Accepted Wisdom™ on Immigration, Part 2
(Accepted Wisdom™ is a semi-regular feature of this site, highlighting contradictory viewpoints held by the elite.)
It is Accepted Wisdom™ that:
Illegal immigrants are necessary to our economy, because they do jobs that American citizens won’t do, at wages Americans wouldn’t accept.
And at the same time:
Illegal immigrants should be made American citizens, and their wages should be drastically increased.
P.S. Xrlq said substantially the same thing yesterday in a comment to this post, but I was already going to write this post anyway. Today’s post is dedicated to Actus, who said that business likes illegal immigration because it’s “[n]ice to have this sort of workforce out there,” and also that illegals should be paid “much more” than minimum wage.
P.P.S. So what would my solution be? I’ve discussed that before, here.
P.P.P.S. I just noticed that this is very similar to the very first “Accepted Wisdom” I ever ran. Oh well.
Hmmm .. I don’t accept either part of the second statement. I guess I’m not wise.
But then I think all that “living wage” stuff is just so much noise, so what do I know.
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 3/30/2006 @ 8:23 amIts possible that different people believe in immigration for different reasons. Labor probably likes it because they’d rather have workers in the US than in mexico, even if they’re payed low wages here, not the least reason because they can organize them. Or maybe they know that it will happen anyway, no matter what laws are passed. Or maybe even some of their members are interested in immigration for other reasons. Business may like it for other reasons.
Only an idiot thinks there is 1 coherent reason for this policy. Its a result of various interest groups with various abilities to veto different proposals. Thats why immigration is such a third rail.
Anyone that puts business and labor in the same interest group by calling them ‘elite’ is showing quite a lack of understanding. And has certainly lost credibility to talk about ‘wisdom.’
actus (ebc508) — 3/30/2006 @ 9:11 amI don’t think illegals are essential to the economy. Labor is essential, yes, but only in that you can’t remove it completely from the equation; the balance of supply and demand will have changed, though.
I think illegals should become legal, not be made citizens. There should be some price to pay for breaking the law, even it is just “go home and come back through legal channels” since there are many people that suffer through the process of playing by the rules. Now if you make the rules more friendly, I don’t mind (w/ the exception of criminals etc).
If they are legal, then the wage will raise because there are laws regarding min. wage, though their “expenses” will go up since they will be paying taxes, and if they are citizens, they won’t be the type that sends money home for the family so their cost of living will be higher as well.
This sort of goes back to the argument regarding minimum wage. Some of the “will not do” isn’t always that, though for some it is a pride issue. Employers have to pay minimum wage even if they can’t afford to pay someone that for the job, so either the job goes undone, passed off to another employee who is getting payed more put has to pick up the slack, or prices go up. Also, their is the issue of being able to compete; someone willing to be payed under the table and that doesn’t have to pay taxes is always going to be able to work for less and still take away more at the end of the day that the fellow that does, and the employeer likes it because he can pay less (no FICA/ MEDICARE/ workman’s comp etc) and the employee still walks away with more. So, I think if the illegal immigration problem can be brought under control it will be better for people wishing to get jobs that are citizens. Though, as a side note, I think all the taxes, FICA, Medicare, workman’s comp. is overboard and it would help the economy to bring that under-control as well.
galletador (b58eba) — 3/30/2006 @ 9:15 amactus,
galletador (b58eba) — 3/30/2006 @ 9:26 amI would take issue with calling this immigration, and note “illegal immigration” (though in all fairness that is the title of the post). Most people do not oppose immigration (though there are some protectionist people that think a large influx of people will hurt the economy). Illegal immigration on the other hand…
Hey, the drug dealers and the extortionists are just trying to make a living.
Walter E. Wallis (f05610) — 3/30/2006 @ 10:10 amI disagree with both statements.
I don’t have a problem with a $2000 fine and a misdemeanor as a trade for a ‘Red Card’ that may eventually turn into a ‘Green Card’. It isn’t clear to me how much that will raise their wages. ‘Piece work’ would still be paid by the piece. The difference would be that as ‘legal’ workers, they’d be able to shift into longer term employment. Areas where the yearly tax forms currently end up forcing them out of the job. But… that mostly forces ‘shuffling’. So some raise – sure.
