King George "Lou Dobbs" III

Welfare, unemployment insurance and all the other ways that the state rewards those that choose not to work.

Each additional immigrant adds another open mouth, to be fed by the bulk of hard-working taxpayers.

When our parents came to America, there were no guarantees except that their sweat and labour could give them a better life.

It was a rhetorical question, right?

And I’m about tired of Warren Buffoon and his cavalcade of “I’m not rich, because I’m donating” crap. Having done a recording at his son Peter’s studio, I can personally assure you that this “I’m not giving anything to my kids” act is a steaming cartload of bullshit.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/06/29/warren-buffets-faulty-tax-math

Buffett needs to shut his fat yap and be very thankful that he doesn’t live in France, and stop telling us how “the rich” should behave.

Go to hell, Warren.

The problem is not immigration per se. The recently defeated immigration legislation had numberous problems which made it bad legislation and bad policy, over time the US has become stupider, other factors, such as methoids of transportation and transfers of funds have changed and the Mexican migration presenets some unique problems which did not exist with other groups – and it's not racism.

For one thing, no substantial group of the German, Irish or Italian immigrants took the position that a substantial portion of the US really belonged to them and that they would reunite it with their old country.

We did not set up dual language systems with bilingual schools in foreign languages and print government forms in foreign languages.

Teddy Roosevelt on Immigration
A letter to the president of the American Defense Society
January 3, 1919

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Immigration Reform:

Build the fence.
Require illegal aliens to register.
Require illegal aliens to leave.
One arrest – deportation
Second arrest – deport and never can apply for citizenship.
Third arrest – prison, pay cost of prison by picking lettuce, then deport.
Establish guest worker program.
Give priority to those who obey US laws.
Give priority to those who speak English.
WE should chose who comes into the US, not the other way around.
Provide the money to screen people and a reasonable time to do so.
Tell Mexico to improve its economy, end corruption and stop encouraging its people to violate our laws.
End all Federal funding to any city or state that declares that it is a sanctuary city or state or fails to enforce federal immigration law.
End birthright citizenship.
Fine employers who hire illegal aliens – enough to cover cost of deportations and tale away the profit of hiring illegals.
No amnesty – even if Bush and Kennedy both says its not amnesty.

"It is worth pointing out, again and again, that America has never been better able than it is today to absorb immigrants"

Fine, as soon as we control the illegals I am all for substantially increased legal immigration, with people from ALL countries being given an equal chance.

I always get uneasy when we start comparing the current problem to other countries. This has nothing to do with Britain, as there is a little thing called the Atlantic Ocean in the way preventing mass migration of the dentally-challenged (standard of living in Britain is slightly higher than in Juarez, too).

But ask a Briton (or an Austrian, or a Czech) how difficult it is to get into this country legally, and they’ll tell you it’s damned near impossible.

Here in Arizona, we get to bear the brunt of a majority of our current type of immigration. It does clog our emergency rooms, it does destroy our educational system (further), it does result in a whole bunch of bad things like vehicle theft, property crime, and human and drug smuggling, it does ruin the environment. It has all kinds of bad side effects that many people in other areas of the country don’t necessarily see.

Professor Boudreaux’s (and others) perception of our current situation simply isn’t realistic.

Don,

I always find your "perspective" on immigration interesting. I disagree vehemently, but you make a good case given the foundational differences of good vs. bad immigration.

Your "open the borders to one and all" approach simply doesn't resonate with the vast majority of Americans. Your implied response (as with virtually everyone who doesn't agree with whatever is your subject-du-jour) is "Well, then, you're just too stupid to understand"

Guess what? Stupid or not, we understand all too well.

Like MesaEcon I get to see all the "benefits" that befall a border state (Texas) because of the failure of the Gummint to secure the border. You (and Lulac and Maldef, et al) can spew this "They're honorable people here to work" crap all you like – but actually putting feet on the ground tells a vastly different story. Trot out all the statistics and ex-spurts you want but spending a little time in the Dallas barrio says your "facts and figgers" are plain bull. Yeah, I know, anecdotes are not data – but data isn't proof, either. (at least not in this argument)

My position on this (which I beat into my elected kleptocrats in Washington and Austin) is that no immigraion policy that includes amnesty is acceptable.

