The second half of the thread's title is in response to occassional statements I've read criticizing the author's membership in the Democratic party.
As for the article, well I've not found a single thing I disagree with so far. He hits all the nails on the head, in my book, most especially the ones concerned desperate poverty which leads to (illegal) immigration, the fact that we're ultimately illegal immigrants anyway, and most especially that generally speaking, Americans don't want the jobs they do at the wages they earn in the homes they live in.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Yup, I agree with him too. I've really been missing chewing over World Watch lately; glad it's back.
The point I was struck with was the bit about taxes; I've heard people argue against illegal immigration with the 'not-paying-taxes' tact, and I've always instinctively mistrusted that point. The article helped to put my thoughts into coherent sentences, which is always a plus for me *grin*.
(Edited to add a bit more actual content.)
[ July 13, 2006, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Zotto! ]
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Re. current World Watch. Amen and Amen.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Woah. Deja vu.
Almost everything he said (except for the history of the U.S. and Mexico) is stuff that I've argued myself.
*applauds*
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:The point I was struck with was the bit about taxes; I've heard people argue against illegal immigration with the 'not-paying-taxes' tact, and I've always instinctively mistrusted that point.
I've posted this in another thread. But, all the studies I've seen. And I've seen several, agree that illegal emmigrants, as a group, pay far more taxes than the cost of the services they consume. Reason: they pay the taxes, often with assumed documents, to avoid calling attention to themselves. And, they don't claim the services to avold calling attenting to themselves. "Taxes" is not only a red herring, it is a smelly one
<Edit: Fixed ubb code. --PJ>
[ July 13, 2006, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
Hey, Artemisia, you might want to consider changing your code tags to quote tags. I don't know about other people, but it's causing my browser to stretch.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ack, could you please use quote tags and not code tags? They distort the page.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
Well, I guess that I do know about other people now .
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Sorry. At that time of the night, they looked the same. I would not have used code tags intentionally,as I don't know what they are. In the future I'll refrain from posting with my night glasses on.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
The OSC article represents the typical liberal world view, especially on illegal immigration, e.g.: Mexicans are no better than children, and we wiser grown-ups need to do a better job of taking care of them, because, really, they're just children and not smart enough to do it them selves.
The analogy OSC represents is not close to the current reality. In reality, the cop would take the kid to the hospital, and we'd all pay for the healthcare. Where are this kid's dead-beat parents (that would be the Mexican government)? Why did they leave the kid alone and unsupervised? (They're not so poor that they can't have a second car.) Oh that right, thinks the liberal, they're Mexicans and the parents among them really aren't much better than children anyway.
Maybe we should stretch the analogy even further, and take their other kids away from the parents by force (afterall their child-rearing has placed the kid in mortal jeapardy), and raise all the Mexicans ourselves.
Artemisia Tridentata wrote:
quote:But, all the studies I've seen. And I've seen several, agree that illegal emmigrants, as a group, pay far more taxes than the cost of the services they consume. Reason: they pay the taxes, often with assumed documents, to avoid calling attention to themselves.
Nonsense. Other than sales taxes, illegals don't pay taxes. What other taxes would they pay? They are below the poverty line and owe zero in taxes at the end of the year. Even, if you account for payrole taxes, the recent Senate study on the issue concluded that illegals consume more in education, healthcare, and law enforcment than they pay in.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The OSC article represents the typical liberal world view, especially on illegal immigration, e.g.: Mexicans are no better than children, and we wiser grown-ups need to do a better job of taking care of them, because, really, they're just children and not smart enough to do it them selves.
I didn't see this being presented in the article. Instead, I saw OSC honoring immigrant workers for their work ethics, intelligence, and personal sacrifice. Can you quote the article where you saw it being patronising?
I'm right in line with OSC on immigration-- though I think he gives too much credit to Bush for being moderate.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mig,
quote:The OSC article represents the typical liberal world view, especially on illegal immigration, e.g.: Mexicans are no better than children, and we wiser grown-ups need to do a better job of taking care of them, because, really, they're just children and not smart enough to do it them selves.
I think you're misrepresenting his opinion. I read it as viewing illegal immigrants as adults, albeit desperate ones. Just because he made a comparison using children, hardly means he views them as children. It just means that it's easiest to imagine a child being that desperate.
quote:The analogy OSC represents is not close to the current reality. In reality, the cop would take the kid to the hospital, and we'd all pay for the healthcare. Where are this kid's dead-beat parents (that would be the Mexican government)? Why did they leave the kid alone and unsupervised? (They're not so poor that they can't have a second car.) Oh that right, thinks the liberal, they're Mexicans and the parents among them really aren't much better than children anyway.
The Mexican government is screwing up, and the majority of the Mexican populatiion is too poor to have a second car, so your points along those lines are soundly dealt with.
quote:Nonsense. Other than sales taxes, illegals don't pay taxes. What other taxes would they pay? They are below the poverty line and owe zero in taxes at the end of the year. Even, if you account for payrole taxes, the recent Senate study on the issue concluded that illegals consume more in education, healthcare, and law enforcment than they pay in.
Ummm...yes, they do pay taxes aside from sales taxes. You even go on to say so when you mention payroll taxes, so I don't know why you'd say they don't in the first place. But aside from taxes, they do pay taxes in the form of gas and property taxes, as Card mentioned and you completely ignored.
I'd be interested to see how any Senate study could possibly be conclusive given the illegal immigrants they actually have sound financial data on are by definition the illegal immigrants who are known.
You'll need to put in a lot more effort to deal with opposing this article, Mig.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Nonsense. Other than sales taxes, illegals don't pay taxes. What other taxes would they pay? They are below the poverty line and owe zero in taxes at the end of the year. Even, if you account for payrole taxes, the recent Senate study on the issue concluded that illegals consume more in education, healthcare, and law enforcment than they pay in.
Hey, why don't we use our brains for a second, eh?
Employers in this country are required to withhold income tax from all employee's checks. It's only at the end of the year that withholding is adjusted for the individual's actual income tax bracket.
Poorer people are typically in lower tax brackets. Almost 100% of the time, their regular withholding is too much. However, if the person never files for a refund, that money is kept by the U.S. government.
Nice, eh?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
This was the first World Watch article I'd so much as skimmed in a long time. I still dislike OSC's rhetorical style, to the point that even though I largely agree with him on this issue, parts of the article were uncomfortable for me to read.
Also, it's a shame to see the mythaboutthe "porous" Canada-U.S. border being spread further.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Glynn's absolutely right. The studies I've seen suggest that millions of dollars are actually being paid through withholding by illegal immigrants, money they would get back if they could claim a tax refund.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Primal Curve wrote:
quote:Hey, why don't we use our brains for a second, eh?
I'd ask you the same thing, but that would be rude, and I try not to respond to rudeness with rudeness. Let's try to be civil here, Primal Curve. You should know better.
