Something We Actually Can Do About Illegal Immigration
Michael Hiltzik says:
It’s plain that a sensible immigration policy has four prongs: 1/ Set existing illegals on the path of legal residence and citizenship, at a price in cash or commitment to work; 2/Offer a similar deal to newcomers; 3/ Sanction employers who hire outside these two categories; and 4/ Secure the borders.
Regardless of whether you agree with these prescriptions, it’s plain that there is a missing prong: aggressive deportation of the criminal element of the illegal population.
We will never deport the millions of illegals currently residing in the country. But, as I have previously argued, we can use our scarce enforcement resources to target violent criminals.
While many illegals are hardworking folk, some are robbers, kidnappers, rapists, violent gang members, and murderers. Police officers often know who these individuals are — yet they have their hands tied by local policy.
Targeting violent illegals makes good sense.
Hiltzik obviously disagrees. A recent column of his demonizes a pilot program in Costa Mesa designed to check the immigration status of suspects in violent crimes. Hiltzik denounces the entire concept as demagoguery. But what is demagogic about an effort to deport violent illegals?
To the contrary, such efforts help honest hardworking illegals, who are often the victims of violent illegal immigrants.
The Costa Mesa program may not be perfect, but the general idea is sound: promoting cooperation between local law enforcement — the folks who know who the bad guys really are — and federal immigration officials. Hiltzik would do better to suggest ways that the program could be improved, rather than criticizing the entire concept as grandstanding.
Hiltzik has it upside down. First, and foremost, secure the borders, while doing it, deport the criminal element among the illegals already here, and that includes special focus on any who use or traffic in, phony documents.
After those two initiatives are well underway, then, we can discuss how to deal with the law abiding illegals here.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 4/6/2006 @ 10:19 amNo, Black Jack, don’t secure the borders first; slip that in as Point Four, if at all.
That way, when the ten-to-twenty million illegals already living in the US are
amnestied, no,given visas, no, allowed earn their way to residency, it will be easy to get a new batch of low-wage no-benefit folks to move in to do the scut jobs. Just as happened after the 1986amnesty(earnest-y?).Because we want an apartheid society, with plenty of non-English-speakers desparate for work to hold down the wages of low-skill Americans. It’ll make for a happier, healthier, more law-abiding, civic-minded society.
Trust me.
AMac (b6037f) — 4/6/2006 @ 10:56 amAMac echoes Dana from the last post on immigration. If we think about it, it’s a sad comment on our economy that we need slave labor. That does not mean that we should give up. We should apportion visas (migrant, temporary, permanent) according to our labor needs. I see no problem with an illegal already here being able to apply for such a visa without disability because of his illegal status. And enforcement: Border control and deportation. (Caution, rant coming.) Instead, we have a lazy, do-nothing Congress using immigration as a political football. Hurting America and hurting human beings who just want to feed themselves and their families.
nk (32c481) — 4/6/2006 @ 12:26 pmPatterico:
I’ve never seen you so wrong. You belong in the Senate with Specter. Please explain how it works when the last thing you want to do is secure the border. Unbelievable!
Frank (7f404e) — 4/6/2006 @ 12:53 pmFrank,
Re-read. Patterico ≠ Hiltzik, as each will earnestly assure you.
AMac (b6037f) — 4/6/2006 @ 1:14 pmPatterico’s Brilliant Idea
Over on Patterico’s Pontifications, Patterico has a great idea for a codicil to be added to immigration reform pending in both the House and Senate: We will never deport the millions of illegals currently residing in the country. But, as…
Big Lizards (fe7c9d) — 4/6/2006 @ 3:45 pmI am simply amazed with what ease you use the above oxymoron
Dan Kauffman (0cf47b) — 4/6/2006 @ 4:38 pmYou are either Legal or a Criminal. No in between.
Scrapiron (71415b) — 4/6/2006 @ 4:44 pmPeople go nuts just because one law is broken. Lots of honest people break all sorts of laws. Ever speed to work? you were illegal that day.
actus (6234ee) — 4/6/2006 @ 4:57 pmNK wrote:
Slave labor? The illegals have come a long way, voluntarily, at great hardship to themselves to take these jobs; that ain’t the definition of a slave!