Is it possible to boot 12 million illegals? You bet it is. Is it the desired solution? Maybe, maybe not.

No matter how you slice it, your "let 'em all in" philisophy is not gonna fly, no matter how prettily you dress up the rhetoric….or how cleverly you insult those of us who oppose it.

You have yet to provide a single convincing argument to support your position. Keep trying, tho – you may yet get there (but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you).

Lastly, just to show that I'm as big a hypocrite as the next guy I'll fully admit to using illegals to do my yardwork, grunt labor on the remodel job for some real estate I just bought and generally the kind of crap jobs no one else wants. Do illegals work hard? Some, but not all. Are they all "honorable people"? Nope, not by a long shot. Are they already law-breakers? You betcha. Is the law a bad one? I dunno, but it's what we have and it doesn't seem to be all that bad to me.
Anyway, just thought I'd add my $.02….it's at least as valuable as your opinion on this subject.

Thank you for reprinting the Declaration of Independence (July 4). I encourage especially you, with your hostility to immigration, to read it carefully, noting that Jefferson explicitly condemned King George III's restrictive immigration policy:

Jefferson the slaveholder? Oh, hey there's a shing example of why we should revert to principles the Founding Fathers themselves explicitly insisted must change with trhe times.

I know that ends the discussion in your mind. I'm used to that. Nevertheless I must insist that you distinguish twixt immigration and invasion. Ohhhh, is that too harsh a word? Perhaps you wish bank robbery be reclassified as undocumented withdrawl?

Russell, the main problem is not necessarily the immigrants themselves BUT THEIR CHILDREN. If they don't have job opportunities, they will be less likely to come here, so their children will not be born here and will not become our problem. I have posted previously on the reverse-assimilation that occurs with succeeding generations of Mexican immigrants and have not heard a response from you.

Oh Don… it's one of those days when the hill looks steep…

TGGP, in your linked post, you bring up out-of-wedlock births. How 1980s of you. As an a priori moral ideal, in-wedlock births is officially a non-starter these days. I would bet that everyone of us in the under 40 crowd has a friend or family member who has a kid out of official state-sanctioned wedlock and yet, is a great parent. You don't even hear the word "illegitimate" in polite company these days, and for good reason. Funny how it describes and judges the child rather than the parents, isn't it?

As a proxy for other negative social factors, you may have a point with out-of-wedlock births. However, it is so common today even in the so-called "majority" that unless you plan to punish 40% of adults with children, you're just going to have to accept it and find other proxies. It's not going to change the direction you want. People are far more mobile in every sense these days than a generation ago.

faultolerant: "Trot out all the statistics and ex-spurts you want but spending a little time in the Dallas barrio says your "facts and figgers" are plain bull. "

Sir, have you really spent much time with illegal immigrants who live in the Dallas area?

I was one of 500,000 who walked for six hours in the hot sun, protesting the proposed legislation to make unauthorized presence in this nation a felony. I talked with hundreds of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans as I walked through the crowds. These are noble, hard-working people.

A very close relative has supervised hundreds of Spanish-speaking construction workers over the past decade. He tells me that they work extremely hard building the homes we buy.

As a book dealer, I have spent many hours waiting in line at rummage sales in the Dallas area, alongside Mexicans and Mexican-Americans who also sought bargains. These people are not criminals. These people are not moochers. IMO, they are much more courteous and fun to be around than the average English-speaking person at those sales.

Where do you meet the Mexicans in the Dallas area that you believe are harming our fine state?

"Why is it that today, the wealthiest time in our history, so many Americans fear immigration?"

Don, we do not oppose immigration, we oppose illegal immigration; there is a distinction. Please do not behave like all the other open border zealots and paint people of our viewpoint of being against legal immigration.

For Americans to trust this group of elected officials to create, apply, and administer laws equitably is just so far out of the realm of reality that it is laughable.

For a bunch of economists, you guys are pretty short sighted spending your energy blaming the victims rather than looking for the causes.

Illegal immigrants are desperate. Otherwise they would not choose the life threatening trek to America. Why are they so desperate? One reason is NAFTA, which has made American corporations richer at the cost of destroying the Mexican economy.

