Unintendend Consequences

"From a purely economic perspective, it has been proven that slave labor couldn't compete with free labor and that fact was the primary reason slavery eventually ended in societies that had both free and slave labor. What this means is that slave holder costs of taking care of slaves was higher than what he would have paid them had they been free." - mandeville.

How quaint is not that free labour can be cheaper (though not always) than slave labour such that slave labour loses its relative economic value? How quaint that the condition of free labour weren't really that different from slavery except for the right to 'leave'. However slavery was all-in-all ultimately outlawed not merely 'phased out'. What do Libertarians think of slave-owners who tried to hold out to the end and how they hated government telling them what to do about slavery? Let alone the Confederates who thought that should Negros be protected from slavery with the Declaration of Independence then that document is fundamentally wrong?

By the same token, how quaint the immigration debate keeps coming back to Mexico? Why is that? Why not Europe or China or South America or Africa? Cheap labour south of the border? Native-born Americans would be working for $5 a day if it weren't dang guvmint hence the need to look abroad?

On the other, Australians are kicking themselves that they lost Dr Zhengrong Shi. He wanted $7 million to start a solar panel company, he was knocked back, he went to China where they are trying to 'brain-drain' other countries, he get the money, founds SunTech and the rest is, as they say, is history. B'oh!

J Bowen, if this demographic is so wonderful, why is nearly half of the FBI's wanted-for-murder list populated by illegals from Latin America?

If you think this is because the proximity of Latin America makes for an easy escape from the FBI, tell me why not even one Canadian is on that list?

I went to the 'division of labor' site and saw a post on slavery reparations where a member of a former slave's family was asking the slave holding family for over a billion dollars based on the original lost wages of $11,000.

From a purely economic perspective, it has been proven that slave labor couldn't compete with free labor and that fact was the primary reason slavery eventually ended in societies that had both free and slave labor. What this means is that slave holder costs of taking care of slaves was higher than what he would have paid them had they been free.

A better question would be if the decendants of slaves could sue those who originally sold them into slavery.

The Dems want the Mexican votes. We'll never have closed borders. They tend to come here when the economic opportunities are good. A stategy could be to tax them fully as citizens without letting them have any social benefits (welfare, unemployment insurance, social security, etc.)for a required time period. But again, the Dems wouldn't have this.

Taxation without representation should be the entry fee to get in.

Personally, if we were more libertarian, I couldn't care less who comes to this country, and either should anyone. If we weren't a welfare state, they'd add to the GNP, contrary to what those suffering from Dobbs syndrome believe. However, because we are a welfare state and immigrants tend to subsist on the lower rungs of the social order, they might have to be subsidized like the other losers in this country.

I agree with MikeP. Legal immigration should be expanded so that illegal immigration is less attractive.

I think legal immigration should be expanded so the only people denied entry are provable and specific threats to the public: e.g., foreign agents, terrorists, violent felons, and carriers of contagion.

Under those circumstances, illegal immigration is not merely less attractive: it is virtually unheard of.

How novel. I wonder where he and J. Bowen live. Would by any chance it be near substantial populations of illegals? Perhaps not.

I live in a rural area where there are a lot of illegals (not all of whom were Mexicans) every summer and fall (the part of Michigan that I live in is a major producer of fruits and other crops). I once dated one on and off over a span of several years (staying up here simply wasn't an option to her as her family needed her help, so she'd find me when ever she came back up for the growing and harvesting season). I've also lived near major cities that do have large illegal populations. In addition to that, I have family members who live and have lived in areas in Texas, Florida, and California with large populations of illegals. Neither I nor they think it's much of a problem beyond having a hard time understanding some of them when going to restaurants and other places where they tend to work. The problems associated with illegals are the result of things like education, their status as illegals, the war on drugs, and the war on fathers. They are not a part of the cultures of any Mexicans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, and so on. These people are, for the most part, hard-working people who are all-but forced to live miserable lives because of governmental policies aimed at protecting the jobs of poor Americans (though this is a cliche, it's a true one: illegals aren't coming here and taking the jobs of doctors, architects, lawyers, upper-management, and other such people).

By the way, for those of you who believe that their culture is ruining America, go live in any major American city. In every major American city, there are ethnic enclaves whose cultures are radically different than the culture of the surrounding areas. Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Los Angeles have ethnic enclaves and are richer for it (heck, even in my small town the small population of Poles all seem to have congregated in one area).

"I don't know what MWG means by "The Republican stance on immigration." It was a Republican President and two Republican Senators that tried to shove amnesty for illegals down our throats. One of those Republican Senators got trounced in the presidential election for his efforts."