I asked What’s Wrong With Mexico several months ago, because I admire the willingness of the Mexicans to work hard — far more than I admire the ability of some good American citizens to work hard.
Last I heard, there was a real draw for immigrant labor to work in the rebuilding of New Orleans — while some of the displaced residents are unwilling to take those rebuilding jobs to enable them to return.
Dana (dd8e7e) — 4/6/2006 @ 5:02 pmOf course, the simple fact is that we are willing to vote, every couple of years, for candidates who say that they will Do Something about illegal immigration, but we are also willing to vote, every day, to support illegal immigration, by purchasing the goods and services that the illegals produce.
Let’s tell the truth here: we have illegal immigration because we are paying the illegals to come here.
Dana (dd8e7e) — 4/6/2006 @ 5:05 pmhonest–illegals
I am simply amazed with what ease you use the above oxymoron
Really? Illegally entering the country or being here on an expired visa, context be damned, means that one is inherently dishonest to you?
Is it breaking the law that makes one dishonest, or merely the individuals in question?
I’m willing to bet money that you occasionally break the law in order to suit your needs (ever jaywalk?). Do you consider yourself inherently dishonest as well, or is there an imaginary line in your head where “everybody does it” ends and “dishonesty” begins?
The other alternative is that you apply the automatic assumption of dishonesty to the crime of illegal entry of Mexican migrants (who gives a damn for their reason for doing so anyway? Not me: they’re inherently dishonest).
Or perhaps context isn’t completely irrelevant after all, and you should check your myopic views at the door instead of categorically labeling people.
Tom (fefa50) — 4/6/2006 @ 5:07 pmYou are either Legal or a Criminal. No in between.
I nominate this statement for the John Ashcroft Memorial Patently Absurd False Dichotomy of the Week award.
Tom (15e81e) — 4/6/2006 @ 5:13 pmI did not intend to attribute “slave labor” to either AMac or Dana. That’s my phrase. But poverty and desperation, living hand to mouth, seeing no hope of a better future for yourself or your children, so that you have to leave the land of your birth and your heritage for a place in which you are an outlaw make for a kind of slavery. Whips and chains are neither necessary or sufficient to make a slave.
nk (77d95e) — 4/6/2006 @ 5:14 pmActually no work is a 5 mile round trip, no point in speeding and if I were to speed I would not try to pretend I was not breaking the law and I would accept my punishment.
BTW pointing to another wrong is a text book example of an invalid argument. 😉
Dan Kauffman (0cf47b) — 4/6/2006 @ 5:52 pmContext? Oh situational ethics? If someone breaks the Law by illegal entry, I wonder what other Laws of ours they do not see the necessity of following.
You should read some of the stories coming from folks who live on our side of that border sometimes. They have to endure hordes walking over, taking what is not nailed down leave wreckage and trash behind.
Should American citizens have to cower in their homes unprotected, because we do not wish to treat those who break our laws as criminals?
Dan Kauffman (0cf47b) — 4/6/2006 @ 5:56 pmOh. Its quite valid. I’m pointing out that there are lots of wrongs, yet we are still capable of being honest.
actus (6234ee) — 4/6/2006 @ 6:21 pmOn the one hand we simply must secure our borders. What we’re doing now simply isn’t working. Any garden variety terrorist need only to make it to our southern border with a suitcase nuke or a thermous of anthrax and he’s in. Chertof is crazy if he thinks a “virtual border” will work. I’m more convinced than ever that a large fence is needed.
On the other hand, it’s simply not a workable idea to even attempt to deport all the “illegals” just from a human compasion viewpoint. I don’t find the “…these people are doing jobs Americans won’t do…” argument morally compelling, but neither do I think we should lack compassion in dealing with these people. I tend to agree with Tom’s assertion that there is a context to each case. Sneaking in across the border is patently not the same as overstaying a visa and becoming, by definition, illegal in the process. These people all have different stories and different reasons for being here illegally.
It seems we could fix the “overstay” illegal status very easily and rapidly with a quick computer background check and renewal of the status that brought the person here legally in the first place. Perhaps a fine would be appropriate to help defer the cost of the renewal. Question: how many of the 12-15 million are in that category? Of the remainder, could we not perform a similar background check, require them to pay a fine and provide them with documentation allowing them to stay for the purpose of working. It wouldn’t bother me if that staus was relatively “permanent”.