But what the heck that's the "free" market at work, so let's just beat up on the illegals instead of addressing the real issues.

I say let's build that fence. Let's tear down the statue of liberty (how quaint it's become) and use it as raw material for the fence.

"One reason is NAFTA, which has made American corporations richer at the cost of destroying the Mexican economy."

Yes, it's true and can be backed up with evidence. Everyone knows that American businessmen trade with economic participants of the Mexican economy and those Mexican participants always end up worse off than they were before (heck, even the American businessmen do, too, depending on whom you listen to). It must be that their preference sets are out of whack or that they are uneducated or irrational.

"I say let's build that fence."

You can start and I may show up latter. If the camera crew and television reporters come out and start doing stories about how you're using your own time and resources, I will show up and join in the fun and even chip in to help defray some of the costs. I'm not going to lie, I'm an attention whore and would like to get my remaining thirteen minutes, forty seconds.

lm: "One reason is NAFTA, which has made American corporations richer at the cost of destroying the Mexican economy."

How did NAFTA destroy the Mexican economy?

According to the U.S. Department of State, Mexico's real GDP grew 3.2% annually from 200 to 2005.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35749.htm

According to Brad Delong, Mexico's real GDP grew at a 3.8% annual rate in the first five years after NAFTA ratification.

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TotW/nafta.html

Foreign direct investment in Mexico increased from 1.3% of GDP to 2.8% of GDP after NAFTA. How exactly did that destroy the Mexican economy?

http://tinyurl.com/2boebc

Tyler Cowen pointed out last year:

"The North of Mexico would have done far better, if not for adjusting to brutal competition from China. They are in fact coping better than most people had expected."

http://tinyurl.com/2fngpp

I can certainly understand why changes in China would have impacted post-NAFTA development in Mexico. But that doesn't mean that NAFTA destroyed the Mexican economy. That economy is certainly not destroyed. In fact, it is the 13th largest in the world. One Mexican entrepreneur is now considered the wealthiest man in the world.

lm, what facts do you have to indicate that Mexico's economy has been destroyed?

How about this:

Fact: A decade after NAFTA's passage, America is still hemorrhaging the good-paying jobs that NAFTA was supposed to create. As for Mexico, the Washington Post's report on the 10-year anniversary of NAFTA told the story: 19 million more Mexicans now live in poverty than before the pact was signed. Similarly, former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich points out, "Mexico's real wages are lower than they were before [NAFTA]." And because NAFTA included no provisions to force companies to improve Mexican working conditions, jobs that were created in Mexico still pay near-slave wages For instance, the Associated Press noted this week that "Many young [Mexicans] have manual jobs on minimum wage of $5 a day."

http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/nafta/060409nafta_immigration.html

JohnDewey,

Permit me to address your comments, one at a time:

"Sir, have you really spent much time with illegal immigrants who live in the Dallas area?"

You bet I have. If you mean do I live with them, then no. I have no desire to live in poverty. Highland Park and Las Colinas are close enough, thank you. However, just because I don't live in a shack doesn't mean I'm blind or incapable of seeing illegals for what they are.

"I was one of 500,000 who walked for six hours in the hot sun, protesting the proposed legislation to make unauthorized presence in this nation a felony."

So what? Acting the fool doesn't give you credibility, credence or any special knowledge whatsoever. The three Latinos that worked for me who decided to take an "unexcused absence" for that particular event found themselves unemployed the next day. I suspect their decision to protest against people like me didn't fare them as well as they'd hoped. (They were legals, too)

"I talked with hundreds of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans as I walked through the crowds. These are noble, hard-working people."

Noble? Hard working? What rubbish. They're no more noble than anyone else. You're giving some sort of "Get Out Of Jail Free" card (on an emotional level) to illegals that you would likely reserve if it were a bunch of white guys. As far as "hard working" is concerned, like I said before: Some do, some don't. Your hasty generalization is not only un-credible, it harms your overall argument. If they're so damnably hard working then why do they spend so much time clogging Dallas traffic waving Mexican flags? Not exactly the best way to win friends and influence people is it?

"A very close relative has supervised hundreds of Spanish-speaking construction workers over the past decade. He tells me that they work extremely hard building the homes we buy."

