Illegal Immigration & Objectivism

[stephenmallory]

Sophia,

Yes, most who immigrate here want to better their lives and most work hard. My point is that they wouldn't be trying to better their lives or working hard in America if it weren't for the safety net that the government provides. I'm mostly talking about legal immigrants here. You're probably correct that illegals try to stay underground and don't go to the government for services, but they benefit from them nonetheless - if only through greater law and order (which they don't pay for).

Also, yes, I'm fully aware that they're free to do whatever they want with their money and that they're not obligated to move to Minnesota, learn English, and raise a family. I wasn't addressing their political freedom, I was judging their choices morally. When it comes to your national allegiance, it's a bad idea to literally straddle the fence. I also think that America is a better place to live than Latin America and that any rational person would want to embrace as much of America's culture he can - it's language, it's art, etc. Not just it's money.

Yes, American Socialists and Labor Union put on those solidarity marches. Do they force those immigrants to march in them?

Finally, it's just untrue that the majority of immigrants are not those who thrive in a mixed economy. You seem to keep thinking that I'm only talking about illegals (who, by the way, do benefit from the inflated wages of a regulated, foreign-investment dependent economy). I'm critiquing the majority of all immigrants just as I critique the majority of all Americans. Most Americans are enthusiastic about our mixed economy. They have no reservations about getting paid for their work and at the same time have no reservations about riding the city bus to the public park to hear a National Endowment For the Arts sponsored concert. They think it's all hunky-dorey the same way an immigrant yearns to be in America for the great jobs but also for the great schools.

[aequalsa]

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.

Sophia, this is conjecture. The US deports around 200,000 people annually, the vast majority of which are criminals for other reasons. Very few get picked up in raids. Until recently they were busting 3 businesses a year in the whole of the US for hiring illegals. It really isn't a serious concern. Its more on the level of putting a wall in your house without a permit.

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).

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.

I would have to see the study to really pick it apart, but I do not doubt they have taxes withheld and if you look in the garbage can of any roofing contractor around late January you'll see exactly how much. They pay SS and all payroll taxes but with 9 dependents listed(the maximum allowable claim without needing to provide proof) almost no income tax is paid for the State or fed. Then They never file to collect the refund, because they don't need to.

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

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.)

My point with the illegal identity is that there is no way to measure actual use by illegals because with the fake ID their usage of services will show up as a citizen's usage. The fraud is so prevalent, there is no accurate way to measure. The firsthand experience of doctors and nurses from towns close to the border are probably the most accurate account possible.

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.

I've never disagreed that socialism is the problem. But in practical terms, advocating immediate open borders is like advocating and immediate end to social security or any other communist program. To whatever extent this country ever recovers from this sickness, it will and should happen gradually. Changing it piecemeal will have many unforeseen consequences. As an example consider the $600 billion dollar bank robbery know as the savings and loan crisis. They deregulated the banks but kept them backed by taxpayer money(fdic)? Deregulation is good, but when still connected to other pieces, like federal insurance, the result is disastrous. In the 0's everyone suddenly payed $2 for a loaf of bread instead of one and wondered why? "Deregulation" is why.

The consequences here are that welfare attracts the exact sort of people you don't want, which means more people will ultimately vote for more communism, and more moochers will come. Its not xenophobia. I lived in south florida for several years and spent a lot of time around Cubans. Cubans are here mainly for political reasons and their lifestyle and welfare usage reflect it. Extremely clean houses and neighborhoods, hardworking with very little welfare usage.

As I have said before, I am very much in favor of open borders in the same way I am in favor of private ownership of roads. Someday, it would be nice, but under our current circumstances, it is more likely going to make them worse then better. I am also in favor of ding things in the right order so as to cause the least amount of harm.

[softwareNerd]

I've never disagreed that socialism is the problem. But in practical terms, advocating immediate open borders is like advocating and immediate end to social security or any other communist program.

An immediate opening of the borders won't happen any more than will a quick end to welfare programs. So, I would assume that any Objectivist who advocates open borders also advocates the removal of welfare and other such socialist schemes.

When it comes to voting or supporting a particular bill, then one has to consider the incremental change that the particular politician or bill will bring about. In this sense, it's like other political issues. For instance, one might advocate very tough action against Iran, but be willing to support something less. I think many immigration bills that are mixed-bags might be worthy of support. However, as a voter, I must not be giving all and getting nothing. Many Republicans today want enforcement and nothing more. Such bills do not deserve support.