So instead I'll ask you this: how many employers of illegal aliens, the aliens you rightly presume wouldn't apply for tax refunds, actually withhold income taxes? And if you're employing an illegal alien (Need we add illegally employing an illegal alien?), why would you withhold and pay in those taxes? That would seem to me to be one of the dumbest things that an employer of illegal aliens, if one doesn't want to get caught, would ever do!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I was always under the impression that most illegals were not in the kinds of positions that showed up on payroll taxes, that they were usually paid cash under the table.
Maybe I imagined that.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Not really. There are a lot of employers who unknowingly employ undocumented immigrants. There's a whole business out there that provides these potential employees with very convincing documentation. They get all kinds of low-paying jobs. They don't last very long, though, as they are usually found out and have to be fired.
Which is a shame, actually. In my experience, they are usually the hardest, most dependable workers.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Nonsense. Other than sales taxes, illegals don't pay taxes. What other taxes would they pay? They are below the poverty line and owe zero in taxes at the end of the year. Even, if you account for payrole taxes, the recent Senate study on the issue concluded that illegals consume more in education, healthcare, and law enforcment than they pay in.
Payroll taxes. Many, those who work in regular as opposed to casual employment, use false SSAN. An employee in our company recently became aware that aprox 75 persons were contributing to SS with her number. Those persons tyypically do not file for refunds, nor do they use the SS associated with the SS account. I would be intrested in seeing the "Senate Report" except for assigning fixed "we would pay them anyway" costs to education, I very much doubt that reported "finding".
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I think he very unfairly portrayed the role of the "trooper" in his lead-off example.
Any police worth their uniform (and I realize there are some that aren't) would recognize the girl as bleeding and call for ambulance assistance, and not just ignore it, as he is implying.
It hurts me that OSC feels he has to make a cop look bad in order to prove his point.
It made me unwillingly to read the rest of the article.
FG
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Immigration is almost completely a non-party line issue right now. Some Republicans are for programs to aid illegal immigrants (including Bush himself), some are against. Some Democrats are for them, too, but quite a few are also against. I'd say this has extremely little to do with why OSC is not in the GOP.
I do agree with most of what OSC says in that article, though .
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Farmgirl,
You know, I don't believe Card was actually suggesting American police officers are like that. I think he was saying, "If this happened, wouldn't we think it was terrible? Yet we as a nation are currently doing this terrible thing that, on a local level, we would never consider."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think he very unfairly portrayed the role of the "trooper" in his lead-off example.
Any police worth their uniform (and I realize there are some that aren't) would recognize the girl as bleeding and call for ambulance assistance, and not just ignore it, as he is implying.
Actually, I think that's his point: If a policeman did that, we'd have his head on a platter, so why do we tolerate it when we do the analogous thing with our national policy?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Fugu,
Really? You wouldn't generally characterize the draconic view Card is writing against as a Republican one?
It may not be a purely partisan issue-I don't recall suggesting it was-but the view he is criticizing is one heard much more often, both nationally and locally, by Republicans than Democrats.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It may not be a purely partisan issue-I don't recall suggesting it was-but the view he is criticizing is one heard much more often, both nationally and locally, by Republicans than Democrats.
Same here.
It's as though the Republicans can no longer appear proactive and manly through kicking butt in Afganistan or Iraq, so they've got to find somebody else to attack.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
In OSC's second example, he has the thirsty fellow offer to pay for the water. Is that an accurate analogy? How many illegal aliens cross the border and offer to pay for their emergency room visits, pay to send their kids to school, etc.?
Plus the guy in the example lives in the area. A better analogy would have the guy and his family be from from outside the disaster area and had snuck into the disaster area. They's sneak intot he area, where, I must add, he had no right to be in the first place. Under that circumstance, why shouldn't the merchant save what little water he has for his regular customers, the people of his community his own friends and family. By stealing the water, how many people who had a right to be there will dies of thirst and suffer the consequence of the interloper's theft.
OSC does himself a disservice by presenting skewed analogies that don't represent the actual situation. At least, with the second example, he didn't equate the illigals to children.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, the Republicans are just the ones feuding over it right now. Some Dems have said some very nasty things on the subject as well (not to mention the racist, protectionist attitudes many on both sides adopted over the Dubai ports deal). The Republicans are pretty solidly split on the issue, which is why no significant deal has been reached, and why things have been so noisy.
And it isn't a recent thing for Democrats to be heavily split over it, either. Democrats drawing a lot of their pull from the labor unions tend to be strongly anti-immigration, while Democrats with few labor union ties are sometimes pro-immigration.
The very most radical people are more likely to align with the Republican party, but they're just outliers (the militia fringe, for instance). There may not be Democrats ready to go out and shoot immigrants, but there are plenty who don't like them one bit and would reduce immigration to a trickle if they could.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mig,
Because illegal immigrants do nothing but sneak in and proceed to steal resources, right.
Makes you wonder why anyone would hire them, or why so many business owners are in favor of so-called 'amnesty'. I guess those canny financiers are really just suckers after all.
Your analogy, plain and simple, doesn't hold water. In the USA, there isn't a shortage of basic human needs such as water and healthcare and education. Not anywhere near to the extent there is in Mexico, that much at least cannot be argued. Even Americans living at or below the poverty line generally have access to public education and healthcare, if (obviously) at much reduced levels.
Americans are not dying of thirst or starving to death due to the presence of illegal immigrants, whom we employ. American citizens probably spend more money on DVDs than illegal immigrants 'leech' from our economy.
I do not think Card's analogy truly means Mexicans are children at all. I've stated why, and you persist in continuing to suggest it does. Analogies can be a bit more detailed than strictly this is to this and that is to that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'll certainly agree with that, fugu, that many Democrats are opposed to Card's position. What I mean is that so far as this issue is concerned, Card's opinion generally is more in line with the Democratic view than the Republican.
After all, the radical fringe often serves as a weathervane.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Eh, I just don't see any strong correlation on this issue. As I said, its just the Republicans being noisy right now. As for the fringe groups, I think they're because the (fringe) Republicans tend to like guns more rather than hate immigrants more .
Mig: note that OSC favors a paternalistic government for everybody.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They's sneak intot he area, where, I must add, he had no right to be in the first place.
I would argue that OSC's essay specifically touches on the issue of "right," here.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
OSC should examin his arguments. The whole "We took Texas through immigration" argument supports the opposite of what he's trying to say.
If we don't stop illegal immigration, they might take the southwest back.
Of course, the US has a history of brutally putting down any state that tries to revolt...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If we don't stop illegal immigration, they might take the southwest back.
So what? We could do worse than have a bunch of humble, hardworking, devoted, socially involved people in Arizona.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:If we don't stop illegal immigration, they might take the southwest back.
So what? We could do worse than have a bunch of humble, hardworking, devoted, socially involved people in Arizona.
Yes, that explains why Mexico is such a great place to live. Let's just turn Arizona into another Mexican paradise.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
And even if they managed to take it back, OSC's point was that they would be justified in doing so, since we stole it from them first.