Perhaps this is a “guest worker” program, perhaps it would impart some type of permanent residency status. I believe citizenship should still be somewhat more difficult to achieve and everyone should take their fair turn. I’m therefore not certain a fast track is the smartest way to go. The Reagan amnesty program was arguably a failure so we need to look at the problem in more imaginitive ways.
The bottom line for me is that these are people. We should be treating them with dignity while we all admit that their presence here, while not legal is certainly understandable. Unfortunately, most of the countries from which they’ve come are either economic basket cases or politically corrupt or both, as is the case with Mexico.
To suggest that because someone crossed the border illegally, a misdemeanor (what does that say to them about how important our government considers the “offense”?), that they are somehow inherently “dishonest”, seems to me to miss the point. The vast majority of these people came here to provide a better life for their family. If your family was starving, would you not steal a loaf of bread to feed them? Nor am I a moral relativist. I just think it’s a more difficult question than one of simply honesty.
Finally, we must be prepared to pay more for the goods and services these people produce. This is the reality one way or the other in any case. If they can be exploited by dishonest businesses, paid under the table, avoid taxes, avoid medicare and SS, they will be a burden on our public services. If, however, the employers are held strictly to account, though we might pay more for the goods and services we purchase, the potential for abuse would lessen.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 4/6/2006 @ 7:36 pmPatterico:
It’s true that we’ll never deport all illegal aliens. However, we can certainly greatly reduce the numbers of new illegal aliens and we can certainly encourage many of those here now to go home.
Anything that’s an amnesty – whether called “free ice” cream or whatever – will only make things much, much worse.
We have to start enforcing the immigration laws. We currently half-heartedly enforce them on the border, but due to corrupt politicians we hardly do any kind of workplace enforcement.
So, why aren’t we doing even something as simple as what you propose now?
Because of those corrupt politicians who are in effect paid off by those who profit off illegal immigration.
On the other side are the “liberals”. They wittingly or unwittingly support those who profit off illegal immigration. Their members include people like Hiltzik and the rest of the Times, together with the far-left (ACLU) and racial demagogues (Antonio Villaraigosa).
Rather than coming up with immigration proposals, I would suggest coming up with a way to completely discredit people like AV, Cardinal Mahoney, the LAT, the WaPo, etc.
That’s certainly a tall order, but considering the lies they tell it the only difficulty is in finding a large enough megaphone.
Last I heard, there was a real draw for immigrant labor to work in the rebuilding of New Orleans — while some of the displaced residents are unwilling to take those rebuilding jobs to enable them to return.
I’m positive you aren’t familiar with the whole situation so perhaps you should educate yourself as to which side you’d like to be on.
TLB (2e733e) — 4/6/2006 @ 7:49 pmWhy not? I keep hearing that same meme. Repeated over and over again.
One thing among the ideas presented above, which I DO agree with, that I find missing is WHAT exactly do we do if we have this Grand Registration etc and nobody shows up for it?
Just say “Oh well we cannot defend our borders and we cannot do anything about those who enter illegally so let’s just not look at it and maybe it will go away?”
Or do we start with ONE State say Maine round up all the Illegal Aliens deport them, round up their employers and put them behind BARS and then move to the next State.
They did not get here all at once it took decades, maybe it will take as long to find all them and deport them, that is not a reason not to start.
I do advocate a registration and amnesty guestworker whatever you want to call it, but on a specific day I say all bets are off there will never be another amnesty, we have done this too many times.
I do find the hissy fits about me disparaging the honesty of people who have broken our Laws by their very presence in our country to be a Comical RIOT 😉
rotflamo or maybe I should be rotflcmeo
With that kind of attitude we will never solve anyting on that issue.
We have a real mess on our hands but OH MY GOD don’t imply they are not HONEST
Oh the HORROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
will never deport the millions of illegals currently residing in the country. But, as I have previously argued, we can use our scarce enforcement resources to target violent criminals.We will never deport the millions of illegals currently residing in the country. But, as I have previously argued, we can use our scarce enforcement resources to target violent criminals.