(As an aside, I vaguely remember that you and I might have decided -- a long time ago -- to agree to disagree on immigration. If my memory is right, remind me, and I'll shut up. )

[~Sophia~]

I've never disagreed that socialism is the problem. But in practical terms, advocating immediate open borders is like advocating and immediate end to social security or any other communist program. To whatever extent this country ever recovers from this sickness, it will and should happen gradually.

I am not sure that immediate open borders is the solution either (I am willing to listen to the argument of those who do think so). What I don't agree with is the notion that there is a crisis and that additional money must be/should be spend to deal with it - that spending those money will improve things. Rubbish. It only means bigger government.

(which I don't know if it is your position - just stating mine).

Edited September 12, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[hunterrose]

Unlike what it has done historically, America is no longer attracting just one type of immigrant, but two.

How is current immigration different from historical immigration? And why does such a difference matter?

The consequences [of immediate open borders] here are that welfare attracts the exact sort of people you don't want, which means more people will ultimately vote for more communism, and more moochers will come.

Why is that, in and of itself, a reason to not have open immigration?

Any rational person would want to embrace ... America's language, it's art, etc.

As opposed to his native language and art - why??

[~Sophia~]

I'm mostly talking about legal immigrants here.

Currently (2004 data), 85% of American adults age 25 and over have completed at least high school with 27% of American adults age 25 and over having a college degree. The proportion of foreign-born American people with a high school diploma - 67%, proportion with a bachelor’s degree about 27%.

In comparison, in 1950 - % of American high school graduates was in low 30s and college graduates was 6%.

Today America relies heavily on new immigrants to fill those low end jobs - since graduation rates are a lot higher today - the job market needs those immigrants MORE than it did in 1950s.

Yes, American Socialists and Labor Union put on those solidarity marches. Do they force those immigrants to march in them?

No of course not but considering that many well educated Americans do not grasp that socialism is not in their best interest (and thus support it) - you expect such understanding from unskilled, poorly (or not at all) educated, non-English speaking immigrants?

But my point was that the driving force does not come from immigrants, instead they are the tools in American Socialists hands.

Edited September 12, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[aequalsa]

An immediate opening of the borders won't happen any more than will a quick end to welfare programs. So, I would assume that any Objectivist who advocates open borders also advocates the removal of welfare and other such socialist schemes.

I think you're right, but currently the likelihood of sweeping welfare reform is slim, while big changes in immigration are very possible. I encourage considering the actual effects of any particular view rather then the effects in the context of a capitalistic society.

When it comes to voting or supporting a particular bill, then one has to consider the incremental change that the particular politician or bill will bring about....

I agree, but add again, that I think the incremental change should be considered in its actual context.

(As an aside, I vaguely remember that you and I might have decided -- a long time ago -- to agree to disagree on immigration. If my memory is right, remind me, and I'll shut up. )

I believe you are correct, but will not hold you to it if you have more to add.

Why is that, in and of itself, a reason to not have open immigration?

Perhaps I dont understand the question, but, because as a general rule I think more socialism is bad and less is good. So if some action will lead to more supporters of socialism entering the country to demand more benefits that I have to pay for, I am not going to support it.

Today America relies heavily on new immigrants to fill those low end jobs - since graduation rates are a lot higher today - the job market needs those immigrants MORE than it did in 1950s.

Relies in the same way that an industrialist relies on his janitors and other low end workers? Edited September 12, 2007 by aequalsa

[stephenmallory]

No of course not but considering that many well educated Americans do not grasp that socialism is not in their best interest (and thus support it) - you expect such understanding from unskilled, poorly (or not at all) educated, non-English speaking immigrants?

But my point was that the driving force does not come from immigrants, instead they are the tools in American Socialists hands.

Yes, I agree completely, hence my reason for creating this thread. If America wants to reduce immigration (which, as a free society, it shouldn't have a position on) it should dismantle whatever socialism it practices. If that happens, the flow of immigrants to this country will naturally decrease leaving only those who are comfortable with complete independence trying to get in. I'm in favor of thise reduction not because I want to protect American culture or the English language or anything like that, I merely want the INS to be able to process these people instead of having them bypassing it out of frustration.