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
Granted that the standard of living in the US is better than Mexico, but is it really THAT bad in mexico? I don't think anyone starves to death down there. It seems to me that OSC's analogy stretches the truth a bit with a girl whose life is in danger.
Immigrants come here for a better life, not to save their lives.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I haven't seen many native-born American citizens who work as hard as the Mexican-born people I see working in minimum-wage jobs in laundries and yard services and intermittent subcontracting projects and other semi-skilled and unskilled positions.
OSC needs to get out more. I see them every day. Most of the people in this area employed in construction work are white male US citizens and they are out hammering shingles to a roof in summer heat, digging ditches for water lines, sweating together pipe in an attic that is orders of degree hotter than the outside temp which in the 90's.
Don't think that's really true? My husband has done all those things I just listed this week in addition to working two 24 hour shifts at a fire department. A good friend of ours at church runs a paving business and employs nothing but legal citizens who are smoothing out asphalt and concrete on people's driveways in the middle of high summer.
I get really tired of the "Americans don't know what it is to work hard" argument because I know plenty of Americans who work more than 40 hours a week at hard labor. And you know what's really frustrating? When a contractor who is an American taxpayer and employs fellow American taxpayers and pays not only income tax but unemployment tax and carries workman's comp so his employees are protected and has valid business licenses that he pays for (in one year we paid out more than $11,000 in business licenses and permit fees) doesn't get a job because an unscrupulous contractor who hires illegal labor and doesn't pay taxes can underbid him by thousands of dollars.
quote:Latin American immigrants, as a group, are hard-working, family-centered, God-fearing people who contribute mightily to our economy.
So are white, middle class people who've been in this country for generations. And African-American citizens. And other groups and classes that are legal citizens. Latin American immigrants don't have a monopoly on these things.
quote:As for the other taxes, they pay them exactly as any other poor people in America pay taxes. At the store, they pay the same sales tax as the rest of us. When they buy gas, they pay gas taxes. When they pay rent to their landlords, some of that goes to paying the property taxes the landlord is required to pay -- just like every other renter.
Most of them are, in fact, paying exactly as much in taxes as they would pay if they were legal immigrants.
Not true. They may not be required to pay income tax if they were legal citizens, but their employers would have to pay taxes on them if they were legal citizens. You aren't the only person who pays your tax burden to the government, your employer pays part of that. The employers would have to pay state unemployment benefits for them, and would in most cases be required to carry worker's comp on them. Those things are not done when an employer is cheating the system by hiring illegals.
I don't have anything against people coming here to better their lives, but I do have a problem with assuming that Americans aren't as hardworking and aren't committed to their families, too. By not going after the employers who are cheating the system, we're allowing them to undercut honest employers who are doing things right. Go after the employers - make the penalties stiff for employing illegals including jail time and severe monetary penalties. At the same time, make LEGAL immigration easier and a quicker process, including a guest worker program. That way, we encourage employers to hire legal workers and pay all the appropriate taxes on them and we make it easier for people to come here and find ways to feed their families.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yay! I agree with OSC about something. Good for him!
And that Canadian border is not at all porous. Those customs guys are very thorough!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Granted that the standard of living in the US is better than Mexico, but is it really THAT bad in mexico?
One of the few World Watches I have agreed with. He clearly put in enormous effort and argue convincingly. Mind you, when the opposition is waving Nazi flags, arguing rationally doesn't do much good. I have, of course, expressed my views on this issue before and been accused of saying that anti-immigration groups are xenophobic, but how else am I to read this: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/Minutemen%20rally%202-709064.jpg ? It was taken from a rally by the biggest lobby of them all, the paramilitary group calling themselves the Minutemen, a group, not incidentally, which also acts on their xenophobia, http://www.aztlan.net/illegalian.gif .
And how shall I presume? I am a humanist and an internationalist, but even were I not, I could never support such people, nor their complacent allies in Congress and the White House.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:By not going after the employers who are cheating the system, we're allowing them to undercut honest employers who are doing things right. Go after the employers - make the penalties stiff for employing illegals including jail time and severe monetary penalties. At the same time, make LEGAL immigration easier and a quicker process, including a guest worker program. That way, we encourage employers to hire legal workers and pay all the appropriate taxes on them and we make it easier for people to come here and find ways to feed their families.
I can agree with that, Belle.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The difference between legal an illegal immigration exists only if Congress says so. I do not believe in illegal immigration as being a valid proposition. The right to move is a human right and free migration of labor is essential to free trade. As the laws of the U.S., and, according to official American philosophy, the laws of all countries are only valid when they coïncide with those of "the laws of nature and nature's god" and do not infringe upon the unalienable rights of man which include the "pursuit of happiness." This last phrase was deemed to have legal status in Loving v. Virginia.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Employers in this country are required to withhold income tax from all employee's checks. It's only at the end of the year that withholding is adjusted for the individual's actual income tax bracket.
What about filing exempt? Do you actually have to prove something in order to put "exempt" on your W-4?
quote: And you know what's really frustrating? When a contractor who is an American taxpayer and employs fellow American taxpayers and pays not only income tax but unemployment tax and carries workman's comp so his employees are protected and has valid business licenses that he pays for (in one year we paid out more than $11,000 in business licenses and permit fees) doesn't get a job because an unscrupulous contractor who hires illegal labor and doesn't pay taxes can underbid him by thousands of dollars.
This is such a problem. Here in Tucson, where the housing market has been exploding for the last couple of years and people are moving in in flocks, where constuction is in such high demand, American construction workers can't make a living wage without working 60-hour weeks because the illegal immigrants do it for so much cheaper. Although, this is something of a self-correcting problem, since the immigrants are often undertrained and the job has to be fixed in a short amount of time. I'm not sure this is an immigrant issue though...it seems that no one in construction is being well-trained now days. The whole situation is very frustrating.
quote: Granted that the standard of living in the US is better than Mexico, but is it really THAT bad in mexico?
Considering that an American tourist doesn't usually take his car with him when he goes to Nogales, you tell me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:American construction workers can't make a living wage without working 60-hour weeks because the illegal immigrants do it for so much cheaper.
*nit pick*
"Living wage" obviously means something different to the American construction workers than the immigrant construction workers.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
That's obvious, but I wonder how much of that living wage goes to things that Americans literally have to have, like car insurance.
Also, a dollar in that States is worth a lot less to an American than an American dollar in Mexico, and while an American worker might have to support a family of five in America, a Mexican one may only be supporting himself in America, and four people in Mexico. That's got to be cheaper.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't have car insurance. Or a car.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yay! I agree with OSC about something. Good for him! Italics mine
Hrmm...that's a bit more presumption than I would've expected from you, kmbboots.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Belle,
While I share your frustration with the nonsense that, "Americans don't know what hard work is," I think you're missing some of the detail in statements like Card's.
quote:I haven't seen many native-born American citizens who work as hard as the Mexican-born people I see working in minimum-wage jobs in laundries and yard services and intermittent subcontracting projects and other semi-skilled and unskilled positions.