“We will never deport the millions of illegals currently residing in the country. But, as I have previously argued, we can use our scarce enforcement resources to target violent criminals.”
Why do our enforcemetn resources have to be scarce?
By this date all illegal aliens must report to their local law enforcement authority, police dept sherrifs dept for registration, by the same date all businesses who have employed illegal aliens must report to the same authorities to register that they also have broken the Law.
For those who report by the specified date any previous legal penalties will, not be waived but probate depending on the completion of the new protocol.
Those Illegal Aliens who do not report face deportation.
Those businesses who have employed illegal aliens who do not report face emprisonment and confiscation of their businesses to be auctioned off to help pay for immigration enforcement.
Those municipalities who choose be “Sancturaries” and aid and abet the evasion of our Laws will have ALL Federal Funds frozen, and then we will talk about criminal penalties for those responsible for that decsion,
It might take a decade or more to clean up this mess, but that is no reason not to start.
Dan Kauffman (0cf47b) — 4/6/2006 @ 10:48 pmactus speaks for me in #17, Dan Kauffman. You write:
Context? Oh situational ethics? If someone breaks the Law by illegal entry, I wonder what other Laws of ours they do not see the necessity of following.
No, not situational ethics, context. There is no reason to limit your argument to one who breaks the law by illegal entry. Why stop there? Why not write off forevermore those who break (or have broken) any laws at all, ever?
Because to do so would be ridiculous, that’s why. As Jesus said, and I believe he meant it, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Do someone’s past sins mean we should automatically assume that they are dishonest or morally bankrupt? Not according to Christian (and by extension, Western) ethics of community.
The fact that you are so readily able to write off the entire community of immigrants en masse, caring nothing for how context critically shapes each individual situation, strikes me as both intellectually and spiritually shallow–at best.
Tom (eb6b88) — 4/6/2006 @ 10:53 pm“…hissy fits…”
Cute. Not just a riot either, but a comical riot.
Do I seem overly sensitive to you? My apologies: I happen to regard honesty as one of the most important human qualities, and your categorical denunciation of all immigrants to this end is very offensive from that viewpoint. It’s also completely indefensible, which is why I called you on it.
Tom (eb6b88) — 4/6/2006 @ 10:59 pm“…categorical denunciation of all immigrants to this end…” should have read: “…categorical denunciation of all illegal immigrants to this end…”
Tom (eb6b88) — 4/6/2006 @ 11:02 pmJobs Americans won’t take actually means jobs Americans won’t take at the prevailing wage. Can anyone argue with a straight face that nobody would work as a gardener/busboy/nanny/janitor at $15/hour? … $25/hr … $40/hr?
In other words, “Jobs Americans won’t take” is code for “certain employers find advantage in the current wage structure in their sector of the economy, and want to keep their costs low.”
These folks have made an alliance of convenience with the crew on the Left who believe some combination of (1) eeevil America must atone for its sins through Open Borders, and (2) masses of poor, uneducated voters-of-color will provide the margin that will keep elitist socialists in power in years to come.
It’s not good when such simplistic and cynical arguments explain a large part of what’s transpiring.
(1) A fence/wall to slow the entry of the next wave of illegals.
(2) Employers sanctioned for violating state and national labor laws–minimum wage, benefits, employee rights.
This wouldn’t solve the immigration mess. But it would put the discussion on a better foundation.
AMac (760543) — 4/7/2006 @ 1:53 amWe can deal with illegal immigration if we have the collective will to do so. However, the Left refuses to cooperate and continues to demagogue the issue to the detriment of both US citizens and the illegals among us. Before we can stop illegal immigration, we must stop Democrat duplicity and obstructionism.
Next, we must secure the border. Nothing else will accomplish the job. Remember, good fences make good neighbors.
Once built, the fence will not only keep new illegals from entering our country, but it will also signal to potential illegal immigrants that we are not going to countenance millions of foreign invaders in our country.
Many illegals already here will understand our intentions, and will leave as a result. The remaining illegals will see the writing on the wall and begin to understand they’re going home soon.