[softwareNerd]

I encourage considering the actual effects of any particular view rather then the effects in the context of a capitalistic society.

I agree, and I also agree that it unrealistic to expect radical changes on social/welfare schemes.

On the other hand, I cannot support any immigration bill that looks mainly to enforcement of the current law. That would simply be adding one more law to control the ill-effects of other bad law. It is very practical to expect some type of compromise law, without giving in to the xenophobes. Many lawmakers tried some type of "comprehensive" bill, by which they mean that everyone compromises a bit. While none of these are great bills, the general idea is the right one for a next step. Such bills are not being derailed by people who want more immigrants; they've been derailed primarily by those who do not want immigrants (rich, poor, Asian, Mexican, period).

The xenophobic group tell me that they and I are suffering, and need something done now. Fair enough; but, what they do not say is they are among those causing their own pain. Why would I give in to blackmail like that, to those who are just as responsible for the initial problem? I could see an argument about doing so if there were no other ideas being discussed in the mainstream. However, there are, and these people are derailing them. So, I think it is very poor negotiation to give in. Rather, I'm happy to adopt my best anti-car-dealer technique, and tell them that they're going down with me, and let's see who blinks first.

[softwareNerd]

By softwareNerd from Software Nerd,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Some months ago, I blogged about what I consider to be the real U.S. immigration problem: the way the U.S. restricts the immigration of doctors, engineers, and other well-educated professionals from immigrating to the U.S. While, many such people still want to make the U.S. home, I think that will change some decades from now, and today's policies will have contributed to the change.

I recently found a blog called "Immigration Voice", which describes its purpose thus:

Blog for Immigration Voice, striving to a) reform the broken employment-based Immigration System for the United States to maintain a competitive edge

safeguard the interests of legal, English-speaking, skilled Global professionals waiting for their employment-based Green Cards

When will the Malkins, O'Reilly's and Lou Dobb's of the world speak up for these people, who spend years squeezed into the pipeline called legal immigration? I've lived in that pipe, and it was so unnecessary. How can anyone look at the stuff on this site and think that these people are somehow going to undermine America!

Edited June 23, 2009 by softwareNerd
"Merged" notice

[Marty McFly]

This is part of a speech Giuliani gave. the part about immigrants gave me the goose bumps because it reminded me of how Ayn Rand felt when she first saw the sky-line of New York. she also romanticized America. she also believed in our ideals. that's why she came here and thank god that she did! if she stayed in Russia, would we ever have had Objectivism? Fountainhead? Atlas Shrugged?

Here Giuliani talks about his grand parents who came to America from Italy. (I made some words in bold)

"...So how did he do it? How did he overcome all of the fears that must have existed? It's very simple, how he did it, and how millions of other people did it, and it's the reason we all have such strength. They were able to do it because they kept thinking about this ideal in their head: America, America, America - the land of the free, home of the brave. This very special place was probably romanticized, but by coming here they made it an even more special place, because they worked very hard to make this a better place for themselves and their children.

[skip] Abraham Lincoln used to say that the test of your Americanism was not your family tree, the test of your Americanism was your belief in America.

Because we're like a religion, really, a secular religion. We believe in ideas and ideals. We're not one race, we're many. We're not one ethic group, we're everyone. We're not one language, we're all of these people. So what ties us together? We're tied together by our belief in political democracy; we're tied together by our belief in religious freedom. We're tied together by our belief in capitalism, a free economy where people make they're own choices about spending their money. We're tied together because we respect human life. We're tied together because we respect the rule of law. Those are the ideas that make us Americans.

I think some of the american citizens today, who DON'T believe in capitalism, or freedom from relligion, or respect for the law, should be DEPRTED, we should "un-immigrate" them or make them immigrants to communist countries.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Marty McFly

[Thales]

Here Giuliani talks about his grand parents who came to America from Italy. (I made some words in bold)

Great quote, Marty.

This line I thought was fantastic:

This very special place was probably romanticized, but by coming here they made it an even more special place, because they worked very hard to make this a better place for themselves and their children.

I specifically like "...they worked very hard to make this a better place for themselves". Self-interest! And then his promotion of "capitalism" is also fantastic. This guy is far-and-away the best presidential candidate out there, despite his flaws. I'm really convinced of that. He's so damned pro-American and in the right way.