I very much doubt your husband does that work at or near minimum wage, or that his equally experienced coworkers do either.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I strongly resent Belle's implication that U.S. citizens and those who employ only them have a monopoly on virtue. Indeed, excluding non-citizens for any job because of their origin rings more of xenophobia than any virtue I know of.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Not true. They may not be required to pay income tax if they were legal citizens, but their employers would have to pay taxes on them if they were legal citizens. You aren't the only person who pays your tax burden to the government, your employer pays part of that. The employers would have to pay state unemployment benefits for them, and would in most cases be required to carry worker's comp on them. Those things are not done when an employer is cheating the system by hiring illegals.
This is largely irrelevant becaues what both you and OSC are missing it that most illegal immigrants have payroll taxes deducted from their pay. Most of the illegal immigrants in this country work with forged papers. They provide their employers with a social security number and income taxes, FICA and all those other payroll taxes get deducted from their checks. If you go through the actuall numbers, most illegal immigrants will end up paying more in taxes than a citizen who was working for the same pay because they general can't or don't claim exemptions for their dependents and can't or don't file the income tax returns to get back the surplus that was withheld from their checks.
There are of course a minority of illegal immigrants who are paid under the table so that neither they nor their employers pay the taxes. I agree with Belle that this is unfair. There are also some US citizens who get paid under the table to avoid taxes and who don't report their income. That is equally unfair. From my point of view, the real criminals in these cases are the employers. There are laws which require employers to get a SS# for every employee and to withhold pay roll taxes. If employers aren't doing this, they should be held accountable but this problem is really a separate problem from the illegal immigration problem.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Pelegius- Pay attention to what Belle said. I didn't see her imply that American workers were somehow more virtuous-she was simply refuting what she saw as OSC implication that Mexican immigrants were harder workers. Also, those employers were not excluding immigrants by national origins, but simply attempting to obey the law. To say such people are xenophobic is just not right.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I also didn't see Belle imply any such thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Yay! I agree with OSC about something. Good for him! Italics mine
Hrmm...that's a bit more presumption than I would've expected from you, kmbboots.
You're right. That didn't come out quite the way I intended. I did not mean "good for him (to agree with the wonderful me)" as the juxtapostion suggests.
It was meant in a more "Atta boy" kind of way.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
" Also, those employers were not excluding immigrants by national origins, but simply attempting to obey the law." Please see my post on this thread, or, better yet, the thread I created for the purpose, as to why "obeying the law" is, in this instance, not a moral act.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Why? It still doesn't imply what you said it did.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Most of the illegal immigrants in this country work with forged papers. They provide their employers with a social security number and income taxes, FICA and all those other payroll taxes get deducted from their checks.
How do you know?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: " Also, those employers were not excluding immigrants by national origins, but simply attempting to obey the law." Please see my post on this thread, or, better yet, the thread I created for the purpose, as to why "obeying the law" is, in this instance, not a moral act.
If anyone gets to claim the moral high ground in breaking the law, it's not the contractors Belle is speaking of. Maybe a contractor who paid the same wages to illegal immigrants and somehow made sure they gave those immigrants the value for the payroll taxes and other benefits the immigrants can't participate in might successfully make such a claim.
But when those breaking the law are saving thousands and thousands of dollars and getting business you wouldn't otherwise get, it's a little too convenient to say that those breaking the law are being more moral than those who aren't.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I would generaly agree, but they could certainly claim to be less immoral than, say, the House.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, they couldn't. They're making a buck and hurting others who obey the law so that they can make a buck. That's not moral.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The Schindler was immoral? They are making a profit, albeit in less than perfectly moral manner, by employing people who would else wise be doomed to death or deportation. To be perfectly clear, I believe they should pay minimum wage too. I also think that it is the governments responsibility to ensure this, which they cannot do under their own xenophobic laws.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Bringing in the FairTax or a VAT (and eliminating all other non-property non-sales taxes) would level the ground between legals and illegals. Only then could the argument be made that illegals steal jobs. Right now it more or less balances out at the end of the Financial Year.
Privatising Social Security would moot the other argument that they're freeloading, but then who would want to take away your right to get something for nothing anytime you want?
If they did do that, however, does anyone really think medicine, superannuation and insurance wouldn't become cheaper and more valuable?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Most of the illegal immigrants in this country work with forged papers. They provide their employers with a social security number and income taxes, FICA and all those other payroll taxes get deducted from their checks.
I beg to differ, specifically in regards to the construction industry, because I know first hand that the majority of construction companies that employ illegals do so under the table. My husband and I have been in this business for more than a decade and have plenty of first hand knowledge of how things work, I'm not just talking about some abstract problem, we actually face this and deal with it every day.
We have both lost jobs to people who employed under the table illegals and we've known many employers who do it and tell how stupid we are to actually pay taxes on our employers and what the heck are we doing buying worker's comp and paying unemployment taxes. "Just go down to the corner of X and Y streets and pick you up some Mexicans for the day. They work cheap and you ain't gotta pay taxes." We've heard that many, many times.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote: One of the few World Watches I have agreed with. He clearly put in enormous effort and argue convincingly.
I think it's funny that OSC only argues convincingly in World Watches with a thesis you already agree with.
Also...
quote:I very much doubt your husband does that work at or near minimum wage, or that his equally experienced coworkers do either.
I employ people at minimum wage (or just above, if they earn it). I have seen countless hardworking, dedicated individuals. No immigrant has a monopoly on that.
All that said... I'm for open borders, and I agree with most of the World Watch.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think it's funny that OSC only argues convincingly in World Watches with a thesis you already agree with.
Isn't it that way for everyone? Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I think there's an ugly, all too human truth that is ignored in this debate. Our economy requires a group of workers that are not full participants in the social contract.
It's pretty simple math. Materials = M, wages = W, Cost = C.
$1 M + $1 W = $2 C. The person making the $1 can't afford the cost. If you up their wage to $2, then the cost follows to $3.
Staples must be produced by people that by and large cannot afford to buy them. That's just the way it is.
Other cultures and times had slaves or colonies. We have illegal immigrants.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I employ people at minimum wage (or just above, if they earn it). I have seen countless hardworking, dedicated individuals. No immigrant has a monopoly on that.
Who said anything about a monopoly? No one here, that's for sure.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Foust, ????? What Economics class did you take? That might be true if our economy produced only one good, but luckily, that's not the case. Our workers, illegal or not, are not limited to buying only the staples they produce.
Everyone else, I also think it's rather funny that there seems to be a rather large group of people here that is usually so quick to complain about the rhetorical embellishments and exaggerations that OSC usually employs, and yet now that he writes something that you agree with in that exact same style, that same group has nothing but praise for him. It’s not everyone, though. At least twinky recognized that it’s still the same Card. Just to clarify, I don’t have that big a problem with OSC’s style no matter which side of the issue I’m on.
