Illegal Immigration & Objectivism

[DarkWaters]

There are reminders in the news every day about how the horrifically low capacities on H-1B visas (what young professionals such as doctors, engineers, professors, accountants, computer programmers and the like need) are bad for the United States economy. Citing difficulty securing enough H-1B visas for its employees, Microsoft is opening a facility in Vancouver before the end of the year. The location should employee around 900 workers within a few years.

That same article contains the shocking figure:

The United States grants about 85,000 H-1B visas annually to workers with skills in specialized fields. A record 150,000, requests, or nearly double the annual quota, were filed on just the first day applications were accepted for this year's allotment.

The emphasis is mine.

If the United States government does not expand H-1B visas in the near future, companies who wish to employee individuals with cutting-edge technological training will have no other option than to do business outside of the United States.

Edited July 6, 2007 by DarkWaters

[stephenmallory]

*** Mod's note: Was split from another topic. -sN ***

I wrote the following essay about a month ago. While it's primary focus, illegal immigration, is a problem that Britain and America do not share, it does address the issues arising from the widespread use of concepts like "cultural integration" and "national way of life" in culturally-fragmented, economically-mixed countries like Britain and America. I hope it is of some value to you.

Immigration is an act of judgement. The immigrant is declaring that his new country is more desireable in some way to his old one. However, the immigration of one man - or even millions of men - from many nations to one nation is not sufficient evidence to determine it's superior desirability. But if a proper diagnosis of the qualty of a nation cannot be found in the mere fact that it attracts immigrants, it can be found in an analysis of the type of immigrants it attracts.

Many immigrants are attracted to America for many different reasons. Yet despite the vast varity of nationalities and opportunities present in this country, they can be boiled down to two basic types of people that immigrate for two basic reasons. First, there are those who sincerely wish to take advantage of the opportunities to create wealth that America offers and then there are those who wish merely to take advantage of the wealth already created. No one who has honestly looked at the facts can responsibly lump all immigrants into one of these two groups or the other. The situation is just too fuzzy.

Like Americans themselves, many would-be Americans practice personal independence while just as many do not. Unlike what it has done historically, America is no longer attracting just one type of immigrant, but two. So at every border crossing and at every immigration office a bottle neck has formed. Frequently, this bottleneck spills over into the highly-controversial, endlessly-debated phenomenon known as illegal immigration.

Of course, there are legitimate reasons for a nation to be concerned about even well-meaning, non-violent people crossing it's borders without it's permission. Borders are the only means that a nation has for determining just how well-meaning and non-violent the people are who wish to cross them. Unfortunately, none of the prominent "solutions" to America's illegal immigration problem keep this in mind. Instead they get tied up in knots trying to protect something they call "the American way of life."

What makes all of these proposals repugnant is this gigantic face which they all rely upon. If ever there was a concept that needed to be exposed as for the fraud that it is, "the American way of life" is it. If some Americans employ a vast underbelly of illegal immigrants to do jobs they find undesirable, then their exponents try to define that as the American way of life. If, on the other hand, some Americans benefit from large paychecks immune from increased competition in the labor market, then their interests are construed to be the American way of life.

Properly, there should never be a distinctly "American way of life" in the sense that it is meant. As a free soceity, the predominant way of life in America is free to change whenever Americans wish it to. If Americans are farmers or secretaries, if they live in large cities or in sprawling suburbs, if they worship Jesus or Allah should all be the result of their individual choices and not the result of a social makeup shaped by government policy.

It is within this cultural contradiction that the political debate over illegal immigration is framed. Consequently, the mainstream discussion is a series of endless quibbling about the effects of illegal immigrants have on American society, and a complete evaion of the conditions that attracted them here in the first place. Unlike an immigrant, who has to decide what is important to him personally, and in which country he has the best chance of attaining it, America's leaders can pick and choose from a variety of American lifestyles when they compile their definition of "the American lifestyle."

Because the range of choices is as vast as the culture, the range proposed solutions for defending their patchwork definitions is equally as wide. They range from hardline, wholesale deportation of illegal immigrants if the goal is to portray a position of strength and patriotism all the way to calls for amnesty or foreign aid programs designed to assuage the portion of the citizenry who prefer to think that they vote with their hearts and not with their minds. Yet despite all of their periferal differences every proposal is united by the same two essential characteristics - a belief that illegal immigration can be confronted directly and an utter evasion of it's underlying causes. Without exception, they offer a continuation of the now bedrock American belief that all social and economic problems require some kind of positive action on behalf of the government.. Even the proposal with the greatests chance of winning - the "illegal immigration is not a problems if we pretend it's not a problem" approach known as "Amnesty" - is a shining example of the superficial, pragmatic attitudes that premeate the debate on this issue. These "solutions" trip over one another to try to avoid the underlying reason for why American attracts to many - and consequently so many illegal - immigrants.