That may be true – but it's hardly "evidence". Like I said, anecdotes aren't proof. I employ a number of illegals (through the general contractors I use – but I can't prove it) and they do a good enough job that I don't fire too many of them. If they screw off – regardless of whether they're Latino, Caucasian or Purple, I ditch 'em. So to assert that illegals are better than other ethnic groups is just as racist as the Klan was in the deep South….just a little different skin color in question.

"As a book dealer, I have spent many hours waiting in line at rummage sales in the Dallas area, alongside Mexicans and Mexican-Americans who also sought bargains. These people are not criminals."

I beg to differ. Someone who breaks the law – regardless of which one it is – and continues to break the law – is, by definition, a lawbreaker. If you don't like the law that's not a good enough reason to ignore it. After all, I'd love to ignore that pesky law that prevents me from walking out of my bank with a huge wad of greenbacks….but armed robbery is currently illegal (at least until I can get it repealed).

"These people are not moochers. IMO, they are much more courteous and fun to be around than the average English-speaking person at those sales."

Bully for you. If you like a group of folks, then, by all means, hang out with them. Don't, however, expect the rest of us to share your perspective. Again, just because you are an "illegal sycophant" doesn't make them "noble", "hard working" or anything else. They're illegal. Full stop.

"Where do you meet the Mexicans in the Dallas area that you believe are harming our fine state?"

Pretty much everywhere you look. You can't swing a dead cat without whacking an illegal. Like everyone else, I don't run around shouting "La Migra" – even though I should. I'm as big a hypocrite as the next guy: I'll use cheap labor whenever I can. Since I hire the contractor, who has responsibility for hiring the grunt labor, I don't directly (nor am I permitted) to control who is hired. I can, however, demand removal of a given individual from a project – and frequently do.

As far as I'm concerned, every single one of them is harming "our fine state" simply by asserting that US law is ignorable. I wish I could get away with ignoring laws I don't like….but, hey, I'm just a well off, fat, white guy – not exactly the poster child for getting away with stuff like a bazillion illegals do.

JohnDewey,

OK, point well taken: You aren't a fool, but took part in a foolish endeavor (e.g. those traffic-clogging "protests"). You have my apologies for that comment.

You take offense at my comparison of your illegal-immigrant-favoritism to that of the KKK. I'll stand by that comment as ANY racial-based preference is wrong – no matter who's doing it.

Your assertion that illegals work harder than other low-skilled workers (presumably non-Latinos, based on your context) is racially insensitive, impossible to prove (or disprove, for that matter) and fundamentally irrelevant. It's like saying that those "bad" Catholic priests were really great guys….except for that minor little dallaince with the kids. Wrong is wrong, no matter what the other supposedly redeeming features are.

As far as my tone is concerned, I'll not apologize primarily because I'm over-the-top with the entire "illegals are SO noble, SO hard working, SO put-upon, SO discriminated against, ad nauseum, ad absurdum" argument. Further to that, this entire line of "they have every right to be here, same as everyone else" argument is a red-herring, as well.

Illegals are self-serving individuals, same as everyone else. There is absolutely NOTHING noble about working for a living. If it were the case then we'd all be heros and worthy of praise. I work so I can support me and my family. Full stop.

An illegal who enters the US, full well knowing they ARE illegal, does so for completely and totally selfish reasons. There's nothing – absolutely nothing – noble about it. It's entirely a myopic, self-interested perspective.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for vested self-interest. But that doesn't mean that we should all just rush out and do whatever we damn well please and ignore the consequences. Illegals made a choice, a purely voluntary choice, which may have any number of negative externalities. They deserve each and every one of them. Unfortunately, those of us who are not illegal, are also subject to some of these externalities….none of which we asked for.

I'll give you a case in point: Why are auto insurance rates (for Uninsured Motorist) so expensive in Texas? Primarily because a huge majority of illegals drive without it – again, in violation of state law. So, not only are illegals in violation of immigration law, many (most?) of them are in violation of transport law. How noble.

Get in an accident with one of these "noble, hard-working" people and see just how much fun it is. Talk about negative externalities becoming internalized.

