You are correct but you misunderstand my argument. Briefly this is it:

We can’t keep the Mexicans out unless they agree to stay out. The best way to keep them out is to change their laws so that they can have a free market economy. The worst way is to build a wall. But if we build a wall, it should be just like the Berlin wall. No one crossed that wall.

1. The US as a single trading area is much wealthier than it could possibly be if it were 50 independent countries because all laws governing interstate commerce is handled at the federal level. So lets create a really big trading area that plays by our rules and lets start with Mexico.

2. Suppose Mexico agreed to revise its constitution so that they do everything our way and joined us in a trade zone using our rules. In that unlikely event the people of Mexico will become as rich as us after we get richer. They won’t want to immigrate here anymore than the Canadians do.

3. Suppose the Mexican government flipped us the bird. I have calculated the cost to remove 12 million people. I estimate it will cost $360 billion/year to put all 12 million in jail and this will require setting some really bad guys free to prevent illegally overcrowding cells. It will cost $200 million (oops, got my decimal place wrong) to ship 12 million people back to Mexico. But the sudden loss of $46 billion in annual buying might slow our economy down.

4. Unemployment seems firm at 5% in spite of 12 milllion “illlegal job takers”. I suggest we could take on another 12 milliom over the next 5 years. If we did, and if our 24 million immigrants remained Mexican citizens they would control enough votes to rewrite the Mexican constitution to make a US-Mexico free trade area possible. Then they could pay there own way home and still be part of our economy and the immigration problem is solved.

5. The Roman Empire had Roman fortified towns on its Northeastern borders, James. But it was Gauls not Italians who lived in these towns. When the Goths showed up, they did so slowly intermarrying with the Gauls and soon the border was guarded by Goths. Once that happened the Goth poured across the border followed by the Vandals and they sacked Rome. Before I die, our border will be guarded by Mexican-Americans.

We tried a loose confederation of states in the past; it was not an economic success.

But, then, it becomes clear when Vason speaks of the provocation of defenses that he misunderstands cause & effect. (And may be in the market for a tin foil beanie.)

Mexican law states that the government can eject foreigners living in their country whenever they feel like it, for no reason at all. What happens if I get a letter from Pres. Fox informing me that I have to move out of my house in Ohio and leave the US?

That would be no less absurd than claiming that the wishes of foreign citizens should trump US law here, on our own soil. Making such a claim shows an incredible disconnect from reality.

It seems to me that the GNP of the US would be higher than the combined GNP of the 50 states if they were fifty separate countries.

You are wrong about that, and your very next sentence actually proves why.

There seems to be a direct correlation between the size of a trading area and personal wealth assuming a free market.

No matter how devoted two countries might be to the concept of free trade, matters of sovereignty always gets in the way. Trade between 50 little countries would necessarily be much less efficient than what we enjoy now between the States.

But it is your third sentence that really spoke to me.

I believe that if Mexico were to join our trading area and eliminate barriers to investment and trade so that an ordinary citizen of either country had equal rights to live and to work and own property and start a business where ever he/she wanted, that both peoples would benefit.

So the first step is for Mexico to revise their Constitution, making it impossible for the government to eject foreigners and confiscate their private property without cause. (After all, the US government can’t do that to foreigners living and owning property down here.)

It is interesting that you chose to define the US illegal immigration debate in this way. The logical extension of your arguement is that Mexico needs to get off the stick and make some sweeping changes before we should even bother to discuss granting clemency to the illegals down here.

James

Here are some answers:

First point.

There is a maxim from the code of Justinian: “Quod omnes tangit ab omnes comprobetur” which is the basis of modern democracy. “What touches all should be approved by all”. Our immigration law is not satisfactory to many people who happen to live in Mexico. They have no voice in making this law. The law was only sporadically enforced prior to 1980. Mexicans have always had special status in the Southwest because Mexicans were here first. We took their homeland from them by force of arms. Mexicans have crossed the Rio Grande for thousands of years before the United States existed. And they have continued to cross that river since 1776. Mexicans have an inalienable “Right To Return”. Indeed the Gadsden Purchase implicitly recognized this right when it granted citizenship to Mexican residing in the area. Thus many Mexicans citizens feel they are neither legally nor morally bound by US immigration law. Of course, all American citizens, especially former Mexicans, obey all US laws because they have taken an oath to do so.

I do not feel I have been dishonest nor do I believe I disparage “legal immigrants” by arguing that “illegal immigrants” have a Right to Return.

Fourth point

All jobs have a free market value. When a minimum wage law is passed, all jobs whose free market value is less than the minimum wage go unfilled. They are not eliminated. The demand exists, but supply has been made illegal. People who work for less than minimum wage can fill jobs that were rendered unfillable by law. Thus accepting below minimum wage jobs does not necessarily lower wages for minimum wage jobs.

Moreover, many of these low paying jobs are service jobs unrelated to business. These are jobs for housekeepers, babysitters, gardeners, lifeguards, groundskeepers, chauffeurs, footmen, messengers, and assistants. These jobs provide Mexicans who don’t speak English free one-on-one tutoring in the English language and in American household customs, fashions and management (a $200/day value in Mexico City). Counting this fringe benefit, Mexicans accepting $1-3/hr less get greater value than an American citizen would.