Yet, amongst the glaring contradiction between America's insistence that it possesses way of life and the deep divisions that erupt when it attempts to defend it, there is one element that can be used as a starting point for any true, permanent solution to the illegal immigration problem. America is still essentially a free country. It is America's freedom - it's respect for individual rights and private property in it's governing documents and culture at large - that is the precondition for all of it's wealth. Without the freedom to create wealth in the first place there would be nothing for any of the contending "solutions" to illegal immigration to bicker over defending. There would be no harsh working conditions to complain about because there would be no work to perform. Labor unions, who seem to be in a perpetual state of outrage over falling wages and foreign competition, would have nothing to negotiate or to keep from being shipped overseas. Without America's fundamental freedom to produce and to keep what one produces, therecertainly would not be any opportunity for a poor, unskilled illegal immigrant to make a better life for himself.

Too much immigration, and it's byproduct - illegal immigration - is a symptom of a much deeper disease afflicting American society. America's stubborn refusal to remember and adhear to what, if anything, could be considered it's way of life, is what truly needs to be dealt with.

Edited September 10, 2007 by softwareNerd
Added topic-split note.

[softwareNerd]

Stephen, Could you explain your concluding summary in some more detail.

Too much immigration, and it's byproduct - illegal immigration - is a symptom of a much deeper disease afflicting American society. America's stubborn refusal to remember and adhear to what, if anything, could be considered it's way of life, is what truly needs to be dealt with.

Are you saying that if the U.S. got back to its roots, and became more free, then less people would want to immigrate here? Wouldn't such a move make the U.S. more attractive to certain immigrants while making it less attractive to others?

[stephenmallory]

SoftwareNerd,

That's exactly what I'm saying. I think you're right to say that if America went back to it's roots then more people who want to be independent would come here than do now. As it stands now, at least economically, America is more or less just as free as many other industrialized nations. However, combined with the fact that no people who just want to mooch would come here, I think it's safe to conclude that the overall number of wanna-be Americans would be lower than it is today. Low enough to a point that they could all be adequately processed by the INS.

I left that last paragraph somewhat nebulous on purpose. I wrote the article for a non-philosophical audience and so I hoped that the paragraph's implication could be found through simple common sense. A conclusion reached independently is much more powerful than having one spelled out to you.

Edited September 10, 2007 by stephenmallory

[DavidOdden]

Unlike what it has done historically, America is no longer attracting just one type of immigrant, but two. So at every border crossing and at every immigration office a bottle neck has formed. Frequently, this bottleneck spills over into the highly-controversial, endlessly-debated phenomenon known as illegal immigration.

First, this is inaccurate as a statement of fact. There can be significant lines at ports of entry, but this is not a universal problem. Second, you haven't correctly identified the cause of the delays. They are due to an interaction between improperly restrctive US entry policy and ordinary economic factors regarding airline flights. Address the first and the second is seriously reduced. It is simply wrong to imply that border crossing delays are caused by too many welfare-seeking foreigners wishing to move to the US.

Borders are the only means that a nation has for determining just how well-meaning and non-violent the people are who wish to cross them.

No, this is totally false. If we suppose that there should be a law that prevents the entry of a person convicted of a violent crime (assuming that the country of conviction has an objective system of law where criminal conviction have a relationship to the deeds of the accused), then it is enough to say that people who have been convicted of a violent crime cannot enter the US, and all others may enter freely. It is the fact that the US improperly restricts immigration and does not even follow objectively stated law and due process that leads to illegal immigration.

Even the proposal with the greatests chance of winning - the "illegal immigration is not a problems if we pretend it's not a problem" approach known as "Amnesty" - is a shining example of the superficial, pragmatic attitudes that premeate the debate on this issue.

But first, you have to establish that there is a problem. The problem is, in fact, exactly the fact that the government prohibits people from freely moving into the US. Before proposing a solution, you have to show that there is actually a problem. Analogously, what about the illegal drug problem? How do we stop the illegal traffic of drug into and with the US? (Answer: this is not the business of government).

Too much immigration, and it's byproduct - illegal immigration - is a symptom of a much deeper disease afflicting American society. America's stubborn refusal to remember and adhear to what, if anything, could be considered it's way of life, is what truly needs to be dealt with.

There's no such thing as "too much immigration". The cause of "too much illegal immigration" is the improper existence of restrictions on freedom of movement. America's stubborn refusal to respect the right of any man to seek peaceful trade is what needs to dealt with.