I will not apologize for my highly jaundiced view of illegals. Until they make an effort to conform to THIS society, I will continue to make every effort to make their lives as dificult as possible. Maybe, just maybe, if conditions here weren't so hospitable to illegals they wouldn't be pouring over the border like Mexico had just sprung a leak.

You, of course, are entitled to whatever POV you like. I realize that at some point we will have to offer amnesty to the illegals simply because it's impractical to round them up and ship them out. That doesn't make it right – it makes it expedient. Unfortunately, the Gummint hasn't the balls to do what they're elected to do and scumball groups like Maldef and Lulac have enough funding to continue to buy more politicians. More's the pity.

"One of the most consistent points of this blog is that the law that is being broken is not only arbitrary, but that the people breaking it do not have a legal alternative."

You presume that a "legal alternative" is both necessary and required. Bad presumption. There is simply no "right" for any non-native to be here. You may assert one exists, and provide lots of arguments to support your baseless assertion, but you cannot prove such a right to emigrate/immigrate exists.

Holding a person against his will (i.e. imprisonment) is demonstrably wrong. Keeping that same individual out – against his will – is a much tougher argument to make.

I needn't make an excuse as to why illegals are illegal. To the contrary, an argument needs to be made (convincingly so) that some "right" exists for them to be here.

I haven't seen that argument – at least not a convincing one.

So, Isaac, just a question: Are you THE ONE who gets to decide which laws are good and which ones are bad? If so, I have a favor to ask……..

Bruce Hall:

One of my biggest complaints about "libs" is that they're hypocrites of the worst/first order: They pant and whine over "rule of law" yet have yet to find a law they like. Of course, as with Isaac Crawford's argument, laws which are "arbitrary" are "bad"….which is the fundamental definition of a law – an arbitrary code of conduct.

Talk about talking out of both sides of your face!

faultolerant,

Do you assume that only those who are opposed to illegal immigrants can be conservatives? Is that your personal litmus test? I'm just curious.

faultolerant: "Until they make an effort to conform to THIS society, I will continue to make every effort to make their lives as dificult as possible."

How many illegal immigrants are not making an effort to conform to THIS society? What does it mean to you to conform to THIS society? And exactly what is THIS society?

The illegal immigrants I've met and talked with would, in general, love to be citizens. They would love for their children to grow up here and be assimilated. But assimilated doesn't mean they have to give up their music, their food, or the contributions to the American language they have made.

I don't believe it means they have to give up speaking the Spanish language. I would prefer that they all to learn American English, but I don't see why that has to be a law. My grandparents were not required by law to give up speaking French and learn English. My mother and her siblings are all bi-lingual. Why should Mexican immigrants be held to a different standard?

Hey, I interrupt your interesting discussion to bring your attention to this: Microsoft is opening a shop in Vancouver, BC because our current immigration restrictions don't give them the supply of talented engineers they need.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705193651.5xen0dee&show_article=1

Yes I know, it also means the illegals from the south are preoccupied with other activities or an evil corporation like Microsoft would have hired them under table already.

Brad, I am under 40, and I don't know anybody with out-of-wedlock children. I guess I don't hang out in the ghetto or barrio enough. I don't know where your 40% figure comes from. Illegitimacy has risen, but according to this the percent of new mothers (which would exaggerate illegitimacy compared to overall parents, due to the lower rates in previous years) who are unmarried is 33.8. That's well below your figure. It is true that low rates of marriage have not destroyed Scandinavia, they did however destroy the black community in the United States starting with the Great Society and continuing until around the end of the crack wars and welfare reform (where the situation is still bad, but stable or improving). The question is, are Hispanics more like Scandinavians or African Americans? To ask the question is to answer it. They aren't declining to get married because of feminism and state provided daycare either. It is the same phenomenon we saw in inner-cities in the past, with all the same pathologies associated with it. It's not often you get a chance to avoid a disaster you already experienced before (although their growth rate could actually cause it to be of a larger scale).

But many of the low-skilled don't want to become citizens. They send the money back to families in Mexico and plan to go back and live comfortably with them. Many are seasonal workers.

And how can you expect immigrants to identify with the right wing in this country when the right wing is generally hostile to them? If free market people hated people with brown eyes, I'd be reluctant to identify with them.