Second and third point

It seems to me that the GNP of the US would be higher than the combined GNP of the 50 states if they were fifty separate countries. There seems to be a direct correlation between the size of a trading area and personal wealth assuming a free market. I believe that if Mexico were to join our trading area and eliminate barriers to investment and trade so that an ordinary citizen of either country had equal rights to live and to work and own property and start a business where ever he/she wanted, that both peoples would benefit.

But what if Mexico refused? What if we got all the people who wanted work and they got the rest? I believe we still benefit right from the beginning. Currently we have 12 million “illegals”. Assuming they all work for less than minimum wage ($4.95/hr) they earn $60.58 billion/year; they and their employers pay $9.087 billion into Social Security and Medicare (which the “illegals” will never collect). They pay $0 in federal income taxes, at least $2.5 billion in sales taxes (5%), and $3 billion in property taxes on 3 billion dwellings either directly or through rent. Total is $14.57 plus state and local income taxes and excise taxes. Does this pay for point Three?

After taxes, these 12 million “illegals” have $46.01 billion to spend. Assuming normal retail mark-ups that represents $23 billion in gross margin for American retailers. If they make more than minimum wage, we get more taxes. Immigrants generally have faster increases in personal income over time.

If we got 12 million more Mexicans we would benefit even more. With 24 million Mexican we’d have 25% of Mexico’s population and 40% of their voters in the US plus another 20% in Mexico as dependents. This is enough to reform Mexico.

If all 12 billion “illegals” leave, business will lose $46 billion/year in retail sales, Social Security/ Medicare will be $9 billion/year poorer, 1 million bed pans will go unemptied, 2 million homes will have unwashed dishes and unswept floors, 4 million children will lose their nanny, and we will all be poorer. Assuming 30 people per busload, it will take 400 million bus trips to drive them to Mexico at a cost of $200 billion ($500/round trip – coming back empty). Incarceration costs $30,000/year/person 0r $360 billion total if you use your cheaper southern prisons but we’d have to let 12 million bad guys out find room for 12 million newbies. Of course we could have the 12 million “illegals” build us 12 million prison cells – prison wages are 10 cents/hour but the would violate Davis-Bacon.

But Mexicans have always been treated differently. Mexicans have always had special status in the Southwest because Mexicans, who are native Americans, were here first. We took their homeland from them by force of arms. Mexicans crossed the Rio Grande for many thousands of years before the United States ever existed. And they have continued to cross that river since 1776.

In 1954 the official racism aimed at the “yellow peril” became unfashionable when China fell to the communists. Suddenly, the Japanese, the Koreans and the Philippinos became vital allies in SEATO. The Federal Government conducted “Operation Wetback” which for the first time forced the return of “undocumented” workers to Mexico. I think “Operation Wetback” sounds racist.

it is the nature of security organizations to find conspiracy. As in the case of the Reichstag Fire, they often manufacture a conspiracy which they then put down. The technical term for a manufactured conspiracy is “fund raiser” because the agency gets increased funding, authority and prestige.
All security agencies hold fund raisers, usually feeding off the same ethnic group or political group. The events you mention in your post were fund raisers for state security. Fund raisers are used to justify totalitarian controls.

Security agencies always seem benign at first but their absolute powers, secrecy and unaccountability attract people who lust for power and feed on other people’s pain.

How ’bout we do unto others as they do unto us.

Good idea on the wire transfers… we might not have to add a tax, we could have the IRS chase the wires for money laundering / tax fraud.

slim chance of it happening though.

That’s one of the silliest assertions I have read. Did strong security measures in the 1930′s cause the wave of terrorism engineered by Hitler and Mussolini? How about the terrorism perpetrated by the Soviets? Did strong security measures cause Muslim terror attacks on Christians and Jews over the last how-ever-many centuries? (And remember that attacks usually took place where Muslims held all the power while “infidels” were helpless to resist.) Did strong security measures cause the lynching of “uppity negros” in the South? Need I go on? The idea that terrorism is caused by strong border security is risible.

Nonsense. Their problems, at root, are cultural: entrenched elites, bureaucracy, anti-democratic institutions, barriers to individual initiative, corruption, lack of trust, and so on. Mexico is not going to magically cease to be a corrupt and anti-democratic country through unlimited immigration to America.

Like I said in the post above, those who propose free immigration only have one arrow in their quiver.

Next time why don’t you cut to the chase and simply accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with you as being a racist?

(Thank you kindly for proving my point so well, CB.)

James

This doesn’t happen overnight. It usually takes one or two centuries before the genocide happens. Considering how social change is accelerated today due to technology, how long would we have? 50 years? 75, maybe?”

I would classify that as a perfect example of xenophobia. Now I understand the source of your post. Maybe next time you can just cut to the chase and admit you’re afraid of Mexicans taking over the country.

Only if the immigrants are willing to work for no benefits, off the books, and for a lower salary than a native born worker.

What you are describing is usually referred to as “slave wages” , and for good reason.