[stephenmallory]

DavidOdden,

Setting aside the fact that my use of "border crossing" and "immigration offices" are somewhat metaphorical in that they symbolize the immigration process as a whole, I agree with your reasons for the literal bottleneck at these places. However, you imply that those reasons arose in a vaccum and that if America simply declared "We're loosening restrictions on immigration" that would change the fact that this country's social services are overwhelmed in part by illegal immigrations. In fact, it would just make their share of the burden greater. What needs to be challenged first a foremost is the existence of the social services and economic favoritism by the government. These are the reasons why immigration laws are so stringent. In a free economy, the mere presence of an immigrant in America would not automatically pose a threat to someone's bank account because no one would be legally entitled to be immune from hunger, nor homelessness, nor competition in the economy.

To address your other point, yes, there is such a thing as "too much immigration" if it means that the government isn't able to process everyone. I do believe that illegal immigration is a problem. I think that any time anyone breaks the law it is a problem. That's why I'm opposed to the American government providing welfare and playing favorites in the economy - it's breaking the law of the land: individual liberty. The fact that they again break the law when they place restrictions on immigration to protect the results of their first transgression is only secondary. When the government behaves illegally it compels individuals to behave illegally aswell. Even in a completely free society, there would still be people who would view the requirement to immigrate legally as an unfair burden and who would jump the border anyways. Libertarians, anarchists, and criminals come to mind. I agree that a considerable portion of illegal immigrants already here pose no threat to us and it's completely understandable that they chose to bypass the illegitimate immigration process. I am not opposed to amensty per se, but only after this country dismantles it's welfare system and lobbying industry. Once that happens, the independent illegals will stay and the moochers will slowly retreat to their homelands.

Edited September 10, 2007 by stephenmallory

[DavidOdden]

However, you imply that those reasons arose in a vaccum and that if America simply declared "We're loosening restrictions on immigration" that would change the fact that this country's social services are overwhelmed in part by illegal immigrations.

Okay, well to be clear about this, the reasons for immigration restrictions was primarily the desire to exclude ethnically undesireable people (Irish Catholics, Chinese, Slavs, Jews escaping Hitler), and pressure from labor to exclude cheap migrant labor. Since there is actually no evidence that immigrants causes a greater demand on our lush social services compared to non-immigrants, restricting immigration is misguided on those grounds. The solution to the fact that we have too many entitlements payed with tax dollars is to eliminate those entitlements. So I agree that

What needs to be challenged first a foremost is the existence of the social services and economic favoritism by the government.

But I disagree that

These are the reasons why immigration laws are so stringent.

unless you mean "this is the excuse used by many populists to maintain restrictions on immigration".

To address your other point, yes, there is such a thing as "too much immigration" if it means that the government isn't able to process everyone.

But it isn't the proper function of government to "process" people. Note that the US government is able to process orders of magnitude more income tax returns than immigrants within a year, so clearly the handful of immigrants who actually come to the US is nowhere near so high that the government is "swamped".

I think that any time anyone breaks the law it is a problem.

Right, but the problem is created by having improper laws, just as the problem of illegal drug sales is created by having improper drug laws.

I am not opposed to amensty per se, but only after this country dismantles it's welfare system and lobbying industry.

I don't understand the logic. Some immigrants get tax-funded benefits, some non-immigrants get tax-funded benefits. Wouldn't the solution be to expel all recipients of welfare, whether they be citizen or non-citizen?

[stephenmallory]

DavidOdden,

I agree that immigrants, legal or illegal, are less of a burden on the welfare state than are natives. That's rather obvious, there's far fewer of them. However, they certainly make up part of that burden, and it's certainly part of the reason why immigration is such a touchy issue. I've heard admitted socialist Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT) make this very complaint (Which, by the way, was a very spooky "Ominous Parallel" towards National Socialism). And of course every shallow Republican conflates immigration with welfare and so they think they're opposed to immigrants when they're really just opposed to welfare.

But with all of that said, I'm not in favor of restricting immigration - just making sure that it occurs in an orderly fashion. I don't think that we need anything like a moratorium on immigration or restrictive entrance requirements. What we need is a change in our culture and economy back to liberty and capitalism. Until then political opportunism (excuses) will be the reason why restrictive entrance requirements continue to (not necessarily are caused to) exist.

As for what I said about "too much immigration" I was speaking in a hypothetical context; one where the US had returned to capitalism and it's government had shrunk to it's proper size. I should have made that more apparent. Of course, right now, if the government really wanted to change the immigration situation, they could easily do so by diverting it's resources from something else. I'm all for abolishing, say, the IRS and using that money to expand the INS, but I don't think that would be necessary if the welfare state disappeared since the overall number of immigrants would drop considerably.

