In an update to my previous post about illegal immigration, I saw a debate televised on CNN that was about this subject. One position was taken by veteran newsman Lou Dobbs, while the other was represented by immigrant advocate Maria Elena Salinas. Keeping in mind that it has been some hours since I’ve seen the program, I’d like to share my impressions.
Dobbs was very clear about his stance. He said that he favored restricting immigration due to a wide variety of concerns. Foremost amongst these was concern for the immigrants themselves, since they are prone to exploitation by employers if they aren’t supposed to be in this country.
And Salinas’ rebuttal? She immediately attacked Dobbs and accused him of being a racist! The basis for her charge was that Dobbs only mentioned the 11 million illegals from Mexico while ignoring the estimated 200,000 illegal immigrants who are here from European countries.
Dobbs tried to continue the debate in a moderate tone while Salinas became ever more agitated and shrill. Eventually the newscaster who was supposed to referee this free for all announced that they had lost Salinas’ feed, and she finished up the time allotted by chatting with Dobbs over the issue. Considering how spitting mad Salinas was just before they “lost the feed”, I can’t help but think that she simply unclipped her mic and stormed out in a huff.
I think that this is pretty much the only arrow that the advocates for illegal immigration have in their quiver. “Disagree with us and you are the worst kind of human being.” The very real problems that have to be addressed are swept aside in a torrent of emotion.
Shannon Love left a comment to my previous post that I think can be applied here.
The debate is sliding in to the toilet pretty quick. I think that this will hurt the immigrants in the long term. The only thing is that, should they continue with this sort of behavior, the long term will get here pretty quick.
Racisim? How about xenophobia.
How about right out of the Mexican Constitution –
“Article 33 – Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualities determined in Article 30. They have the right to the guarantees of Chapter I of the first title of this Constitution, but the Executive of the Union has the exclusive right to expel from the national territory, immediately and without necessity of judicial proceedings, all foreigners whose stay it judges inconvenient. Foreigners may not, in any manner, involve themselves in the political affairs of the country.”[Though the Mexican government does so regularly through its consulates in the US.]
“I. Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican associations have the right to obtain ownership of lands, waters, and their accessories, or to obtain mining or ground water concessions.”
I believe the term here is ‘projection’. One of the major factors to America’s vibrant economy is the massive investment and ownership that comes from England, Netherlands, Japan, etc. Its also why the millions of unemployed in Mexico will continue to swarm across the American southern border regardless of ‘immigration reform’. Its called a self inflicted wound.
Democrats should champion the issue, but it’s not necessary that they do so. Support for prop 187 in CA was very high. Pete Wilson rode prop 187 to re-election getting 55% of the vote (he got 49% in 1990.) Prop 187 got full support from everyone but the ninth circuit.
Immigration really isn’t that sensitive of an issue, it consistently has wide support from the public. Americans who support don’t need to worry about appearing xenophobic or uncharitable.
Those who should be concerned are the Mexican lobby who, in overplaying their hand, begins to appear un-American.
I’m not taking any sides, but the reason you cited by Dobbs is pretty stupid. Is he saying that all these millions of people come over and stay even though they are being taken advantage of. If they are being taken advantage of, they would go back. There are plenty of other reasons, but that is stupid, and I can understand the lady calling him a racist, although I’m not endorsing shrill behavior. How mighty white of Dobbs to look out for those poor illegal immigrants. If you don’t want them here, say so, don’t come up w/ bs reasons. Personally, Dobbs is the shrill in my book.
James’ responses seem quite reasonable. Still, while Dobbs is right something needs to be done, I wouldn’t trust his solutions. I haven’t listened to him oftten, but he seems a demagogue –there’s plenty of that on cable, but few are as xenophobic as he. This is the guy obsessed with “Benedidt Arnold” businessmen. On the other hand, exactly who do these people think they are convincing? The immigrants at the turn of the century wanted to be American – they didn’t fly the flag of the country they had left because it was so poorly & corruptly run they saw no future for themselves and so came here.
More info on how there is strong support for reform. No need to worry about being labeled xenophic or racist with such broad support:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060328-102545-2371r.htm
“National polling data could not be more emphatic — and has been so for decades. Gallup Poll (March 27) finds 80 percent of the public wants the federal government to get tougher on illegal immigration. A Quinnipiac University Poll (March 3) finds 62 percent oppose making it easier for illegals to become citizens (72 percent in that poll don’t even want illegals to be permitted to have driver’s licenses). Time Magazine’s recent poll (Jan. 24-26) found 75 percent favor “major penalties” on employers of illegals, 70 percent believe illegals increase the likelihood of terrorism and 57 percent would use military force at the Mexican-American border.
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (March 10-13) found 59 percent opposing a guest-worker proposal, and 71 percent would more likely vote for a congressional candidate who would tighten immigration controls.