But without serious enforcement, it is all just hot air. Provide _some_ mechanism for a company to check for a valid Red/Green/SSN card, then reward ‘100% compliance’ companies, and punish those that didn’t do adequate checks, and drastically punish those that deliberately work around the issue.
Al (2e2489) — 3/30/2006 @ 10:23 amThese guys could jump through these hoops to gain permanent residence and, ultimately, citizenship. Or they could do nothing, pay no fines, and get to stay here anyway.
Wesson (c20d28) — 3/30/2006 @ 12:11 pmSo, if you eliminated the minimum wage, there would be no need for illegals and more work for currently unemployed Americans? There’s a thought.
Kevin Murphy (9982dd) — 3/30/2006 @ 12:49 pmI agree that economic reform is the key. My contractor tells me the illegals at the local Home Depot have informally unionized, demanding $10 per hour plus lunch, and they keep away other newer illegals who will work for us. Meanwhile, big push in Sacto to up the minimum wage another dollar per hour. All of these protections and safety nets and unions ensure one thing: employers will search even further for cheaper unregulated labor. I read that farmers up North are going to import guest workers from Thailand because they will work cheaper and go home when they’re done.
In the 60s, my high school boyfriend and his friends would go to Wisconsin every summer to pick corn for a month. They made money for college, and their parents, although wealthy, thought it was character building. (And when they were up there they could drink beer without Mom complaining.) Now a farmer couldn’t do that with all the insurance and benefits he would have to pay, so…hire the illegals instead!
Patricia (2cc180) — 3/30/2006 @ 4:57 pmoops, who will work for less, up there.
Patricia (2cc180) — 3/30/2006 @ 4:58 pmIs this what you learn in law school? How to set up false contradictions for dimwits to gnaw on, the better to keep them distracted?
mikekoshi (a4f90b) — 3/30/2006 @ 6:21 pmThis would be a genuine contradiction if what you were saying was that the moment immigrants become citizens, they would no longer do the jobs they were doing before they were citizens. But of course that’s not what anyone is saying. The second part of your supposed contradiction should read:
“Illegal immigrants should be given the chance to become American citizens by continuing to work for a period of time, and thus move toward the mainstream economy, where wages are higher.”
After all, that’s the point of the McCain-Kennedy proposal. Not the vacuous formulation you’ve made up.
“Illegal immigrants should be given the chance to become American citizens by continuing to work for a period of time, and thus move toward the mainstream economy, where wages are higher.”
Thus creating a new black market for labor at below minimum wage.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/30/2006 @ 6:30 pmAnd thus people move into productive, rewarding work. Everybody wins.
actus (6234ee) — 3/30/2006 @ 7:11 pmRaid, roundup, and deport on a continuous basis. That is the only way to keep the numbers under control. Also, hammer away at the employers; require medical insurance.
The government of Mexico depends on a flow of people to the United States and on the money that flows back to Mexico. They will always be in opposition to any policy we have that restricts migration. They will always be against our interests in this matter.
I can’t see any realistic way to acheive a permanent solution to this problem. One might say that the problem of population flow from Central America to the north is endemic; it is a feature of the territory.
The concept popular amoung the Mexican population here, and in Mexico, that our southwest is Northern Mexico has no basis in fact. Back in the day, California contained Californians – native Americans, Spanish, and whites, Texas was populated by Texans – mostly white – and both were governed by an absentee and confiscatory Mexico City. Arizona and New Mexico were very lightly populated with locals, not Mexicans.
While the legitimacy of a Northern Mexico is not real, the wishes of our Mexican American and Mexican inhabitants are real. Those wishes have power. We will be contending with them.
RJN (c3a4a3) — 3/30/2006 @ 10:52 pmAs the daily show said: Like Elian, times 11 million.
actus (6234ee) — 3/31/2006 @ 6:48 amPatterico sez: ” So my solution to our immigration problem would be, not immigration reform, but economic reform. I would implement fundamental structural changes to our economy, such as abolishing the minimum wage and the welfare state. Soon enough, the jobs currently being filled by illegals would be filled by Americans. Illegal immigration would not appear so necessary to our economy, and perhaps we could muster the political will to enforce our immigration laws.”
This is supposed to be a solution?