I agree with you that the problem is created by having improper laws. We just disagree which improper law is causing the phenomenon of massive illegal immigration. I say that it's more fundamental than overly restrictive entrance policies - it's laws which created the welfare state and institutionalize economic favoritism - and that by attacking those laws first, you'll not only decrease the amount of illegal immigration, but you'll also be in a position where there would be no cause to keep entrance policies as restrictive as they currently are.

As for the last point, I don't know where you get the idea that anyone should be expelled. The problem is not that anyone, native or immigrant, legal or not, is here, it's what they do while they're here. In a free society, if they lay around and wait for the government to take care of them they're either going to die, or they're going to go back to whereever they came from. No, they're not going to be taken care of in Mexico either, but at least they can read the street signs and eat familiar food.

[aequalsa]

Since there is actually no evidence that immigrants causes a greater demand on our lush social services compared to non-immigrants, restricting immigration is misguided on those grounds.

This sort of thing keeps being said in debates on immigration here and I don' t know why since there are many studies done on the subject. Also common sense and simple mathematical abilities can let us deduce that it is very likely true that they consume more then they pay in taxes. 2/3 are lacking a high school diploma and live below the poverty line. As such they pay very little in taxes, usually have no health insurance, and do not pay for private school for their children. So emergency rooms become free clinics and public schools are used often by people with a higher then average birthrate. Also documented is the cost of identity theft every year which must be done by the 12-20 million illegal immigrants in order to have a job.

I really don't understand the point of contention on this issue since every city within 500 miles of our southern border is wailing underneath the pain of these costs. If it wasn't a burden they would not all be complaining about the cost.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/10/...in2667167.shtml

There are plenty more studies out there. "illegal immigration" and "cost" will bring up as many as one cares to read.

[softwareNerd]

On the other hand, in mid-west suburbia, I see a whole lot of south-American looking men doing most of the lawn and construction work, but I seldom see women and kids. Also, during my visits to the city hospital ER I see very few Mexican-looking folk there. The papers have no stories about these immigrants being a problem for the local governments, even though these men are to be spotted everywhere and everyday. So, it's my best guess that -- in the mid-west -- these immigrants cost the government little or nothing.

That is not to say that California (for instance) is not bleeding money to immigrants. The fair solution is for California to stop spending this money, whether on immigrants or on others.

Edited September 11, 2007 by softwareNerd

[~Sophia~]

And if you google

misconceptions illegal immigration cost

you may find this:

Research on the foreign-born generally finds that immigrants are less likely than natives to use public services and that most of those who do use them are refugee groups.

George J. Borjas & Lynette Hilton, Immigration nd the Welfare State: Immigrant Participation in Means-Tested Entitlement Programs.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 111: 575-604, 1996

Michael Fix & Jeffrey S. Passel, Immigration and Immigrants: Setting the Record Straight. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1994.

Studies that focus specifically on undocumented immigrants suggest they use public services at rates far below those of legal immigrants. A 1987 study, for example, found that just 2 percent of illigal Mexican immigrants had ever received welfare or Social Security payments and just 3 percent had ever accepted food stamps. In contrast, 84 percent paid taxes.

Most undocumented immigrants get no public benefits, no welfare, no food stamps, no preventative or pre-natal care so they rely on emergency care. The use of ER services by undocumented immigrants is very small compared to the per capita use by the general population.

Most of the undocumented population are healthy, working age people and employed. They can’t afford not to work.

Douglas S. Massey, Rafael Alarcón, Jorge Durand & Humberto González, Return to Aztlan: The Social Process of International Migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987.

-------------------------------

Nevada ranks fifth in the nation in its total immigrant population, with an estimated 60,000 illegal immigrants from countries such as Mexico.

ARE NEVADA'S HISPANIC IMMIGRANTS a drain on the state's economy? A new report commissioned by the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada says not a chance. In fact, PLAN's Vital Beyond Belief report says the Silver State's economy couldn't survive without the contributions of Hispanic immigrants "The bottom line is that immigrants have been vital to the building of our country and the building of Nevada."

According to the report, Nevada's Hispanic immigrants paid $1.6 billion in state and local taxes in 2005, the most recent year available. If those numbers hold true this year, then Hispanic immigrants may pay as much as a third of the taxes required for the current proposed state budget of $3.4 billion.

In addition, the report says that Hispanic immigrant employment, income and spending in Nevada generates 108,380 jobs. One of those job sectors is in real estate. "It's huge," says Jason Madiedo, a local real estate broker.