In this case, his article did cause me to rethink some of the opinions I had, in particular the “immigrants don’t pay taxes” idea. His explanation does make sense, and I can see how illegal immigration might turn out to be a net positive on that front.
However, the thing that worries me most is one that he does not address, although Belle touched on some of its practical applications. One thing we do know about Mexican immigration is that it drives down wages for the lowest class of workers. This is just simple supply and demand – if the supply of cheap labor goes up, the price of that labor (the wage) will go down. Do we really know how big an effect it would have if we all of the sudden completely opened our southern border? Would there be only a few more immigrants than there are now (I find this doubtful), or would it be a flood? How would our economy handle a supply shock like that?
And it’s no good to just say “well, the wage can’t drop below minimum wage anyway, so there’s nothing to worry about.” Because if the minimum wage is binding – meaning if there are more people willing to work for that wage than employers offering jobs – what we have is higher unemployment, not just for the new immigrants, but for all workers at that wage level. And it could still even drive wages down for the jobs that are now more than minimum wage as well. If that is the case, are we willing to sacrifice some of the quality of life of our current lowest class citizens for the well-being of immigrants?
Now keep in mind that these are not rhetorical questions to me. I really don’t know the answers, and I don’t know if that is actually what would happen if we opened our borders. But I know that it could happen, and I find it troubling that I haven’t heard more discussion on this aspect of the immigration issue.
Lastly, OSC’s spiel about “we have no right to keep the Mexicans out ‘cause we stole the land from them” is not convincing to me. Whether or not his interpretation of events is true, all of that happened 150 years ago, and we have to deal with the situation as it is today. Today the USA is a sovereign nation, and I believe we have the right to control our borders in the way that best serves the interests of our nation. I actually think it might be in our best interests to allow more immigration, but probably not unlimited immigration, and certainly not unlimited immigration all at once.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The whole "arbitrary lines" thing seems a silly point to argue. If he's going to argue that they should be allowed in because there is no such thing as national boundaries (or that they aren't legitimate in this particular case), then why not just argue that we invade and take over Mexico. We could simplify the process greatly just taking over their country and running it for them.
Instead of bringing Mexicans to America, bring America to the Mexicans.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
What if the kid in that example had called an ambulance rather than taken his car to the hospital? And what if the ambulance drivers had refused to pick him up because some poor hick from the country isn't the kind of riffraff they choose to waste their time on? Wouldn't we have the right to be more morally horrified over their actions as we would be over a highway patrolman who is at least trying to enforce a law that impacts the safety of other citizens?
That being the case, why should people from Mexico, which is an absolute paradise and an economic powerhouse compared to the majority of other places on Earth and times in our history, be the only ones that benefit from the opportunities in America? Why is no one advocating the deployment of all the ships and planes we can build to, say, sub-Saharan Africa to pick up everyone that lives there who wants to come and take them, en masse with no questions asked, to Chicago or Baltimore? I'm sure these people would work just as hard as the Mexicans, and it seems very racist and discriminatory to offer our country's economic advantages only to the people already fortunate enough to have the independent means to get here.
[ July 14, 2006, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: Baron Samedi ]
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
As a retort to Card's essay, I'd like to point out that illegal immigrants get jobs that otherwise might have been taken by American teenagers at a similiarly low wage.
Now what's more important: American teenagers from poverty-stricken families being able to help support their families, or Mexicans likewise?
[ July 14, 2006, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: cheiros do ender ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Wow, talk about false dichotomy. And you apparently haven't heard about the orange shortage.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Most of the illegal immigrants in this country work with forged papers. They provide their employers with a social security number and income taxes, FICA and all those other payroll taxes get deducted from their checks.
How do you know?
Technically, no one really knows how many illegal workers there are in the country and what fraction of them work on the books vs. off the books. My statement is based on a variety of studies that has estimated the number of illegal workers and their impact on US taxes. The studies vary but the numbers range between 55 and 75% of illegal immigrants who work 'on the book'. The 55% number comes from an anti-immigration organization and 75% number comes from a pro-amnesty organization, so the real number is probably somewhere in the middle.
All the studies I've seen, indicate that the majority of 'off the books' illegal workers are employed in the agricultural sector where the laws requiring employers to obtain documents from their temporary workers are weaker.
Any way you cut it, if the most conservative anti-immigration organizations agree that the majority of illigal immigrants work on the books and so pay all the payroll taxes.
I agree with Belle that business who pay their workers under the table, are defrauding the American people and undermining honest businesses. Every effort should be made to prosecute employers who do this. But that issue is essentially separate from the immigration issue.
Most off the books workers may be illegal immigrants, but they are certainly not the only people working off the books. What's more, immigrants who work off the books generally do so because they can't get work by any other means, where as US residents who work off the books, like their employers, do so specifically to defraud the US government.
[ July 14, 2006, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:As a retort to Card's essay, I'd like to point out that illegal immigrants get jobs that otherwise might have been taken by American teenagers at a similiarly low wage.
I don't know how much of that is true. I could see it being the case for high level service jobs, like retail or bus boys, but as far as cleaning houses, mowing lawns, or any of the agriculture, and most of the construction-- since construction is often done during school hours-- I don't know how much of this is true.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Also, teenagers are bound by the minimum wage law (unless they are illegally working under the table), so if an employer has their choice, it seems to make economical sense to hire the illegal... Unless you lower the minimum wage while creating a guest worker program that is accessible and attractive to those who are looking for work illegally, and those who hire illegal workers (this might include lowering witholding to on guest workers to only include income tax and medicare, while exempting them from Social Security).
Or you could have a lower minimum wage for those who are guest workers.
But that sounds too much like selling fellow citizens down the river to lots of folks, so probably wouldn't fly.
-Bok
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
American teenagers aren't exactly lining up for jobs picking strawberries for minimum wages.
There is a 900 lb gorilla in the room that no one is talking about. Our current immigration laws are simply attrocious. They are bad laws which are simply unworkable. The US hasn't issued a single unskilled worker VISA in 20 years. Even in cases where immigration VISA are given, the INS is so understaffed that it can take years to get a VISA. A friend of mine married a Phillipino woman who was living in Canada. After there marriage, it took 2 years for her to get her VISA to come the US. I then took additional VISA to bring her son (He was 6 years old when they were finally able to bring him to the US).
In 1986, the US offered amnesty to thousands of unskilled illegal immigrants and then stopped issueing VISAs to unskilled workers. Most of the people who received amnesty in 1986, have developed language and work skills and moved on to better paying jobs. Its fantastic that these people have become economically mobile and moved on to better jobs, but the strawberries still need to be picked.
The US needs workers and people in latin America need jobs. The real problem is that our immigration laws don't recognize this reality and so it has become necessity for farmers to hire illegal workers and for latin Americans to risk their lives to pick our strawberries.
Given the realities of our economy, why have we had such bad laws on the books for the last 20 years. I'm not sure I understand all the reasons but there are at least two biggies.