Patterico really believes that it would be easier to “muster the political will” to abolish the minimum wage and the “welfare state” than to enforce immigration laws?
That’s delusional.
By the way, isn’t Patterico the guy who bragged in a recent post about dropping 100+ bucks on a sushi dinner for two without blinking an eye? Who’s he calling elite, I wonder?
[Don’t think so. For one thing, I don’t eat sushi. For another, I don’t recall “bragging” about how much I spent for dinner anytime recently, sushi or no. We’ve mostly eaten in lately. Plus — and I’m sure you’ll prove me wrong if you have proof to the contrary — but it’s hard for me to picture myself “bragging” about how much I spent on dinner. Bemoaning the cost of an expensive dinner, maybe. But “bragging”? Are you sure you’re not just making this up, croche? — Patterico]
m.croche (85f703) — 3/31/2006 @ 6:50 amThink, actus. Think cherry pick, not Elian. Our objective, as I understand it, is to control the flow not to stop it. We control the flow by picking up the ones that are easy to pick up. We move around and pick ’em up, here today and there tomorrow. It, thus, becomes too expensive to subvert our processes for legal immigration or legal seasonal labor flow.
RJN (c3a4a3) — 3/31/2006 @ 10:17 amGood luck.
actus (6234ee) — 3/31/2006 @ 10:45 amGood luck
You have a point there, Actus. Everyone seems to be in favor of belling the cat, but no one seems to have a good plan for actually doing it.
Kevin Murphy (9982dd) — 3/31/2006 @ 2:37 pmactus, Keven:
If you guys would think about it for a few minutes you would see that starting slow, and starting with what we understand, is what my suggestions, post#14 above, accomplish. We have to do something, and we have to consider the fecklessness of politicians, so what we do is ramp up what we are already doing.
Deporting illegals is not exactly novel treatment, nor is it cruel or unusual. There is more to this than “good luck”, and inanities like “Elian 11 million times”
RJN (c3a4a3) — 3/31/2006 @ 3:27 pmFocus on the border. That is the solution. Any changes in the economy, at businesses in the US, are going to be small and incremental. Probably we should raid and round up because that would tend to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country. Probably we should fine businesses for hiring illegal immigrants for similar reasons. But let’s stay focused on the issue: terrorism.
Is anyone really saying we need to stop illegal immigration because illegal immigration is bad for the economy, or unfair to citizens? We need to control illegal immigration only to stop terrorists from getting into the country from the south. Focusing on terrorism also tells you what we should be doing about the existing illegal immigrants. We just need to get them registered, on record, so that they can be tracked by someone in the Homeland Security. Potential bad apples could be identified and investigated more easily.
Sure, we’ll continue to debate low wage earners outside the system, minimum wage, the influence of immigration on American culture, etc., but the issue here is terrorism. If we don’t get our illegal immigration problem under control, we’re likely to see another 9/11 size tragedy, caused at least in part by people crossing the border from the south.
David (6b45ed) — 3/31/2006 @ 3:41 pm#16. It was Dafydd ab Hugh.
nk (06f5d0) — 3/31/2006 @ 3:51 pmP.S. Sushi isn’t all that bad. I brought some home the other day, put it in a steel baking pan with olive oil, butter, oregano, garlic and lemon, baked it in the oven at low heat until the butter turned golden brown — it came out pretty good.
nk (d5dd10) — 3/31/2006 @ 3:59 pmcroche, you lying scumbag:
1) In my earlier post, I didn’t say that we had the political will to do what I was suggesting. To the contrary, I said, and I quote: “Of course, this solution is politically impossible.”
So you lied there.
2) You have had all day to substantiate your claim that I bragged about paying $100 for a sushi dinner. I never did. This was another lie by you. Apologize.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/31/2006 @ 4:47 pmIf you don’t, I will never, ever let you forget about it.
Patterico (de0616) — 3/31/2006 @ 4:47 pmA few random thoughts on immigration:
1) The illegals are exploiting a situation created by politicians who wanted to have it both ways – that is to say; they would not raise the immigration quota or lower the standards, but they wouldn’t vote funds or authority to enforce the law either. The illegals don’t view this as extraordinary, since that is how just about every other government in the world (and theirs is a particularly fine example) works, or rather doesn’t work. I’m not sure what this should mean as regards a solution, but I think it should be taken into account.