An IQ Research poll (March 10) found 92 percent saying that securing the U.S. border should be a top priority of the White House and Congress.
Yet, according to a National Journal survey of Congress, 73 percent of Republican and 77 percent of Democratic congressmen and senators say they would support guest-worker legislation.”
Ginny, you make a good point. This isn’t really about immigration, it’s about Mexico freeloading of the US. Mexico has more billionaires than the whole iberian peninsula (spain and portugal) and ireland combined. They face little internal competition and almost no foreign competition in their respective industries and don’t want the reforms that would be required for Mexico’s economy to move into the 21st century. Instead they want to ship their poor indians over here. Not only do they get rid of liabilities, but they get a tremendous amount of revenue out of it since the migrants send alot of their earnings back to the pueblo.
The real racism in this debate is south of the border. When is the last time you saw a mexican day-laborer in the US that wasn’t short and brown? Now look south of the border. Do any of the politicians or the many people driving mercedes look like that? No, they are all white. Not kind of white, but very white.
That’s the racism we should be talking about. It’s the racism in this debate that is really hurting people.
My Grandparents and Mother had to wait SIX YEARS in a displaced persons camp in Germany after WW2 prior to being let into this country.
We controlled our borders and people waiting to come in. Why are we allowing these people to come here and have better rights then those hoping to come here legally?
Illegal immigration is a problem, but the other side of the problem is that we make legal immigration much too difficult. Controlling our borders is fine but I don’t think we benefit by keeping prospective legal immigrants tied up in red tape for years. People from some countries, such as Haiti, have no realistic hope of immigrating here legally. Meanwhile we give student visas to Saudis.
I think we can safely say in the modern era that “accusations of racism are the last refuge of a scoundrel.” People who cry racism usually do so when they have no other arguments left.
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.
Yeah, racist doesn’t fly. But Dobbs is the classic conservative that Leftists stereotype everyone who doesn’t agree with them as.
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.
Anti-immigrant theory is based
1. on the theory that the American economy is a zero sum game. If a foreigner gets a job, then an American must lose a job.
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.
Unlimited immigration might be good for the economy, but there’s still the question of what it does for security.
W Sol,
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.
The way to stop immigration from central America is to make their countries richer and freer than ours. This can be done by integrating our economy with theirs. Integration can be achieved best by ordinary business men. But legal impediments (such as the clause in the Mexican constitution prohibiting foreign ownership) must be removed or Central America will be forever poor and we will be forever beating back the immigrants. The poor are forever with us only so long as the laws that create the poor are with us.
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.
W Solsen Vason,
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.
Immigration is good for US, and unlimited immigration will make us rich.
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
“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?”
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.
I would classify that as a perfect example of xenophobia.
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
“The way to stop immigration from central America is to make their countries richer and freer than ours. This can be done by integrating our economy with theirs.”
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.
“Strong security measures cause terrorism.”
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.
It seems like a 10% tax on wire transfers to Mexico with funds to go exclusively for a campaign of education and advocacy for the repeal of section 33 of the Mexican Constitution would be in order. Or if a mandatory tax is “out of bounds” because of “neutrality act” principles, why not make it mandatory on the form and optional (out or in)? The Mexican government has provided for mexicans to have a voice in Mexican governance. Why not assist them in getting a real voice?
TM, Section 33!! Great Stuff!
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.
pst314
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.
US immigration policy has been racist since 1790. The 1790 Congress passed the Naturalization Act which permitted white people and only white people to become citizens by naturalization. After the civil War blacks were added to the 1790 law. Beginning 1882, fearing the Yellow Peril”, Congress began passing laws to keep “Asians” out. Indeed according to United States v. Bhaghat Singh Thind, (US Supreme Court, 1923) only white or black people could become naturalized citizens. Orientals and Asian “Indians” might immigrate but they could never become citizens. But just because a law is utterly racist doesn’t make it any less a law. Lex dura sed lex. The 1946 Congress passed a law permitting Orientals and Philippinos to become citizens for the first time in American history. President Truman vetoed the bill but the Republican congress overrode his veto. The immigration quota system from 1920-1965 was designed so that the vast majority of new immigrants were white Anglo-Saxon protestants, Nordic protestants, or Teutonic protestants. Only a very few people from the so-called yellow, brown and black races were allowed into the US. The Oriental quota from 1920-1965 was 100/year.
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.
Shannon Love
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.
Our immigration law is not satisfactory to many people who happen to live in Mexico. They have no voice in making this law. (snip) Thus many Mexicans citizens feel they are neither legally nor morally bound by US immigration law.
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
Again, the Mexican workers (at least in Texas) are ill-served by those such as W Sol Vason who do not admit (nor perhaps understand) James’ arguments. They do not come here because America offers the same opportunity, education, rights, rule of law as their native land. There would be little reason to find American has become Mexico.
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.)
James, Ginny
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.