Well begun is half done, and a fence on the border is the only way to stop illegal entry. We can face it, or we can talk about it while another few million illegals sneak into our country.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 4/7/2006 @ 8:42 amAMac is right (#24). The immigration problem is a result of a strange combination of socialist elites, latino nationalists (Is that the right phrase?) and proponents of (illegally) low wages. As the Right, or perhaps just as truthful Americans, we have to point to the fact that businesses (and individuals hiring gardeners, etc.) WANT it this way. The socialist elites will lose in the end if we get our own house in order (re the businesses). The impending struggle against latino nationalists is another issue and may take longer, but the policies of a fence and registering all illegal immigrants will not hurt us in the long run against the “Reconquista” movement.
We have to dry up the sources of illegal labor. That means build a fence (and greatly increase the law enforcement ranks there) and register the illegal immigrants already here. If these two things are done well, then we will see where the real debate should be – with the businesses paying the illegal immigrants to be here and come here. -D Huff (formerly posted as David)
D Huff (6b45ed) — 4/7/2006 @ 10:57 amthank god the senate bill collapsed
there still is hope. the fact that this senate mess looks and feels like the bills that came out in the 70’s, 1986 , senator reid’s textbook bill in 1993–showing how nothing ever gets done despite countless laws and assorted BS that they pass. read it at this link–very short.
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2006/04/05/20060405_155358_flash1hr.htm
and finally the barbara jordan commission from 1990-1994 that all stressed a fence. as you know they jumped up and down but never put up the key proposal a FENCE. i have not given up hope that the House of Reps will put a fence even if they have to be shamed into it. i truly believe if we can seal the border from san diego to brownsville we will be able to live with whatever madness gets passed on the home front. however, if as in the past, the border is only re-enforced (CODE FOR LEFT OPEN) i think we will have a slow civil breakdown. this link will be a slow natural outcome
.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4786/105/1600/Aztlan.jpg
i sent my long fence rant–i won’t bore you with it again–to several columnists, senators etc. i will tell you, for the fence advocates, don’t give up hope yet. charles krauthammer and tom friedman seem on board. i think its in the air. hugh hewitt interviewed a ten year border patrolman and he said most definitely that only a fence across the entire border can and will do the job. illegal immigration will grind to a halt. here’s the audio link from hewitt’s blog. at least read the transcript.
Border Patrol Bill
http://www.radioblogger.com/#001520
this is the picture i have been sending with all my rants
http://www.weneedafence.com/images/Fence_Idea.jpg
it is getting talked about. the washington post, in a editorial mentioned it in passing putting its cost at two billion. that’s literally a drop in the bucket for what it produces. the fines they are talking about come to 10 billion or more.
it ain’t over yet………
and since we started this discussion back in the middle of march 30,000 more have strolled or otherwise crossed the border. is this a great country or what
patrick neid (e03540) — 4/7/2006 @ 11:45 amThanks I figure when someone starts calling me names that they have abandoned debate of ideas.
Nothing would please me more than if this new wave of legislation would actually cure the problem.
The 12 Million registered and on the track to assimilation and citizenship, no more massive influx of illegal aliens accross our border.
Anyone care to explain how THIS Amnesty is different and going to have different results than all the OTHER Amnesty programs?
And if it is a failure? What then?
More of this?
Texas Sheriffs Tell Congress of War at Borderby Ivy J. Sellers
Posted Apr 05, 2006
Sheriffs from counties along the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas say the daily battle with illegal immigrants continues to escalate.
Illegal immigrants trying to get across the border “are getting so bold as to try to run over officers, assaulting officers,” said Sheriff Arvin West of Hudspeth County. “They’re definitely out gunning us, out manning us and the sophistication that they’re using is beyond our capabilities at this point.”
West, along with four other sheriffs and a representative of the Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition, came to Washington, D.C., to discuss the situation with Congress today. Rep. Michael McCaul (R.-Tex.), who represents their district, actively participated in the discussions. Following the presentation of a video clip documenting the terror along the border, McCaul said he couldn’t believe what he had seen.
Dan Kauffman (0cf47b) — 4/7/2006 @ 3:38 pm[…] Something We Actually Can Do About Illegal Immigration […]
Traction Control » Blog Archive » Headline Summaries: Border Security (9f9139) — 4/7/2006 @ 4:34 pmAlien Crossings
Ask ranchers along America’s border with Mexico what’s been going on, and they’ll say “Invasion!”