2) How would we feel about the illegals if government forms were no longer printed in Spanish and businesses were allowed to routinely require command of English as a condition of employment? Yes, the ACLU would go ballistic, but there might be some drawbacks to the situation, too.
3) I recall hearing that money sent ‘home’ by the illegals is the second largest source of revenue for the Mexican economy. If we cut this off, will Mexico collapse, and if so does that mean we do or don’t want to do that?
4) Have we absolutely rejected the conquest of Mexico as a solution?
5) Just in the nature of things, every step of whatever course we choose to take on immigration is going to be opposed tooth and nail by the usual assortment of pseudo-intellectual radical twits. Is there anything we can put in place that would allow us deport the ACLU lawyers along with the convicted violent illegal immigrant felons?
C. S. P. Schofield (061a15) — 4/1/2006 @ 8:04 amHow about the ‘legals’? Lots of these forms are requirements of laws that don’t have to do with illegals.
Your thoughts don’t seem so random. In fact they seem quite dependent on wingnutty fantasies.
actus (6234ee) — 4/1/2006 @ 8:06 amActus, responding to Mr Schofield, wrote:
I’d suggest that the largest part of the illegal immigration problem is the perception that the immigrants are not choosing to assimilate into American culture. If English were mandatory, including in public education, and the illegals were forced to learn and use English in everyday transactions, I’d bet that a lot of the anger against them would disappear.
I’m not sure that conquering Mexico would be all that bad an idea — they’ve got oil! 🙂 Of course, we wouldn’t want to actually make citizens out of them . . .
Actually, Mr Schofield was dead on target when he said that, regardless of what was done about illegal immigration, it would be fought tooth-and-nail by the Usual Suspects.
Dana (9f37aa) — 4/1/2006 @ 8:32 amOur esteemed host wrote:
Well, Actus told the truth: there are businesses out there which do like having that workforce out there. There are a lot of hot, dirty manual labor jobs in our economy which we good Americans just don’t want to do any more — and the Mexicans do those jobs.
However, Actus did err in one regard: in a lot of those jobs, the illegal immigrants already are being paid a lot more than the minimum wage.
Dana (9f37aa) — 4/1/2006 @ 8:40 amdon’t you think people have the freedom to do what they want with their everyday transactions? You think the government can require that business be done in a certain language, like in quebec? I understand non-discrimination requirements, but more than that?
Sure, immigration is a third rail. Not such a random idea.
actus (6234ee) — 4/1/2006 @ 8:41 amWhat fantasy? The inclusion of Spanish on government forms, and the persecution of employers who required English fluency are both innovation from MY LIFETIME. They are an outgrowth of the multiculturalist twaddle of the academic Left, and deserve all the reverence normally accorded 19th century Blue laws. If the Mexican/Hispanic culture is so wonderful that we, in our Gringohood, should not DARE to ask immigrants to abandon any part of it, then why are they coming here in the first place?
In cold fact, I’m, far from convinced that we KNOW why Mexico’s economy is on the skids and its culture heading for anarchy, or why ours isn’t (or at least isn’t as fast). I am therefore hesitant to throw out any differences, such as language.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries the behavior of the majority of ACLU lawyers would have gotten them disbarred and jailed for contempt of court. They are circus clowns, and their arguments tend to be bushwa. It will be interesting to see how they fare if the Judiciary moves to the Right anywhere nearly as far as it moved to the Left in my lifetime.
We could invade and conquer Mexico, with a troop of Boy Scouts backed by a cavalry wing of Hell’s Angels. The question is whether we want to. On the one hand, Mexico is rapidly becoming a festering sore on our southern border. On the other, although Mexico would be better and more fairly governed by a consortium of crooked politicians from New Jersey, we need those to run New Jersey … and probably don’t want to take on the Mexican headache on any long term basis anyway.
The two sides of the question seem to have devolved into “Let ’em in and welcome!” and “Throw them out and good riddance!”. Neither one is going to work. We need to blue sky some new thoughts, and making fun of them from the insecurity of one of the old, untenable positions is no help.