-Flash Gordon

So are you saying the general republican view is toward amnesty??? I think you need to go back a reread your history and remember who was against the pres. and those TWO senators.

Hoards of law breakers sneaking into the country is not immigration.

Wow! They crossed a line. What a terrible crime.

My neighbors down the street let their kids drop out of school. One of them stole my lawnmower.

I'm guessing without a high school education that crime will be their career, because they sure have not shown a willingness to work hard.

My guess is if they were in Mexico, they would be the ones without enough ambition to cross the border. Either that, or too scared.

The way I figure it, there are 3 seats open at school here in town to anyone who wants to learn something.

Someone is going to have to take care of the 3 useless kids down the street during the times they are out of prison.

Legal immigration should be expanded so that illegal immigration is less attractive.

How will that help?

People come here illegally because they know that there is work.


Once upon a time Americans used to clean toilets, pick lettuce, and work in egg farms and slaughter houses.


Now Americans can afford to turn their nose to such work, while getting a check from the government.

Illegal immigration is an unintended consequence of the welfare state.

Expanding legal immigration won't help, because the people who come here legally do not come here to clean toilets and pick lettuce.

I don't know what MWG means by "The Republican stance on immigration." It was a Republican President and two Republican Senators that tried to shove amnesty for illegals down our throats. One of those Republican Senators got trounced in the presidential election for his efforts.

I agree with MikeP. Legal immigration should be expanded so that illegal immigration is less attractive. Pressure on Mexico for more cooperation in extraditing criminals back to the U.S. to stand trial for their crimes in the U.S. would also be a good idea.

The statement "illegal immigrants do the work Americans are unwilling to do" is wrong.

A truer statement would be "illegal immigrants do the work that Americans ON WELFARE are TOO PROUD to do".

Same old song and dance. Government creates a problem, and the solution involves more government.

What do they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Actually people who find themselves being 'head-hunted' because of their quality skills get big fat offers they can't refuse and a welcome mat. Illegal immigrants don't tend to fill that shoe and appeal to those who think US$6.55 per hour is a fortune to be paying anyone.

Unintended or intended consequences?

Is anyone minding the store over at the Fed?

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/05.09/mindingthestore.html

>>Is it even a remote possibility that the Government could use the closed borders to keep people in, rather than to keep Mexican's out?<<

And wall advocates love to quote Reagan when it suits them [when not in xenophobic mode]. Though they seem to forget everything when going into mode: such as the last few paragraphs of his farewell address and the June '87 to the people of West Berlin.

Shouldn't we be fighting Federal Government involvement in "public services" rather than assigning more responsibility to the government vis-a-vis closing the borders?

Great response. Why this is not the default reply to such concerns is beyond me. All-caps Merlin should really do some soul searching. Gil already has, I suspect.

Your answer is in your question, Gilhuahua.

Illegal immigration is a symptom of the welfare state.

The government handing out checks to people lowers the supply of labor.


Illegal immigrants fill the vacuum.

What's your point vidyohs?

Gilhuahua,

"Or for that matter how does bringing in cheap labour amount to general productive growth for a nation?

Posted by: Gil | Jun 23, 2009 3:46:16 AM"

Please tell me that you don't hold a driver's license, or ever pick up sharp objects.

Maybe it has something to do with countries that want to get ahead have to cause a 'brain drain' from other countries. Does any country want to be dumping ground for the down&out from all around the world? Or for that matter how does bringing in cheap labour amount to general productive growth for a nation?

"But their open borders policy prevents them from having more influence with the majority of voters."

-Flash Gordon

This is obvious given the Republican's stance on immigration and their overwhelming victory in the last elections... oh wait...

"What a joke, MWG. My wife came here about 10 years ago and we had NO problem whatsoever getting her a green card."

-Chris

So your wife came before 9/11? Let me suggest to you that things have changed in terms of immigration policy in the US in the last 10 yrs. Especially post 9/11.

"Tell me why it is that LEGAL immigrants are overwhelmingly from poor countries if only "wealthy and/or connected" people are being allowed in."

-Chris

Just because they're from a poor country doesn't mean they're poor.

"Mexico, China, Philippines, India, Cuba, Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Vietnam, Jamaica"

-Chris

There are no wealthy in these countries? Cuba? This shows just how ignorant you are toward US immigration policy. Our immigration policy towards Cuba is totally different than the rest of the world.

The illegal immigration problem working itself out (non-cartoon version):

http://www.lapdonline.org/all_most_wanted

Oh, a Cato flack arguing for open borders. How novel. I wonder where he and J. Bowen live. Would by any chance it be near substantial populations of illegals? Perhaps not. Illegal immigration is more likely an abstraction that will "work itself out." Yes, America, just trust Cato and smoke some pot. Things always turn out well, just like they have in the past.