1. Money. There are alot of unscrupulous businesses that enjoy having a work force that has no legal rights. Its not just a matter of payroll taxes and decent wages. If your employees are worried that they or their families could be deported at anytime, then they are less likely to complain about breaches of contract, form unions, report safety violations, report on the job injuries and so on. This is just speculation, I personally no of several cases where this has happened. When mine workers in Huntington Utah reported serious safety violations, the mine owner called in immigration to check their papers. In another case, a large building contractor refused to pay workers the money stipulated in their contracts. When they complained, he reported them to the immigration authorities. Illegal immigration is only part of a growing labor problem in the US. We have more working poor in the US than we have had for nearly 100 years and this is despite continually rising worker productivity. Current laws favor businesses that have unscrupulous employee practices. Illegal immigration is only symptom of this larger problem.
2. Racism and Xenophobia. I know that not all people who are opposed to open borders are racist, but the movement definitely preys on the fear of foreigners. Especially dark skinned, spanish speaking foreigners.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Rabbit-
I think most people consider current immigration laws to be absurd, which is may be they haven't been discussed in detail.
In response to your other points, perhaps the reason unskilled workers haven't received VISAs is because of the amount illegal immigration. It looks like a cycle to me- 1. people come here, bypassing INS (now USCIS), mainly for economic reasons 2. fill a labor need 3. no need is seen by immigration for more unskilled workers 4. Therefore, visas are not issued 5. People can't come here legally, so repeat starting at step 1.
I have many concerns about open borders. One of which was mentioned by Kamisaki. The other has to do with the distribution of wealth in this country as you alluded to and Bob specifically mentioned in another thread. I fail to see how an even greater flood of lower paid workers into the economy does anything put widen the gap. The rich & large corporations benefit from reduced wages, while the lower class suffers from even greater reduced wages. Also the middle class could begin to phase out as will. Software designers and engineers from India would work for half of what American ones do and send money back to their country. There's a potential for a huge amount of cash being sent out of the economy to buy the goods and services in another country.
We've pretty much accepted the need for the Fed to help regulate our economy, why is the thought of a federal organization controlling the flow of workers such anathema to people?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I think it's funny that OSC only argues convincingly in World Watches with a thesis you already agree with.
Isn't it that way for everyone?
I know you were kidding, but I've already posted to the contrary in this thread. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I don't think anyone is advocating wide open borders in the near term, just a more flexible/relaxed set of rules to allow people to legally work here.
Now I will admit that personally I advocate for an eventual dropping of all but the obvious security checks for people coming here; that said, I think it is completely reasonable to mandate that at a certain point other nations will have to start reciprocating with looser immigration roadblocks for Americans. I would think that this would lessen your second worry (which, honestly, already happens to a certain extent, though I know of plenty of Indian software engineers that don't really want to go back).
-Bok
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Now what's more important: American teenagers from poverty-stricken families being able to help support their families, or Mexicans likewise?" Hath not a Mexican eyes?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I think it's funny that OSC only argues convincingly in World Watches with a thesis you already agree with.
It is because I disagree with him so often that I felt it was only proper to give him credit when I think he is right.
Pel, (assuming I understand you) you make a very good point and one that we all should remember. You might (in case reaching even those who don't share you taste in literature is important to you) say something like, "Aren't Mexican poor people just as human, and therefore as worthy of our compassion and of opportunity, as American poor people?"
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Software designers and engineers from India would work for half of what American ones do and send money back to their country.
I no a very large number of Inidan and Chinese engineers and none of them would accept a job in the US for half the money American engineers earn. Not a one. And none of them send any significant portion of their money back home, they bring their families here.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Bok-
Then I'm not entirely sure what to take 'open borders' as meaning. When I hear the phrase, I think that it means anyone can come here who wishes and receive the same benefits as permanent residents. If not anyone who can come here is allowed in, I don't see it as open, and if they don't receive the benefits of being a resident, then I consider it a similar to indentured servitute (pretty much our current system).
I'm in favor or a much more liberal immigration policy, albiet a very regulated one. I'd like us to massively increase the amount of legal immigration up to the point the economy can sustain, but to do so in an efficent and fair manner.
Perhaps I'm just not understanding what open borders means, but it makes me uneasy for a variety of reasons if I take it at face value.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Rabbit-
What about engineers, IT professionals, and computer scientists in India and China currently making the equivalent of USD 4000 a year? They could come here, make 35K a year, live comfortably, and send 10K USD a month home to India (250% of what they were making before). I spoken with some that would jump at the chance to do this.
I'm not saying this will happen, I just wanted you to know I wasn't pulling that out of thin air. Could you answer some of the questions in my post?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Bao, if a thing such will hapen, then globilization will have worked out well and I, for one, will be pleased, as, doubtless, will those who benefit.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I have been very frustrated with this debate. People on the get-tough side are very angry, and they refer to Mexicans as "invaders" (thus implying that they rape and pillage rather than wash dishes and cut grass), and I've never gotten a calm, coherent explanation as to why we should boot them all out.
But I never tried expressing what I thought, beyond saying that I think working is a good thing even if the government doesn't approve. (And pointing out that if they all left tomorrow, major recession would start the day after.) OSC gave us several arguments, and they're compelling, and I want everyone to read this.
Especially Republicans. All this intra-party debate can do is lose the party influence. Some things might be worth destroying a party over, but not this.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:"Aren't Mexican poor people just as human, and therefore as worthy of our compassion and of opportunity, as American poor people?"
But should poor Mexicans be our concern over poor Americans? I'm not advocating one way or the other, but asking.
Should we, as a country, care more about our poor than the poor of another country? Isn't there something to the attitude that one should care for one's own, first? I may have compassion for a poor family, but I'm not going to feed them if if causes my own children to go hungry.
Of course, the poor in America are orders of magnitude better off than the poor in other countries, no denying that. We call someone poor if they can't afford their own home and must live in government housing that is air conditioned and has cable TV. To much of the world, that is luxury.
But if we opened things up wide, and allowed immigrants to come in and work freely, what happens when we do have American citizens saying they can't find work because of illegals? Not just in the jobs that people say no American wants, but in jobs where there is competition? Should an employer be required to hire citizens over guest workers, for example? Again, I'm asking, I'm not really sure how I feel about it for certain.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I remember when Bob Hope was part of the Buy American campaign: "You better believe it matters to me!" It matters to me, but in the reverse direction. The idea that it's virtuous, not wicked, to make a rule never to buy from the destitute, but only the rich -- it's appalling to me.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Pel and Belle,
I don't know how to frame arguments if the debate is defined like that. If the proponents of open borders are for the dissolution of the United States as a nation, then I'm afraid I must be at odds with the steps taken to achieve such a goal.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Bao, if a thing such will hapen, then globilization will have worked out well and I, for one, will be pleased, as, doubtless, will those who benefit.