-----------------------

The lessons of Colorado are instructive: After legislators there passed the toughest set of immigration laws in the country, Colorado state agencies are having to spend exorbitant sums to comply with the laws and there's no indication that the rules are saving any money. According to The Denver Post, 18 state agencies reported an additional $2.03 million in costs without saving any money. More importantly, "none of the departments could say how many, if any, illegal immigrants were being denied state-funded services."

[hunterrose]

Well played

[aequalsa]

Studies that focus specifically on undocumented immigrants suggest they use public services at rates far below those of legal immigrants. A 1987 study, for example, found that just 2 percent of illigal Mexican immigrants had ever received welfare or Social Security payments and just 3 percent had ever accepted food stamps. In contrast, 84 percent paid taxes.

Don't you find any report which states that the poorest people in the country are least likely to utilize free government services to be a little suspect?

The obfuscation is poorly attempted. Welfare, SS, and and food stamps require citizenship. Only way they could collect those is with fake ID which is quite common as every bust of a meat packing plant will show. So that usage will mainly show up as use by "citizens"

The other costs which are used very often, such as the ones I mentioned-schools, hospitals, etc are conveniently left out.

The nevada example immediately conflates legal immigrants with illegals.

Keep on the rose colored glasses if you care to. I have extensive first hand experience with many and no shadow of a doubt how well the system is played by them. Asking me to believe otherwise is something like asking me to believe the sky is green.

[stephenmallory]

As I said in my essay, it doesn't matter if these people are legal or illegal immigrants, the point is that they're here. More people are coming here than would otherwise if this country only offered economic opportunity or only offered welfare, not both. It's probably true that the majority of immigrants are self-supporting just the same way that it's true that the majority of native-born Americans are self-supporting in a a majority of the aspects of their lives. That's great, but it isn't relevant to my point.

My only point is that without social services (and yes, I include public schools, ERs, city parks, and public transportation in this category) there would be fewer immigrants - and thus could be handled legally by the INS. I don't know why there's a disection of illegal vs. legal immigrants, or this government service vs. that government service going on in this thread. Like I said, most illegal immigration only happens because these people would have to wait years to simply enter the country legally - let alone become citizens. If they didn't have the promise of well-paying jobs COMBINED with the promise of relatively clean, safe streets, efficient transportation, and free education, many of them wouldn't come here, legally or otherwise.

[softwareNerd]

I don't know why there's a disection of illegal vs. legal immigrants, or this government service vs. that government service going on in this thread. Like I said, most illegal immigration only happens because these people would have to wait years to simply enter the country legally - let alone become citizens.

If you mean that the bottleneck is the number, time and resources of government immigration officials, then this is simply not true. The bottleneck is the law. It is the law that limits the number and type of people who may come to the U.S.

These legal limits apply not just in the area of low-paid jobs, but even to middle-income jobs. For instance, in spite of the growth in India's economy, there are more Indian software engineers who want to come to the U.S. to work each year than the U.S. will allow. The law stipulates an annual quota. In the days of the "year-2000-fix programming", the U.S. raised this quota to about 200,000 people per year [the "H-1,2,3,4 visas quota"]. It was later reduced to 65,000 per year (still later, raised again, to an intermediate figure). When the quota was 200,000 per year, the INS had no trouble processing cases. So, why reduced it to 65,000?

A similar situation holds for "green cards". It really ought not take all that much to process a Green card application (i.e., an application for "permanent residence" in the U.S.). However, the law imposes "country-specific" quotas. For instance, suppose 5 well-qualified researchers with Masters degrees from the U.S., but born in China, Philippines, Mexico, India and Chile, respectively, file applications for green cards. It takes the government a little over a year to study the applications (the "processing time"). After that is done, the person from Chile gets his Green Card; but, the folks from those other countries have to wait for a few years because "too many" people from their country have received applications in that year. The Indian guy will probably wait 4 more years. (Check this out. I've posted it before. This is a friend of mine who wanted to immigrate to the U.S.)

Further, the time that the government takes to process applications ought not to be that long. For instance, in work-permits and work-based green-cards, a lot of the steps involve a study of the immigrants qualifications, a study of the hiring company's needs and so on. All this is totally unnecessary. To give you an idea of the process: at one early stage, the hiring company has to show that they tried to hire a local worker. The government employee might scrutinize advertisements that the company placed, he might scrutinize the qualifications of people who applied. At another stage, the government employee may scrutinize the school-transcripts and letters of recommendation of the applicant, matching these up with the job requirements of the hiring company. All these government activities are a complete waste of time. In the Green Card process all this takes the INS one year -- at the minimum. It is only after that is the applicant called for a fingerprinting session, and his prints sent to the FBI, for a security check.