We just have places where one can legally enter the country and we expect law abiding people to use it.

Unfortunately, we only let in two-thirds of the law abiding people who want to legally enter.

It's an easy problem to solve: Give the other third visas. Then people who still sneak across the border in the night can be presumed to actually be criminals.

I can cross into Canada or Mexico at any time by going through Canadian or Mexican customs. But if I enter Canada or Mexico cross country and get caught I'm a criminal in those countries. Does that mean Canada and Mexico have a war on immigration? No, of course not.

And we don't have a "war on immigration" either. We just have places where one can legally enter the country and we expect law abiding people to use it. All others are criminals and not welcome.

I think libertarians have a good argument about ending the war on drugs.

But their open borders policy prevents them from having more influence with the majority of voters. Their refusal to see a difference between immigration that is legal and orderly and criminals sneaking across the border in the night is never going to sell with any substantial number of Americans.

A call for "ending the war on immigration" is an idiotic statement. There is no war on immigration. Hoards of law breakers sneaking into the country is not immigration.

I know how many legal immigrants there are per year. But I also know there are 500,000 illegal immigrants each year. If there were a legal path for them, do you think they would come illegally?

The quota for people who have no other legal qualifications to immigrate -- H-1B, family ties, national quota, etc. -- is 5,000.

500,000 >> 5,000. It's absurd to claim there is a legal path for those 500,000.

Pinheads believe the US won't suffer grave consequences from permitting, largely through pathetic efforts at enforcement, a continuing of the huge influx of people from neighboring third world countries.

Jason Riley makes a powerful case against this argument in his book Let Them In: The Case For Open Borders, wherein he describes the various immigration cycles in US history and how each of them was accompanied by the same arguments that today's xenophobes are making. The US has gone through major immigration cycles before and it's still here. The same arguments were made every time (emancipation of the slaves at the state level and, eventually, at the national level, could also, in a sense, be considered a major immigration cycle as it too was accompanied by the same arguments and tactics that were and are used against traditional immigrants). The government isn't going anywhere. They're not going to cause the collapse of our economic system. You and your kids aren't going to be speaking Spanish in the not-too-distant future. You won't be eating tacos and burritos on Thanksgiving. Go smoke some pot and calm down a bit...

I'm curious, Mike P, is today numbskull day?

We get not 5,000, not 500,000, but over one million legal immigrants each year.

http://tinyurl.com/lmpc55

That's about one Detroit's worth of new people every single year. This doesn't include the hundreds of thousands who enter illegally.

Since there's a legal, front door path to immigration and citizenship to the United States of American why the hell should the citizens tolerate illegal immigration?

I am curious how you can say that a quota that allows only 5,000 people to pass when 500,000 try to pass is a "front door path to immigration".

What a joke, MWG. My wife came here about 10 years ago and we had NO problem whatsoever getting her a green card. We were living on one solidly-middle-class income at the time.

Tell me why it is that LEGAL immigrants are overwhelmingly from poor countries if only "wealthy and/or connected" people are being allowed in.

In 2006, guess what the top 10 countries of origin were. Here they are, in all their privileged and filthy rich glory:

Mexico, China, Philippines, India, Cuba, Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Vietnam, Jamaica

"Since there's a legal, front door path to immigration and citizenship to the United States of American why the hell should the citizens tolerate illegal immigration?"

-Gil

This is a very typical and ignorant view of the situation. As someone married to a foreigner, I can tell you from firsthand experience that this is not the case. The "legal" door you ignorantly speak of is opened ONLY to the wealthy and/or well connected.

That is precisely why Americans want closed borders.

Like we can afford that too.

Pinheads believe the US won't suffer grave consequences from permitting, largely through pathetic efforts at enforcement, a continuing of the huge influx of people from neighboring third world countries.

I don't suppose Pollyanna Ackermann lives in an "undocumented immigrant"-rich neighborhood, does he/she? I'd like to see Pollyanna A. willingly put his/her kid in a typical LAUSD school.

That is precisely why Americans want closed borders

Pinheads want closed borders.

You are not kidding this was a home run.

I will add that the 24/7 news programs have lifted certain signals out of the noise and amplified them to a nieve and confused public.

There are a lot of people who still believe what they hear on the news, and that makes politicians nervous.

Think of all the money being spent under DHS and yet, I can go to any city street corner, or suburban school yard and buy illicit drugs.

I have no idea what the real number of addicts is, but let's say 1% of the population regularly consume 1 gram of cocaine, heroin, or meth every week.

300 million * 1% = 3,000,000 = 3 million grams per week.

3M / 28 grams per ounce = 107,000 oz.