“what the rural population of eastern San Diego County experienced a few years earlier. The ranchers complained about fences broken daily by crowds of migrants, about gates left open leaving cattle free to stray, about cattle that were killed, watchdogs poisoned, water tanks drained, buildings broken into, and property stolen. One rancher estimates that the cost of constant repairs has run into tens of thousands of dollars. And everywhere there is the trash: piles of empty plastic water bottles, food wrappers, dirty diapers, clothing, feces, toilet paper, anything left by masses of people on the move. Indeed if you saw nothing but the litter you could well believe that a mass migration is underway. ”
“Throughout the 1980’s and early 90’s the 14-mile stretch of border in San Diego was hostile, violent, and out of control. Border patrol agents use terms like “chaos” and “anarchy” to describe it, saying that they faced riot conditions every night. Crowds would gather on the Tijuana side and pelt border-patrol agents with rocks. Shots were sometimes fired across the border at patrolling agents, and almost daily thousands of Mexicans would gather on the U.S. side, then dash forward en masse in what were known as banzai runs.”
Dan Kauffman (0cf47b) — 4/7/2006 @ 4:42 pmNK explains:
If that was what you meant, you really needed to rewrite your original; your more recent defines slavery as something imposed on the illegal immigrants by their home countries, not the US>
Dana (dd8e7e) — 4/7/2006 @ 4:48 pmLet’s please be honest with ourselves here: we have illegal immigration because we are paying them to come here.
Dwilkers had a comment recently on how he was at the construction site of his new home, and all (or at least most) of the workers there were speaking Spanish. Not to be too blunt about it, but unless all of them were here legally, Dwilkers paid some illegal immigrants to come here and work on his house.
And if we think about it, we are all doing the same thing. You like that salad with the $1.59 a head of lettuce? You just paid someone to be here illegally! Our esteemed host just bought a new house; anyone care to guess what the probabilities are that he paid an illegal immigrant?
There is one, and only one, way to end illegal immigration, and that’s to stop paying them to come here.
It’s like blaming the drug problem on drug dealers: the dealers wouldn’t exist without the drug users. Well, if we weren’t so willing and ready to buy products that are less expensive because they were produced by illegal immigrants, they wouldn’t be here, because there would be no reason for them to be here.
[For the record, my house wasn’t new, just new to me. — Patterico]
Dana (dd8e7e) — 4/7/2006 @ 4:58 pmDana, your comment #31:
OK, say God made them poor and desperate by letting them be born in the wrong place at the wrong time, may He forgive me. My “original” comment was on our economy — that it should need way-way low wage, dirt-cheap, no one would do it unless they were desperate and had no other choice labor. I do not necessarily agree that that is the state of our economy and I am not entirely positive that that was what you and AMac were suggesting but that’s what I inferred from his comments and your post.
nk (32c481) — 4/7/2006 @ 7:26 pmIt’s all Bush’s fault. If he hadn’t pushed his programs (including tax cuts) that has the economy booming, employment rates the highest in history and jailed the CEO/CFO’s that lied during the 90’s to boost a failed economy while stealing the american people blind the criminals wouldn’t be tearing the doors down to get in the country. Without these programs we would still be living the lie as we did in the 90’s and Saddam and Osama would be co-president of the United States along with Algore. There’s three great matches.
scrapiron (71415b) — 4/7/2006 @ 8:09 pmSpeak for yourself. I’ve never paid an illegal to come here, except in the form of taxes I have no choice whether to pay or not.
Indirectly, perhaps, but unless Dwilkers personally hired the illegals or directed his general contractor to do so (assuming, of course, that the workers were in fact illegals, a dubious fact we are all non-racistly assuming solely because they speak “illegal”), then it’s not really fair to blame him. Blame the builder. He’s the one who decides who to hire, not the end user.
Hardly. As a random member of society, I didn’t get to make the decision for an illegal to be hired or not. If I did, and the entire transaction were under my control, I’d have a relatively easy choice: pay full price (say, $1.84) for lettuce, or pay through the nose for added police, fire, ER, government schools, etc., all I so I can pay $1.59 instead. If my entire life revolves around lettuce, I’ll take that deal. Otherwise, I won’t. Better to pay a little more for lettuce and make up the difference in spades elsewhere.