[stephenmallory]

SoftwareNerd,

I already addressed this in response to some of DavidOdden's comments. I agree that the cause of the bottleneck (the strained resources of the INS) is the law. But like I told him, I don't think it would fix the problem to simply relax the entrance requirements to their proper level (which should only involve a criminal and/or military background check). Even at their appropriate levels, I think that the flow of immigrants would still be so large that those background checks couldn't be performed in a timely enough matter to keep the desire to bypass the INS from surfacing. Instead, what needs to be addressed is America's mixed-economy - it's welfare state and economic-political favortism. These things are the cause of all the extraneous things required to immigrate. If we did away with those things, the immigration laws would naturally relax themselves and the overall number of wanna-be Americans would decrease.

Edited September 11, 2007 by stephenmallory

[gags]

Instead, what needs to be addressed is America's mixed-economy - it's welfare state and economic-political favortism. These things are the cause of all the extraneous things required to immigrate. If we did away with those things, the immigration laws would naturally relax themselves and the overall number of wanna-be Americans would decrease.

I'm not sure that I understand you here. If we were to eliminate the welfare state and economic-political favoratism, it seems apparent that we would experience greater freedom and economic prosperity. If that occured, I assume that more people would want to come to this country, which wouldn't be a bad thing, in my opinion.

[stephenmallory]

I'm not sure that I understand you here. If we were to eliminate the welfare state and economic-political favoratism, it seems apparent that we would experience greater freedom and economic prosperity. If that occured, I assume that more people would want to come to this country, which wouldn't be a bad thing, in my opinion.

Well, for one thing, history doesn't support this claim. Central and South Americans stayed away from America for a long time. Excepting Cuba, it's not like Latin America is worse off than it was a century ago, so something about America must have changed that attracts Latin Americans here in record numbers. Yes, America discriminated against hispanics back then in their immigration policies, but those generalizations - qua generalizations - were not unfounded. Immigration policies reflect a nation's self-image and back then only people who were thought would support themselves were let in. Today, supporting yourself isn't required in America so we don't require it of immigrants and not even a crude, race-based attempt at it is made.

As I've said earlier in this thread, I agree that if laizzes-faire were implimented in this country that would create more prosperity and attract more immigrants, but I think that any addition would be smaller than the subtraction of people who plan to come here because of the extraneous government services that will improve, in whole or in part, their quality of life.

[Moebius]

My only point is that without social services (and yes, I include public schools, ERs, city parks, and public transportation in this category) there would be fewer immigrants - and thus could be handled legally by the INS. I don't know why there's a disection of illegal vs. legal immigrants, or this government service vs. that government service going on in this thread. Like I said, most illegal immigration only happens because these people would have to wait years to simply enter the country legally - let alone become citizens. If they didn't have the promise of well-paying jobs COMBINED with the promise of relatively clean, safe streets, efficient transportation, and free education, many of them wouldn't come here, legally or otherwise.

Well actually I think that the single most important reason people immigrate to the United States is for the fact that they'd be able to make many times the amount of income what they would back home. It's that simple.

Even if you take away all the government amenities, if in a month's time working in the United States a man can make say, a year worth of salary back home, he's probably going to do it. This problem isn't unique with the United States. People from poorer countries moving (whether legally or illegally) into richer ones to work is a world-wide phenomenon, whether or not the destination country is the land of the free (case in point the large amount of south east Asians that work overseas in the middle-east). As long as the income gaps between nations are sufficiently large, you're going to continue to have boat loads of people moving into the US.

But yeah, better standards of living are a plus. But that doesn't change the fact that in the end this is just about money, not about freedom.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Moebius

[Moebius]

As I've said earlier in this thread, I agree that if laizzes-faire were implimented in this country that would create more prosperity and attract more immigrants, but I think that any addition would be smaller than the subtraction of people who plan to come here because of the extraneous government services that will improve, in whole or in part, their quality of life.

I think your mistake is in assuming that people are either here to work, or here to mooch.

The government services is, for all intents and purposes, A PART OF an immigrants evaluation of his potential income in the United States if you translate the said services into monetary terms. So if the increased wages due to greater economic prosperity is significantly large, an immigrant will have an incentive to move to the US regardless of whether the government services exist, since they will be able to simply pay for those now-privatized services.

To put it even more succinctly, as long as (prosperous American wages - cost of privatized services) > (current American wages + dollar value of government services), logically immigrants will move here regardless of the lack of social services. The numbers really could work out either way, since it's all hypothetical. I honestly don't see how you can definitively say with any logical backup why the number of additional immigrants due to greater prosperity will necessarily be smaller than the current number.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Moebius

[~Sophia~]

Don't you find any report which states that the poorest people in the country are least likely to utilize free government services to be a little suspect?