I guarantee you that if the American people see that this is the direction the proponents of open boarders wish this country to go, there will be no resolution to the immigration issue that you will be pleased with.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Belle, I have already answered your question. When we prick them, they bleed; when we starve them, they hunger. Humanity matters far more than nationality. States which serve only their citizens disgust me with their cynicism.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Belle, I think that it is natural to care more for those we know, friends, family. And not a bad thing. I don't think it is a good thing, though, to extend that feeling to those whom we don't know but with whom we share characteristics like race, religion, or nationality. A stranger in Mexico should not mean more or less to me than a stranger in Ireland or a stranger in Idaho.
I think we all have this tendency - to some extent we are trained to feel this way. I think that the more we can overcome it, the better of the world will be.
It comes down to the "who is my neighbor?" thing.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Immigration policy needs to be considered as part of a larger picture. In order to deal effectively with all the assorted problems related to immigration, we have to look at labor policy and immigration policy together.
First, we need to strengthen labor laws to ensure that all workers, whether US citizens or otherwise, are paid a fair living wage and guaranteed certain rights. As long as businesses can gain an advantage by having illegal workers who can not demand fair wages and basic rights, there will be unscrupulous businesses who seek to do so. The current situation isn't fair to either workers or ethical businesses. It a sad statement on our society when people like Belle and her husband can get driven out of business by unscrupulous competitors who are willing to both cheat their employees and the government.
Second, we need to make it possible for every business that is willing to pay their workers a fair wage including the payroll taxes, to be able to legally get the workers they need.
And finally, we need to make it so that every worker who comes and gets a legal job at a fair wage, can get a legal VISA and be protect equally by US laws.
Maybe we shouldn't completely 'open the borders' to everyone. But our borders should be open to everyone who is willing to work and is able to get a legal job working for a fair wage.
People who are doing valuable work, shouldn't have to risk their lives crossing the border, shouldn't have to live in constant fear of deportation, and shouldn't have to accept substandard pay and working conditions.
Businesses shouldn't need to hire illegal workers either because of a legal worker shortage or to compete with unscrupulous businesses.
Hard working people of any nationality shouldn't loose their jobs because unscrupulous business people can save money hiring illegal workers who don't enjoy the same rights as citizens and legal residents.
All those pieces need to be considered when we reform the immigration laws, or we will create more problems than we solve.
[ July 14, 2006, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Belle, I have already answered your question. When we prick them, they bleed; when we starve them, they hunger. Humanity matters far more than nationality. States which serve only their citizens disgust me with their cynicism.
Yes, dear, you've read Merchant of Venice . We get that.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Thanks Rabbit, I pretty much agree with everything you said.
quote:States which serve only their citizens disgust me with their cynicism.
I would suggest that the reason states are created is in order to serve the best interests of its citizens. However, keep in mind I'm not suggesting that they care exclusively about their own citizens.
I think states, like individuals, have a certain heirarchy of responsibility. I believe a person has a responsibility first to himself. Then responsibilities to family, neighbors, communities, states, nations, and humanity. Likewise, a state has a responsibility to its citizens, then its residents, then other friendly states, and finally the world as a whole.
That's kind of one of the lenses through which I view the world. Some people obviously disagree with it and have their own views, and I think that many of the policy difference can be attributed to such basic differences in worldview.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
BQT, outside of cheap tech support, salaries have gotten very equitable for engineers in India. Our company has a small India team, and they are always afraid of churn because their economy is such that it is very common to have someone accept an offer, only to accept a better one in 2 weeks. There is definitely a bit of parallel economies in India.
As far as 'open borders' I think many more reasonable folks mean "more open borders'. Very few people outside of, perhaps, the hardcore capitalists or hardcore socialists really advocate immediate, or even near term, opening of borders. I think many of the reasonable folks that do want eventual 'open borders' feel a need to convince people that this end goal is worthwhile. This seems to be a recent thing in our society's dialogue. It's understandable, people are big on wanting to know the motives of people advocating change, and if you don't provide those motives (and a defense of them) up front, lately most people will attribute the worst motives to you.
-Bok
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Are you sure Bok? I saw some articles talking about the $4000 a year figure (which does amount to about $36000 in purchasing power there) that were fairly recent. Admittedly though, I haven't seen any studies.
If what you're saying is the case, then open borders is a poorly chosen phrase, IMO. It brings to mind people advocating what Pelegius mentioned which I'm against. I'm not afraid of increased legal immigration, I've mentioned in almost every immigration thread that I'm strongly for this. However, I am afraid of the consequences of opening floodgates.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Many people who were added to the numbers of 'engineers' in India and China in a recently publicized study had fewer qualifications than auto mechanics here, so that might be part of the confusion.
And a real engineer will earn a lot more than that.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well, my anecdotal evidence is not data, and all that. From what I've learned, though, is that their are definitely some efficiencies, especially as you move down the perceived "IT caste system" (irony!), but what we consider software engineers (QA/developers) are now paid closer to the equivalent.
China, on the other hand, could be a lot different.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
BQT, the major difference between you and I is that you could add an "at this time" to your last sentence. I think, assuming the world as a whole doesn't fall into another dark age, that open borders are an inevitablility. In the mean time, I'm willing to make measured changes that may lead in that direction. Now if I'm wrong, so be it, or if opening borders is only beneficial to a certain point, fine.
-Bok
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
China's Engineers Note: These are people with degrees. For comparison, American Salaries were about: Doctorate w/ experience: Over $100,000. Bach. starting out: $52,000
quote: Global Sources Ltd. today released the results of its 2004 Annual Salary & Career Development Survey, which compares compensation levels among electronic engineers in mainland China's manufacturing industry. Survey results indicate that salaries are on the increase, particularly among engineers with advanced degrees.
Of the 2,287 electronic engineers surveyed, those with doctorates command an annual average salary of US$10,685, up 12 percent from last year. Engineers with master's degrees receive US$9,853, a six percent rise. Those with bachelor's degrees earn US$7,104, an eight percent increase.
But the specific engineer examples aren't really my point. It's the larger issues.
Bok- I see what you're saying. I would not oppose measures that may lead to open borders in the future. However, it really makes me wary because many of these groups I have seen advocating open borders have philosophies that I am diametrically opposed to.
I guess to summarize, I would not support open borders right now. IMO economic and social chaos would ensue. I actually quite like Bush's guest worker plan, except I would really like them to be able to have a path to citizenship once they get here...not the 5 year and send 'em packing plan I've heard floating around. These people will have lives here in 5 years, and it's not fair to do to them. For the same reason I oppose the massive deportation as well.
Immigrants are vital to our economy, and they bring a lot of good things from their culture to this country. Hopefully the bad parts are replaced by good parts in our culture. I just want to see immigration efficiently and fairly regulated.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Foust, ????? What Economics class did you take? That might be true if our economy produced only one good, but luckily, that's not the case. Our workers, illegal or not, are not limited to buying only the staples they produce.