I’m keenly interested in history, and I note that what you are proposing has been tried by a fair number of societies in the past. They always come to regret it when the workers, who have a distinct culture, rise up against the smaller numbers of their ruling class. Look up what the Romans did to the Etruscans if you need an example.

This doesn’t happen overnight. It usually takes one or two centuries before the genocide happens. Considering how social change is accelerated today due to technology, how long would we have? 50 years? 75, maybe?

Sorry, but I really think your proposal is short sighted and extremely dangerous. I just don’t want to live the high life just to have my children and grandchildren wiped off the face of the Earth.

James

First, it is profoundly dishonest to conflate immigrants with illegal immigrants.

Second, the idea that free-market will regulate the flow of immigrants does not hold because illegal immigrants are fleeing countries like Mexico where the market is weak or non-existent. Essentially, we benefit from labor at below market cost because the people cannot freely sell their labor back home. It the same as hiring war refugees at far below market rates.

Thirdly, while illegal immigrants come here to work, they can nevertheless consume more public resources than they produce short term. This is especially true in locals where wildly disproportionate numbers of illegals concentrate.

Forth, unless someone has repealed the law of supply and demand, importing large numbers of low skilled workers will inevitably lower wages for native born low skill workers.

Don’t trivialize the impact that uncontrolled illegal immigration can have in certain localities.

Remember Nazi Germany grew out of an act of terrorism – the Reichstag Fire. And no matter how closely the Gestapo watched, there was always another act of terrorism or another assassination plot which required even more stringent security measures. And none of the German people, including the Fuhrer himself) were safe in their homes. The GPU/NKVD/KGB had similar problems in the Soviet Union.

Today both Castro and Kim Jong Il continue to beef up internal security because of terrorist threats. And today neither Castro nor Kim nor their subjects are safe in their homes.

Strong security measures cause terrorism. Terrorism is defeated by having minimal security measures at home and strict prohibitions of nuclear and biological weapons and terrorist training anywhere in the world.

You are mostly right about Mississippi and Louisiana, but you are wrong about Georgia. Georgia is growing rapidly, just like Florida; and I’d say that Georgians are similarly as wealthy as Floridians. There are more Georgians in Metro Atlanta than there are residents in either Louisiana or Mississippi; and IIRC there are more Georgians than the sum of the population of Mississippi and Louisiana.

2. That foreigners abandon their homes and families and take huge risks to come to America just so that they can get free medical care, free housing and free money that is our welfare system.

3. That foreigners are bent on destroying America

Answers
1. Utter non-sense. It is impossible for a country to have a zero sum economy. Economies either grow or shrink. Old ideas, inflexibility cause an economy to shrink. New ideas, fresh blood, enthusiasm create economic growth. Immigrants don’t steal jobs, they create jobs. They start businesses and hire people. Look at Silicon valley. Look at South Florida, San Antonio, Chicago, New York City. Who owns the businesses and what color are the employees?

2. People who are too lazy to work are too lazy to migrate. Immigrants are typically hard working, entrepreneurial types who come to the US for jobs, not for welfare. And when they get here, if they can’t find a job, they start a new business and create a job for themselves and their friends.

Florida is one of the richest states in the US and Mississippi-Georgia-Louisiana are among the poorest. Welfare payments in NY and California are enormously higher than in M-G-L. Yet there is no flood of M-G-L welfare recipients to Fla or to NY or to Calif. And there are no border guards in Florida or NY to keep M-G-L immigrants out. The only way to get the welfare people (regardless of whether they are US citizens or Central Americans) to move is to bus them out like they did during Katrina. Recent experience shows they won’t come back.

This suggests we should close our borders to bus loads of people who are being shipped out by their own government.

3. 99.9% of immigrants want to build America and make it better. The 0.1% that want to destroy us will always be able to slip past broad general screening.

Conclusion

Immigration is good for US, and unlimited immigration will make us rich.

With unlimited immigration from Central America coupled with unlimited investment and ownership by US citizens legalized in Central America all of Central America would become as rich as the United States and the US economy would become the fastest growing economy in the world.

Present plans on limiting immigration and increasing government surveillance of all Americans to root out illegals and terrorists will give us an economy and a government similar to North Korea’s.

Funny that they think everyone is racist when even a most conservative shmuck is less racist or discriminatory then them.

As an aside, I think we really need to make sure that serving in the military is a good shortcut and near guarantee of citizenship. They want in, see a recruiter.

I have no doubt that some people’s opposition to immigration of any kind results from xenophobia, nativism or racism. However, there are more than enough practical concerns wholly unrelated to race in the question of illegal immigration that even bringing it up seems pointless. The idea that all opposition to illegal immigration would evaporate if the illegals all had blue-eyes and pale skin is simply silly.

Many accusations of racism in the modern arena posit that middle America is so racist that they will spend enormous sums of money and forgo enormous economic opportunities merely to act out their racist delusions. Such is the case in the immigration debate. We are told that illegal immigrants are an unalloyed good and that people who oppose illegal immigration do so against their own enlightened self-interest.

I don’t buy it.