That maybe so but I also know that one of the major concerns of illegal immigrants is staying under the radar and thus they are very reluctant to use all/any public services, including banking. They rather stash their money under the matress (and often that is not little change - it can be years worth of their work), put a bandaid on a severe wound or if they truly need medical assistance - rather pay cash for a visit with someone of often questionable medical credentials operating from his basement - than use a public service. When illegal immigrants end up at the emergency room - it is often the last resort with no other options - if they can help it - they rather not.

Only way they could collect those is with fake ID which is quite common as every bust of a meat packing plant will show. So that usage will mainly show up as use by "citizens".

Fake IDs are mostly used only to get a job. Again the least amount of exposure is what illegal immigrants aim for. Also fake IDs are being created with the aid of legal immigrants and native born Americans (one can obtain illegally - a real driving licence from people working at the DMVs - for a fee).

The other costs which are used very often, such as the ones I mentioned-schools, hospitals, etc are conveniently left out.

This IS hard to track but there was a study done called Mexico Migration Project (MMP) by Princeton University and the University of Guadalajara which tracked the rates of tax withholding and public-service use by undocumented Mexican migrants. Nearly 6,000 migrants provided this information on their last trip to the United States (at this point they had nothing to loose by providing this information - and I also don't think they had to give out their name). 66% of migrants reported the withholding of SS taxes and 62 % said that employers withheld income taxes from their paychecks. At the same time very few made use of any public service in the United States. Around 10 % have ever sent a child to U.S. public schools and 7% indicated they had recerived SS Income. Arround 5 % of all migrants reported ever using food stamps, AFDC, or unemployment compensation.

The nevada example immediately conflates legal immigrants with illegals.

Yes it does but they do have a high % of illegals among their immigrant population there.

Keep on the rose colored glasses if you care to. I have extensive first hand experience with many and no shadow of a doubt how well the system is played by them. Asking me to believe otherwise is something like asking me to believe the sky is green.

I don't think I have a rose colored glasses on. First they are all breaking the law. Second there will be those who will play the system (those people exist in every population) but I find that most of those from among immigrant population are, in fact, legal immigrants. They have a better access to social programs and they are not facing/risking deportation when using them. (Aside from using social programs legitimately, some also, for example, collect unemployment benefits and work for cash at the same time.)

In my opinion, there is no immigration crisis. This current xenophobia is no more warranted than it has been in the past. It is all smoke and mirrors - a diversion from real problems associated with the existance and unsustainablity of a welfare state. It is also ment as a diversion from weaknesses and errors of the current administration in many areas. But lets stay with the first. All kinds of problems with social programs are being blamed on illegal immigrants (instead of on the true nature of socialism) as if those problems would not have existed otherwise, as if illegal immigrants are the CAUSE of those disfunctions. If you deport them all you will still be left with inadequate, ill-concieved, ill-managed, unjust programs with enough people using them legally to be a huge burden (the cost per student in a public system would still be twice as that of a private institution -etc). The true problem is the existance of these programs.

Edited September 11, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[stephenmallory]

Moebius,

Look at the rest of the world. The biggest reason why impoverished nations are impoverished is because the vast majority of the populations choose not to make their lives better. Instead, when they're not engaged in back-breaking labor, they spend their scraps of leisure time doing things like getting drunk or trying to improve their lives by basically wishing them so. Instead of advocating rational political reform, they carry signs around in the street that say "Viva el PRI/Hugo Chavez/Fidel Castro/Evo Morales/et al." Instead of taking stock of their lives and learning how to better manage their time and effort, they spend their time rubbing rosary beads and lighting candles. It's not just that these people live under oppressive regimes or in areas ravaged by tribal-warfare, it's that their cultures (ie: what these people advocate and perpetuate on a daily basis) are not compatable with freedom and capitalism. Dictatorships don't come about in societies where principled respect for individual rights, private property, and hard work are deeply embedded in the culture. It's just the opposite; would-be dictators are masterful exploiters of widespread belief in collectivism, altruism, and mysticism already there.

If America were a nation of laizzes-faire capitalism, what incentive would there be to jump a train moving 60 MPH for the ride through Mexico, risk being swindled by a smuggler or arrested by the Border Patrol (and any time thereafter), to enter a country where you don't speak the language all so you can cut grass for $10 an hour? Would it be worth the risk if you knew that you would have to walk back and forth to work 10 miles through East Los Angeles every day instead of taking the bus? Would it be worth the risk if you knew that should you get hurt, you're basically dead since you don't have health insurance? Would it be worth it to bring your children along if you knew that, because you can't afford to send them to school, all they have to look forward to is a 10 mile walk to their grass cutting job?

