely to end up on the dole.

Russel,

In that case there should be NO border controls. Anyone should be free to come and go when he wants.

I still remember the lines I had to face to obtain a legal US visa. As a student here, I can work only 20 hours, and too only for the school. Why isn't anyone interested in reforming legal immigration ?

To the commenter who asserted that the majority of immigrants pay social security taxes, where did that information come from? Maybe they do, but how would we ever know, they are completely undocumented. We can swap anecdotal stories back and forth about whether illegal immigrants contribute more or subtract more in terms of taxes, crime, etc., but nobody knows. Even the studies can only guess at the real numbers and effect.

I think it is naive to assume that completely unregulated immigration would be desirable or even preferable to what is currently taking place. It may be intelectually exciting and stimulating to assert so, but it would be disatrous given the actual way the government is run, the actual government programs which are currently available, the actual way people feel and act, and the actual way people would feel and act. As it is now, the barriers to entry do at least tend to make it more likely that the industrious and hard working are more likely to come to the U.S.

Social sciences are instructive here. Consider the real consequences of unlimited immigration. Even if the real consequences would not be "fair" or "just" because people are uneducated, or racist, or protectionsist, doesn't mean the consequences would be any less real.

The assertion that unjust laws should not be enforced is a poor one. Does that mean I and all of us shouldn't obey laws we deem to be unjust? Justice does not equal "fair." If a law is unjust, you try to change it legally. You don't say "to hell with it, it can be broken because I don't think its just."

What bothers me is the position seemingly advocated by many commenters here, which is that the current immigration laws are bad, so they shouldn't be followed. Fine, then then the laws should be changed, and if people don't want to change them, then go out and persuade them. If these laws are so reprehensible, then why not pay more to lobby representatives, or attempt to aid the undocumented workers who paint your house in gaining legal status? I suspect most posters don't do either of the above or make any other sort of substantial contribution or payment to change the current laws or change the situation of those who they claim to be arguing for. This leads me, and probably politicians as well, to conclude that much of the free border talk is just that, intelectually stimulating talk. Essentially, my gripe with such posters is this: If you care so much about the immigrants, why aren't you all hosting immigrant families? I am suspicious that your positions are unrigorous and only theoreticaly espoused. Now, I myself have also done nothing of substance in this debate, but I am not arguing an extreme position and congratulating myself for being an enlighteded humanatarian. For what its worth, I am somewhat ashamed that my primary consideration is to advocate a position which preserves advantages in the U.S. against the opportunities of others less fortunate.

On a related point, say what you will about the Minute Men, they are at least contributing their time and money to support a rational and lawful argument. (Note, this is not to say they are not totally wrong.) Until we see a similar contribution from the free borders folk, I will continue to be doubtful of the sincerity of the argument for freer borders.

As for me, I am all for less difficult immigration, but I do think it should all be documented. We have room for literally hundreds of millions of more people in this country, and therefore room for hundreds of millions of immigrants. We don't have the infrastructure for that amount, which is why I say maybe we ought to let people in a somewhat gradual and organized fashion.

The Bill recently proposed seems like an reasonable effort to me. I would be willing to support a candidate who voted for something like it. That is the extent of my anticipated involvement in this situation. I applaud those of you who do and will do more to advance your views.

Now I will leave you with some folksy and anecdotal information, in keeping with the precedent set in some of the other comments: This is a messy situation, and no solution will be perfect. My father's family was on a waiting list for 12 years to come to this country. I'm glad for the opportunity that was given to my family and I hope it is given more freely to many people from all over the world. However, I do think it should be given systematically, and probably to those who need it most, maybe like those who are actively being persecuted, or who are actually starving, as opposed to those who happened to win the lottery (relatively speeking) and were born in North, Central, and South America.

I agree if they want to leave Mexico and come to America to have a better life they should do it even though it is illegal! As a matter of fact I do not like my standard of living and I guess I may have to do something about it. I know I will make my life better if I rob a bank! It is Illegal but hey it will improve my life. Who cares if others work hard to make their living and to make their money.

When they try to arrest me I do expect you will be an advocate for my release after all it is only immoral if I am not trying to better my life right?

Do you think President Bush would give me amnesty for that crime? Perhaps a pardon? After all with out criminals the police would not have a Job would they!

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS COST MONEY?

HOW MUCH IS YOUR F-ING WAR IN IRAQ COSTING YOU?

BLOODY IDIOTS!!!!

Throw ALL illegals OUT--NOW. The only support pro-illegal law-breakers ever present is emotional garbage and made-up needs. One of you lovers of the illegal aliens please tell me the jobs Americans won't do (at American wages!) and how many foreigners we need in each job segment and I'll agree to a work visa program. Quit spouting the bs and think about it--some of you are too young to know what you're talking about anyway. Illegals have severly downgraded wages in EVERY segment. Perhaps you all want to live like the Kuywaities and Saudis with imported SLAVE labor and SLAVE wages.

Why isn't anyone holding Mexico and it's government accountable on any of this? Have you SEEN the corruption in Mexico? Have you seen the level of WEALTH that some Mexicans live in? Have you seen the guards and drivers given to all the members of Mexican government, both present AND past? They're living literary like kings while allowing children to live in the street. BUT, they insist, it's OUR problem. WE should take them. And the Mexican president that's in power now has taken up this issue with such vehemence and hypocracy that it's making more legal American citizens angrier. Ie, he is not helping the issue by hurling insults. Anti-American sentiment is also roused by the rich Mexicans who have come here and are living well, but writing blogs spewing hate towards Americans, yet freaking out when their visas are up and are under fire to go home. Why aren't people in Mexico protesting in the streets for jobs and clean water there? Why not fix Mexico? It's not that nobody has anything in Mexico. There's the super rich and the poor, and the rich Mexicans have no interest in changing that. Also, realize who the 'slave wages' are actually helping and hurting in the US. The working poor in the US now can't get any jobs, and the fleecing of the low paid new workers is only going in the pockets of the corrupt rich in the United States. There is no health care for legal citizens, but there is for illegals. this is also getting people angry. It a problem that is headed towards major trouble. But if you're going to put down America and Americans, then stay away, go elsewhere, or fix the problem at home. And regarding 'they'll have to go to London' - fine. And have you seen the immigration laws in London? they require that you assimilate and learn the language. One thing that they won't do here. Try moving to Mexico and refusing to speak the language for twenty years. And also-- look at the immigration laws in MEXICO. They're specifically against the immigrant. Enough already with the hypocracy.

Deport all Mexican illegal aliens. .If Haitians or Sudanese were entering the U.S in droves, believe me the U.S would immediately find a way to prevent their entrance!!