[Marty McFly]

I specifically like "...they worked very hard to make this a better place for themselves". Self-interest! .

yup, me too. last night at the GOP debates immigration was a big issue. I was dissappointed with the way giuliani did not explain his veiwpoint - but I guess he couldn't do it in 60 seconds they gave. but I read his explanation of it in 1996, and I completely agree with it.

Edited November 30, 2007 by Marty McFly

[aequalsa]

The consequences here are that welfare attracts the exact sort of people you don't want, which means more people will ultimately vote for more communism, and more moochers will come. Its not xenophobia. I lived in south florida for several years and spent a lot of time around Cubans. Cubans are here mainly for political reasons and their lifestyle and welfare usage reflect it. Extremely clean houses and neighborhoods, hardworking with very little welfare usage.

I saw this recently:

http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=103852

It gives some measure of the scope of this part of the problem.

[Jake_Ellison]

I saw this recently:

http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=103852

It gives some measure of the scope of this part of the problem.

I agree, the fact that an American business isn't allowed to hire someone unless the US government first gives them permission (a social security number) is a huge problem.

The fact that this awful infringement on behalf of the state is causing the IRS accountants headache is a wonderful thing. Keep it up "illegal" newcomers, you have my blessing to use fake social sec. numbers and screw over the IRS. I'm not even pissed over the illegal border crossing anymore, that's how fed up I am with this ridiculous witch-hunt against Hispanic illegals.

[softwareNerd]

I agree, the fact that an American business isn't allowed to hire someone unless the US government first gives them permission (a social security number) is a huge problem.

The fact that this awful infringement on behalf of the state is causing the IRS accountants headache is a wonderful thing. Keep it up "illegal" newcomers, you have my blessing to use fake social sec. numbers and screw over the IRS. I'm not even pissed over the illegal border crossing anymore, that's how fed up I am with this ridiculous witch-hunt against Hispanic illegals.

I like Yaron Brook's housing-crisis suggestion (probably off-the-cuff) of giving a green-card to any immigrant willing to buy a house in the U.S. I'm hopeful the government's stance on immigration will improve over the next four years.

[JUtley93]

*** Mod's note: merged with an existing topic. -sN ***

Obviously, in an objectivist society immigration wouldn't be a big deal.

In today's society, with taxes and whatnot, what would an objectivist have to say about illegal immigration? While we are all paying taxes they're getting by without paying a lot of them, and this isn't really fair. Should they still be allowed?

Edited June 23, 2009 by softwareNerd
"merged" notice

[tito]

If a burglar came to your door, would you complain that it was unfair he did not steal from your neighbour?

Besides - most of them would go legal and pay the same as you if they were given an option.

[TheEgoist]

Obviously, in an objectivist society immigration wouldn't be a big deal.

In today's society, with taxes and whatnot, what would an objectivist have to say about illegal immigration?

Something like this

[JUtley93]

Something like this

So basically, the don't have to pay taxes, but do have to pay for things we get for free? That sounds fairly reasonable. Probably the best we could do now.

[softwareNerd]

A group of GOP and Democrats have come up with a broad framework on immigration reform. If anyone is curious here is the 5 page document they released. It is a broad framework, with many details to be filled in. On the face of it, it would be a great improvement over today's system. Some GOP politicians and some Fox commentators are already critical of it. Hopefully, they will not hold sway, and the framework will move forward into a set of laws that legalizes most illegal immigrants, and encourage more immigration to the U.S.

[ruveyn1]

Illegal immigration is trespass. Going onto someone else's property without permission is not only illegal it is immoral. Property should be inviolate against theft, damage or trespass.

ruveyn1

[softwareNerd]

Illegal immigration is trespass.

No, it is not.

[2046]

Illegal immigration is trespass. Going onto someone else's property without permission is not only illegal it is immoral. Property should be inviolate against theft, damage or trespass.

ruveyn1

Only if you assume the government owns the entire country and everyone's property in it. Otherwise, if I want to invite foreigners to my property, it is forced exclusion against my and the foreigner's inviolate rights if you try to stop it.

[Dante]

Illegal immigration is trespass. Going onto someone else's property without permission is not only illegal it is immoral. Property should be inviolate against theft, damage or trespass.

The people who rent or sell to illegal immigrants do so voluntarily. It is the government which steps in to try to say that this transaction is illegitimate. This is a case of the majority banding together and using government force to prevent anyone from renting or selling to an immigrant.