Then there's the issue of just why America's labor market pays so well. Do you think it's because we're just swimming in capital left over from 150 years of industrialization and dying to give it away? If it weren't for foriegn governments - many of whom oppress the very immigrants we're discussing - plowing all of the capital that over-taxed, over-regulated American businesses and pragmatic American consumers have given them right back into America's stock, bond, and credit markets, that $10 landscaping job would drop right back down to whatever the market, not the government, says is the minimum wage .

Legal or not, many of the immigrants who come to America today are different from their predecessors. They have no clear intention of staying or assimilating and no love for liberty. They are here to earn what they can and to send every dollar they save on health insurance and car payments back to wherever they came from. They are taking advantage of the mixed economy just like everyone else in America is - for their short term benefit. They come here and do just what most native-born Americans do: expect the affluence that the free market delivers and then expect government help wherever it falls short - ignorant of the fact that it was previous government intervention that caused the short fall.

So you're right, in the end people come to America just for the money - in the form of both bigger paychecks or cheaper (free) and better government services. That's exactly the problem. Just as the cream of America's crop, soaking in affluence yet riddled with philosophical and political contradictions, so goes the cream of the crop of the rest of the world when they show up in America. While those who come to America are certainly better than their unambitious, superstitious neighbors back home, they still share with them the belief that improving one's life comes from the quick-fix of revolution, religion, or relocation instead of philosophical rumination.

Edited September 11, 2007 by stephenmallory

[~Sophia~]

Look at the rest of the world. The biggest reason why impoverished nations are impoverished is because the vast majority of the populations choose not to make their lives better.

But the majority of immigrants do want to make their lives better and they are willing to (and do) work very hard for it.

If America were a nation of laizzes-faire capitalism, what incentive would there be to jump a train moving 60 MPH for the ride through Mexico, risk being swindled by a smuggler or arrested by the Border Patrol (and any time thereafter), to enter a country where you don't speak the language all so you can cut grass for $10 an hour? Would it be worth the risk if you knew that you would have to walk back and forth to work 10 miles through East Los Angeles every day instead of taking the bus? Would it be worth the risk if you knew that should you get hurt, you're basically dead since you don't have health insurance? Would it be worth it to bring your children along if you knew that, because you can't afford to send them to school, all they have to look forward to is a 10 mile walk to their grass cutting job?

Yes it still would be worth it - for many.

Legal or not, many of the immigrants who come to America today are different from their predecessors.

As someone with an insider look into an immigrant community, I can tell you that most are no different.

[stephenmallory]

Sophia,

It's as if you stopped between every paragraph of mine to respond and then continued on to the next. Both of your first two objections are answered in the very next paragraph after the one from which they are derived.

As for there being no difference between immigrants of today and of yesteryear, please do tell me how they're no different. Tell me how never learning English, spending 1/2 of the year or half of your money back home in Mexico, or marching down the streets of major American cities shouting demands is the same as settling in Minnesota and raising 3 or 4 generations of every day Americans.

With all of that said, I agree with you, immigration is not the problem. It's the type of people who are attracted to and thrive in a mixed economy that are the problem no matter where they're from or what language they speak. This type of person is far more numerous than a completely independent or a completely dependent one.

[~Sophia~]

It's as if you stopped between every paragraph of mine to respond and then continued on to the next. Both of your first two objections are answered in the very next paragraph after the one from which they are derived.

I don't agree with your opinions. Most of those who do not want to work hard to better their lives are not those who immigrate.

As for there being no difference between immigrants of today and of yesteryear, please do tell me how they're no different.

I did.

spending 1/2 of the year or half of your money back home in Mexico,

It is their life and their hard earned money - earned performing work you would not want to be doing for the same wage. They can do whatever they want with it including burning it.

or marching down the streets of major American cities shouting demands

LOL. It is the Amercan socialist that are organizing them into solidarity networks - sponsored by labor unions.

is the same as settling in Minnesota and raising 3 or 4 generations of every day Americans.

There is no obligation to do so. But I can tell you, when immigrants raise children, most of the time - it is not few generations - doing so - on welfare.

It's the type of people who are attracted to and thrive in a mixed economy that are the problem no matter where they're from or what language they speak. This type of person is far more numerous than a completely independent or a completely dependent one.

The thing is that most of the immigrants are not those. They work while at the same time American citizens living on public assistance claim that there is no work.