107K / 16 oz per pound = 6,700 pounds of hard narcotics that MUST be delivered every single week.

Does anyone doubt that if demand was great, the supply would be there?

War on drugs. Who the hell are we kidding?

Come now, have you noticed the "reform" plans that all include a "fast track" to citizenship?

I assure you that the people pushing those proposals are far, far from open borders advocates.

If you really were asking for an alternative to such practices, I offered it above: unlimited migration, residence, and employment, but queues and quotas on citizenship.

"What on earth do you mean by "open citizenship"?" Come now, have you noticed the "reform" plans that all include a "fast track" to citizenship? Have you not read of taking the oath of office in Spanish? Do you notice that we are supposed to read English to be citizens and thus vote, but ballots are in multiple languages? A serious track to citizenship is enforced for very view, and politicians want to chase immigrant votes by giving away the store.

MWG,

The two boarders you mentioned above, if you know how to get in touch with two workable boarders tell them I have rooms to rent.

Gilhuahua,

My brother sent me an e-mail today he had received from an old friend.

It was a picture of a sign on the fence of a Montana landowner. The sign said:

"Praying is the best way to meet God, trespassing is the quickest."

Now, if it just been signed, vidyohs!

Since there's a legal, front door path to immigration and citizenship to the United States of American why the hell should the citizens tolerate illegal immigration? If aspiring immigrants want to migrate yet they take the illegal route then how's that anyone's else problem? If you try to do an illegal transaction and get swindled then you can't complain let alone go to the police. And is this going to be another one those where the State should have open borders and let every halfwit in but private homeowners and landowners can have closed borders but that's okay?

You might as well be complaining that vidyohs breaks the legs of every trespasser he finds on his property regardless if it's potential armed robber or harmless snooping child. Vidyohs would then reply "it's my property I do whatever the hell I want to those who jump my fence!"

Reason did a great video about this topic awhile back.

http://reason.tv/video/show/434.html

The only remotely successfully closed boarder were/are those of the Berlin Wall, the boarder of China/North Korea. I used to think like MERLIN. I'm guessing he's also for "limited government"... the kind usually not associated with China and North Korea...

I'd like to see open borders advocates offer an alternative to open citizenship.

What on earth do you mean by "open citizenship"?

Open borders advocates generally view citizenship as peripheral to free migration, residence, and labor. Citizenship can easily be limited only to those who are demonstrably invested in the long term interests of the United States.

But citizenship or taking steps on a path to citizenship should not at all be a requirement for residence, travel, or employment in the United States.

Assuming that Merlin's last comment was in response to Vichy's question, I wonder why he believes that the Federal or local governments will be able to effectively keep the borders closed.

Is it even a remote possibility that the Government could use the closed borders to keep people in, rather than to keep Mexican's out?

Shouldn't we be fighting Federal Government involvement in "public services" rather than assigning more responsibility to the government vis-a-vis closing the borders?

That is precisely why Americans want closed borders.

"What does this mean in the abscence of clear identification and tracking of newcomers, and requiring self-support, competence in English (real competence), respect for the law, schooling in our constitutional heritage, a trial period of tax-paying before gaining access to the full array of public services, forswearing citizenship in another country when accepting US citizenship?"

What in Jesus' name would make you think the Federal or even State governments are remotely capable of doing this with any sort of competence? Chances are, they'd just make things worse, like they always do.

"War on immigrants." What does this mean in the abscence of clear identification and tracking of newcomers, and requiring self-support, competence in English (real competence), respect for the law, schooling in our constitutional heritage, a trial period of tax-paying before gaining access to the full array of public services, forswearing citizenship in another country when accepting US citizenship? Of course, the political establishment demands none of this, which is why the citizenry is opposed to random immigration and wants to prevent colonization by a foreign culture that treats our largess as a common pool resource. The demand for border enforcement is not a war on immigrants but a defensive war in abscence of government enforcement of reasonable requirements for citizenship. So long as citizenship is open (without serious requirement), there will be strong opposition to open borders. I'd like to see open borders advocates offer an alternative to open citizenship.

That letter is awesome, but like Art said, the title of the letter isn't his own words.

"Mr. Shi would have manufactured with Chinese slave labor anyhow. Whatever loss might exist on Australia's part is negligible." - sethstorm

I totally disagree because Dr. Shi is in business of cutting-edge research in solar panel tecnology not cotton growing.

Posted by: Gil | Jun 24, 2009 2:44:07 AM





Mr. Shi would have manufactured with Chinese slave labor anyhow. Whatever loss might exist on Australia's part is negligible.

Why is the debate Mexico centric? China isn't immediately on our doorstep, trying to export their problems onto our nation. What they do export is junk and currency dumping.