On the flip side, this illegal alien’s employer faces a very different calculus. In reality, of course, not all of the savings were passed on to the consumer. Assume that the $0.25 I saved on lettuce was only about half of the real “savings,” the other half of which went to his employer’s bottom line. Like me, the employer must pay higher taxes to pay for illegals’ services, in roughly the same amount. Also like me, he’ll save “only” about $0.25 per head of lettuce. However, unlike me, his whole business is based on selling heads of lettuce, so while saving “only” $0.25 per head is chump change to me, it’s a huge profit for him. It’s still a bad deal overall, as the costs of illegal immigration dwarf it, but why should his employer care, when 99.999% of that increased social cost will be borne by someone else?
About the same as the odds that the people he bought it from were illegals, which is approximately zero. I have it on good authority that he paid a pretty penny for that house, almost entirely for reasons wholly unrelated to its manufacturing cost. I bought a brand-new house of comparable size at about the same time, for a fraction of that price (neener), and saw no evidence of illegal aliens working on this site. Part of difference is in manufacturing costs, as VA is a right-to-work state with a negligible earthquake risk, while CA is a right-to-extort state where all houses must be built earthquake-safe. However, the lion’s share of the difference lies in the grossly disparate land values, not the costs or benefits of illegal immigration – except in the sense that more newcomers, legal or illegal, increase the demand for housing generally.
That’s one way. Another is a formidable physical barrier. I prefer a combination of the two; there’s no reason to make this an either-or.
Xrlq (51d90f) — 4/8/2006 @ 7:00 amMr X wrote:
You’ve never bought anything, never paid for any good or service, that was produced by an illegal alien? The odds of that being the case are vanishingly small.
We are deceiving ourselves if we think that because we didn’t personally hire the illegal immigrant that we are somehow pure as the wind-driven snow. The illegal is hired because someone believes he can make a profit from his labor; when you buy the things the employer produces with that illegal immigrant labor, you are paying the illegal immigrant, period.
Dana (dd8e7e) — 4/8/2006 @ 7:28 pmOk, Dana,
You say we exploit them and I say I feel sorry for them. So, between the two of us, we make a liberal? (Smile)
nk (77d95e) — 4/8/2006 @ 7:51 pmDana, do me a favor: lose the smarmy “we,” which is even more annoying than its royal equivalent. If you mena to accuse ME of self-delusion, just come out and say it: “Xrlq, you are deceiving yourself.” I’m a big boy, I can take it.
You seem to me arguing that all of us are paying the illegal immigrant. I am arguing that that’s not really true, since all of us are not involved in the decision to hire him, and none of us have a choice whether to pay the costs associated with his illegal presence in this country. In that sense “we” (society generally) are responsible only in one sense: “we” (our elected represntatives) are not punishing his employer severely enough to deter him from hiring the illegal.
Xrlq (51d90f) — 4/9/2006 @ 4:45 am[…] […]
Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » (819604) — 4/27/2006 @ 2:00 pm[…] Something We Actually Can Do About Illegal Immigration […]
Headline Summaries: Border Security at Traction Control (2d8ea5) — 2/7/2007 @ 2:40 amQuote: “That way, when the ten-to-twenty million illegals already living in the US are amnestied, no, given visas, no, allowed earn their way to residency, it will be easy to get a new batch of low-wage no-benefit folks to move in to do the scut jobs. Just as happened after the 1986 amnesty (earnest-y?).”
And how many batches of millions of these “scut-job” workers can the U.S. absorb (along with the immigrant chain importees and descendants) until we are as overpopulated as India or China?
Americans used to do all the jobs in this nation until employers who could not send the jobs overseas figured out that they could bring wage-slave labor to U.S. sites.
Let’s try the great experiment. Send every illegal home and see if the jobs get done. I guarantee you they will.
Anonymous (1e02c3) — 2/12/2007 @ 6:27 pmHey I know my (former) place of employment hired many illegal immmigrants. It was a restaurant. Is there something I could do to get back at them and service our country with justice to illegal aliens????
THANKS
Brandon (cf33b1) — 3/31/2007 @ 7:39 pm