C. S. P. Schofield (061a15) — 4/1/2006 @ 8:43 amCSP Schofield – conquering Mexico would mean doing one of the following three things (or a combination of them):
(a) acquiring a population of 100 million people who would never be allowed to become citizens;
(b) expelling a population of 100 million people;
(c) acquiring 100 million new citizens with a different political culture.
I’m reasonably certain that the US has no interest in any of those options.
aphrael (e7c761) — 4/1/2006 @ 9:20 amActus responded to my comment:
Government can’t require that the owner of a Mexican grocery store not use Spanish to speak to his Mexican customers, no. But the government could require that all government business be conducted in English only, and could require that any government regulated businesses and companies engaged in any business transactions with the government do everything in English.
You seem to be rebelling against what you see as a discriminatory proposal from me, and, in fact, what I said is discriminatory. But I can tell you from long experience, the immigrants who don’t speak English are being discriminated against, every day, in the United States.
At this point, they are uninvited guests. Since we haven’t been so rude as to throw them out of the house, the least they could do is learn not to pee on the rug.
If they are ever to be welcomed, they need to assimilate.
Dana (9f37aa) — 4/1/2006 @ 9:24 amCSP said, “We could invade and conquer Mexico, with a troop of Boy Scouts…”
Mexicans are a brave and proud people who have already defeated one Western invader. Cinco de Mayo celebrates their victory over the French at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. Many Americans enlisted in the Mexican army and helped defeat the French. The American Legion of Honor marched in the victory parade in Mexico City.
Conversely, after Pearl Harbor thousands of Mexicans crossed the boarder and joined the US armed forces. Following 9/11 many thousands more Mexicans sought to join us and fight for America.
Mexicans and the US born descendants of Mexicans have served in our armed forces with bravery and distinction, several have earned our highest decorations. Many an American solder will testify to their courage and bravery under enemy fire.
Yes, we are at odds with Mexico over illegal immigration, but lets keep the dispute in proper focus.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 4/1/2006 @ 9:43 amLanguage has what to do with the economy being on the skids? like I said, wingnutty fantasy.
Again, fantasy.
Now we’re leaving plain old wingnuttia, and entering 101st keyboard brigade territory.
DANA:
So by ‘everyday transactions,’ people mean transactions with the government — which don’t really happen everyday for most of us. And this would discriminate against people that don’t speak english. I’m qute sure that a lot of government business — like contracting and such — is in english. What other things do you envision?
The problem is you’re confusing illegals with legals.
actus (6234ee) — 4/1/2006 @ 9:44 amActus:
Actually, I do think that “people” should be free to do what they like, within limits. That includes only hiring those who speak English, AND refusing to patronize stores with that policy. Where the government comes in is not entirely clear to me.
The issue of government forms is a little different. On the one hand we don’t want to make it harder than necessary to obey regulatory law. On the other, not pushing immigrants to learn English isolates them in a cultural ghetto, and limits their understanding of the workings of our culture to what they are told by a number of (usually self appointed) translators. And, I’m sorry, expecting the rest of the population to learn Spanish to ease the way of the Hispanic immigrants is unreasonable.
C. S. P. Schofield (061a15) — 4/1/2006 @ 9:46 amI know. That pesky civil rights act that says you have to hire blacks you hate? Not entirely clear where the government comes in.
Whats interesting is that its “isolating” to people to give them forms they can understand. But its not isolating to them to give them forms that they need to have tranlated by “self appointed” translators.
I’d recommend learning it becasue its a good idea. I have no idea who has this expectation of yours htough.
actus (6234ee) — 4/1/2006 @ 9:52 amAll and sundry:
I grant that my assertion that we could conquer Mexico easily is probably inaccurate. Let me rephrase:
We could shatter permanently the rotting framework of corruption and conspicuous incompetence that calls itself the Mexican Government in a matter of days, seizing control of important communications and travel choke-points and locking down industry. Which would leave us dealing with an angry Mexican people, and the Mexican criminal class (who seem to be running the country now).
Better?
C. S. P. Schofield (061a15) — 4/1/2006 @ 9:53 amBut would we be welcomed as liberators?
actus (6234ee) — 4/1/2006 @ 10:01 amActus:
“Pesky civil rights act”? Are you equating language with skin color? An acquired skill with a matter of genetics? Are you, alternatively, suggesting that Mexicans are inherently too stupid to learn English?
Actually, I see absolutely no reason why a bigot should be REQUIRED to hire people he hates. I also see no reason why his bigotry should not be spread all over the news media as a public service message, or why the public should not starve him for custom. Meanwhile, of course, the State should award him no State contracts.
What you choose to do to be offensive to your neighbors should be your business, provided you do not assault them. You should also be free to deal with the (non-violent) consequences. I object to Government putting in its two cents worth because governments, as a class, are unsubtle, clumsy, violent, and dumb.
C. S. P. Schofield (061a15) — 4/1/2006 @ 10:19 amWelcome as liberators? Hell no! That’s why I doubt we want to do it. On the other hand, if Mexico keeps getting worse that could change.
C. S. P. Schofield (061a15) — 4/1/2006 @ 10:22 amThis is what I’m equating.
actus (6234ee) — 4/1/2006 @ 10:48 amCSP – The proposal expressedin #38 appears to me to be a recommendation that we turn Mexico into a North American version of the West Bank. That does not seem to be a wise path to follow.
aphrael (e7c761) — 4/1/2006 @ 10:53 amDana – it is not clear to me that it is useful, or good, for the government to require all businesses which do business with the government to conduct all of their operations in English.
Here’s an example: I work in a software company. Many of our employees are of Russian extraction. While they all speak English fluently (albeit with an accent), they regularly conduct technical conversations with each other in Russian, because it is easier and more comfortable for them.
Some of our software is sold to the government.
Why is it in the public interest for the government to require that my employer require that my coworkers conduct their technical conversations in English?
aphrael (e7c761) — 4/1/2006 @ 10:57 amwell, your coworkers are white right?
actus (6234ee) — 4/1/2006 @ 12:06 pmDiving into the discussion at random; although I didn’t realize *invading Mexico* was suddenly on the table as a solution.
I don’t agree with either of Patterico’s statements in the initial post, and especially not with the notion that Americans generally turn their noses up at certain jobs. Somebody made the comment in the earlier post about, for instance, teenage employment being harder to find; that’s a labor supply issue, and the solution, for better or for worse, is heavier enforcement.
I think I’m anti-amnesty generally, and in favor of maintaining immigration quotas, but maybe pro-guest worker if it can be controlled better then what we have now. I think I agree mostly with Dana’s general premise in #33, although I don’t agree that literally making English an official language is the way to go; we’ve made it this far without one.
Having gone to a public school in a racially-mixed district, however, and having watched more of the district’s resources go to dealing with the influx of Hispanic immigrants (mostly Colombian or Honduran around here), I have serious reservations about how ESL education has devolved more or less into a segregated track for people who don’t ultimately become functional English-speakers. And I think that’s a big part of the assimilation issue.
Meanwhile, premise, that’s been touched on above of course: it is not only the Usual Suspects that will object to a stiffening of immigration policy.
Bobby (194852) — 4/1/2006 @ 12:25 pmBobby wrote:
Bobby, allow me to invite you to find some Americans who will:
There are a lot of ready-mix companies eagerly awaiting your discovery of these people.
Dana (dd8e7e) — 4/2/2006 @ 3:39 amHow’s this for convoluted? Still, I think we should consider it…..
If we were to start actually enforcing the immigration laws that we have, even if such action had a negative effect overall, we would have an incentive to adjust said laws until they were within shouting distance of what we are actually prepared to enforce on a daily basis.
C. S. P. Schofield (061a15) — 4/2/2006 @ 7:10 amDana, your comment #47:
You’re right. And that is what makes a lot of us ambivalent (say totally confused) about the issue. We want control of our borders, our laws obeyed and immigrants wanting to assimilate and become Americans. At the same time we recognize that the “illegals” are shortening their lives and giving away their youth and health at
nk (9abfbf) — 4/2/2006 @ 12:20 pmpractically slavesubsistence wages to maintain our standard of living. If we could go back in time we could make a rational immigration policy with tight borders and visas available in accordance with our labor needs. (Seriously, the last visa availability law passed by Congress was based on diversity — what ethnicities we were short off — instead of job markets.) Now, there will be pain. I can afford the price of a sushi dinner a month so my roofer’s workers can have have health insurance. But can everybody?People smugglers and drug smugglers are attacking our borders.
Since enforcement has made these activities profitable (risk factor arbitrage) perhaps lowering the risk factor (legal drugs – we tried it once with the drug alcohol, it worked. Easier legal immigration) would solve much of the problem.
Considering that neither the left nor the right are rational on economics when it comes to their pet issues – what are the odds?
M. Simon (3ab778) — 4/2/2006 @ 2:25 pmNK:
Anyone who like sushi can’t be all bad!
To pimp my own blog, I’ve written a pretty long article on what it would actually take to stop illegal immigration, and that is to attack it from the demand side; it would require draconian measures to remove the profit from using illegal labor.
Dana (dd8e7e) — 4/2/2006 @ 5:18 pmDana, RE:#47
Actually, I have done pretty much all of your list (sledge hammer, not jack hammer on the mixer)and know people that do.
Actus, I think you are being unsually confrontational about all this and not trying to understand what some people are saying. For example, I speak spanish but I would not see it as a reasonable solution to ask that the general populous learn spanish. The reasons being, 1) learning a second language can be hard, 2) where does it stop? do we learn Russian, italian, japanese or American sign-language next? In all fairness, I would recommend learning a second language to anyone, but ask that people do it to makes immigrants lives easier is not reasonable. Also, for those that doubt that language effects assimilation and prospects I can speak from personal experience that people that don’t put in the effort to learn the language of the business world where they live huddle around those that do speak there language, where it is comfortable, and may even spend a lot of time at home. Having lived out of country for a couple years I know it works the other way around; those english speakers that didn’t immerse themselves with the spanish speakers and didn’t master the language did not do as well.
galletador (b58eba) — 4/4/2006 @ 8:12 amOf course not.
actus (ebc508) — 4/4/2006 @ 8:29 amOh geez, this is so ridiculous. Who cares about ready-mix companies?! Let all these stupid companies figure out their own labor problems. And what a stupid tradeoff – trashed hospitals, schools, prisons and freeways so we can get a 10% reduction in concrete price.
> There are a lot of ready-mix companies eagerly awaiting your discovery of these people.
Wesson (c20d28) — 4/4/2006 @ 8:37 amRe #54: Yeah, I don’t think Dana really wants me as a labor-pool consultant, but the point is a real one. Companies like this (and not just producers of commodity products in a geographically limited area) need workers. So this is part of the “political will” issue, and it also has macroeconomic effects: if concrete prices go up, and they for damn sure do, then tight labor is contributing to inflation.
Employing illegal workers, though, means that taxpayers get to bear the ancillary costs instead of the end user of the product, just as you point out. On the other hand, not manifesting political will, either on the demand side as Dana suggests or on the supply side by building a fence, ramping up enforcement, etc., simply means we get to grumble ineffectually about the issue.
Question: if we take up serious enforcement against both supply and demand, but let in enough legal immigrant laborers to help satisfy labor demand while not overwhelming available services, with an eventual eye to making these people citizens, does that accomplish what we want to accomplish? If not, political consensus will be very, very hard to attain.
Bobby (df25e0) — 4/4/2006 @ 9:41 amTake this link. Read the Mexican immigration policies and then tell why I should care about someone from this country who comes here illegally? We are idiots and morons for not standing by our own rules. Close the damn border. And deport ANYONE here illegally. Period. End of sentance. Turnabout IS fairplay.
paul (001f65) — 4/4/2006 @ 1:00 pmpaul:
The link, or the site, is furshluginer.
RJN (c3a4a3) — 4/4/2006 @ 3:32 pmIt’s the link. He added an apostrophe at the end. Here’s a fixed link: try this.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/4/2006 @ 4:21 pmErm. I messed that up somehow, too. take two?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/4/2006 @ 4:21 pmAphrael,
paul (464e99) — 4/4/2006 @ 6:53 pmThanks for fixing my screw up! I was going crazy trying to figure it out. I guess I shall succumb to age and increase my text size…sigh. hmmm aging may explain my ill temper…?
Yup. We’re idiots. But is it true that the Mexican Constitution allows two conjugal visits a month? (Saw it a long time ago in a Charles Bronson movie.)
nk (06f5d0) — 4/4/2006 @ 7:06 pm