I didn't say they were.
What do you think would happen if every last worker - illegal or not - was paid at least minimum wage in the US? The price of goods would go up, would it not?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not very much, most are paid more than minimum wage currently. Also, your equation obviously fails because one worker does not produce the amount of goods one worker consumes, one worker can easily produce far more (especially if we're talking staples).
Or, to use fake, but if anything extremely conservative, numbers:
$20,000 a year in wages plus $100,000 a year in capital per worker (how about a moderately sophisticated farming setup?) allows each worker to produce enough food for 30 people per year. Each of those people (including each worker) pays $4000 or more a year for food and the farm at least breaks even.
Review your economics textbook
edit: missed a zero
[ July 15, 2006, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Yay, Uncle Orson! I'm so glad that he said this. It's so so true. I can't believe so many people here are so bitter against immigrants. It makes me really sad.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If by "here" you mean Hatrack, then I don't think that's a fair statement.
And many aren't so much bitter about the immigrants themselves, but rather the situatio as a whole, and the ever increasing negative effect it has on part of the country. That they focus on the negative more than the positive isn't really fair, but painting them as anti-immigrant because they don't like the people themselves isn't really fair.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I meant here in the U.S.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I saw on the news that it costs over $300 to apply for a Visa and can take a decade to be approved.
We've had other threads about Mexicans living in garbage heap shanty towns being preyed on by serial killers.
If I make pennies a day and could walk north for a few days to make more money than I ever dreamed of, I'd probably be an illegal immigrant, too.
I think the real answer is to improve the Mexican economy. If Mexicans had decent jobs and adequate living conditions, they wouldn't need to come here. (I'm not sure who'd pick my tomatos, but that's another can of worms.) I find it arrogant to assume people love America so much that they would always come here. Even though it means they give up their homes, their language, their culture, their holidays, and their ability to be treated with respect in their communities.
If we want to look at countries that really have it bad, why don't we build some power plants in Haiti so families don't have to cut down every tree on the island to cook dinner? A major cause of death for Haitian children under five is infections from burns they get falling into the open fires. People die every year when the mudslides bury their homes becuase there's no vegetation left to hold the soil in place. Even more people die of disease. Diarrhia seems to be the worst. I've never known anyone who died of diarrhia. My sister needed an IV once for dehydration when she was sick, but that's about it.
Our neighbors of dying of causes so primitive, I can't conceive of them. I can't imagine drinking dirty water becasue there isn't any clean. I can't imagine being the size I was in high school again, there's no way I can imagine being underweight. I freak out if I don't get my mid-morning trail mix bar; there's no way I can see myself missing meals becuase I don't have food. I can always go get some Ramen or a 99 cent burger if funds are tight. I can't picture myself in a world where food doesn't exist in large amounts and I couldn't afford it if it did.
With so much hurt in the countries next to ours, it just seems a bit petty to worry about people being in America illegally. Maybe if they weren't dying, they wouldn't inconvenience us.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
It really does! And the idea that they are not "ours", that they are nothing to do with us, that we have our own problems and can't be bothered to worry about theirs, well, that idea is obsolete.
Not only is it morally indefensible, but it's logistically indefensible as well. Technology continues to improve making the world smaller and putting more and more power in the hands of smaller and smaller groups of people. If we are going to survive going forward, in a time when just a few or even one person can do significant damage (terrorism) to our systems and civilization, it will have to be in a world in which desperate poverty simply does not exist. We need to start working on this situation now, because we don't have too much more time.
Everyone's problems are our problems now, and from now on. Just as we would take steps to help, if a terrible situation existed in our neighborhood, we now must help to alleviate awful situations all over the world. Because, guys, the world is now our neighborhood. Mr. Rogers had it right! Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
From the outside looking in: I had friends when I was at school in Hawaii (I'm not American) who "went illegal" and escaped to the mainland US. I resent the fact that they eventually got permanent residence as a result of their breaking the law (some through an amnesty, others by having a fake marriage) while I, who would have loved to have stayed on in the US after graduating for a few years at least, to work, decided to be honest and respect the law, and go back home. I still do resent the fact that amnesties provide residency for people who deliberately flout the law, while law-abiding people, i.e. those of us who actually RESPECT the laws of the US, are unsuccessful prospective immigrants for whatever reason. In my view, the US either cracks down on illegals, (at least future ones), or opens its borders.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
AvidReader- It's even more than $300 for to be able to live permanently in this country. To become a U.S. permanent resident requireds about 7 different government forms and over $1000.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Tatiana- Perhaps you could outine what exactly the problem is from your perspective and the steps toward a solution.
Yes, I am not happy with the situation, but I don't like the implication that I must be bitter against immigrants. I know you didn't directly say that, but comments like:
quote:I can't believe so many people here are so bitter against immigrants.
(as well as other comments in the thread) detract from the debate may making proponents of immigration reform feel the need to repeatedly justify their good will towards immigrants to avoid charges or racism, xenophobia.
I can honestly say that I probably have more personal reasons for wanting things to come out more liberally for immigrants than most people here. However, I cannot support the status quo - it's not fair to anyone.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm in favor of opening the borders.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:If we are going to survive going forward, in a time when just a few or even one person can do significant damage (terrorism) to our systems and civilization, it will have to be in a world in which desperate poverty simply does not exist. We need to start working on this situation now, because we don't have too much more time.
I agree that we have to take the problems that go along with violence and increased technology seriously, and that this is a historically new issue, since the advent of the atom bomb. Hannah Arendt wrote a great essay, "On Violence," about thirty years ago detailing, with remarkable perspicuity, why you are correct.
I do think, Tatiana, that you underestimate our ability to survive in a morally and economically imbalanced place. I mean, we should have solved the problem of fossil fuels decades ago. And it took some 150 years to get women the vote, when the basic principle in enshrined right there in the Declaration of Independence.
As a nation, we go at these sorts of problems like the dutch girl plugging the hole in the dam with her finger, it's patchwork, it's piecemeal, it's sloppy, but we are built for it and we are good at it. We don't build new walls to fix problems, we plug holes. But again, we are good at it, we are like a genetically motified little dutch girl with a hundred hands.
If you want to argue for eliminating poverty from a survival standpoint, I think you underestimate our ability to plug these holes nearly indefinitely. If you want to argue for elimination poverty from a moral standpoint. I applaud you. I also think that the issue is not material poverty as much as it is degradation. Material poverty and moral degradation are distinct qualities, often entangled, but distinct enough to warrant serious seperate consideration.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: . . . a genetically motified little dutch girl with a hundred hands.
Dude.
Does she have an older sister?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Tatiana, what does opening the borders mean to you? Bok gave me some perspective on this, as far as what the phrase means to many people, but I don't know what it means for you.
From your short answer lacking elaboration, I assume it means that you favor no form of immigration control at all, effective immediately. Whoever wants to come, can come and instantly become full fledged citizens upon setting foot here.
Is that correct?
If anyone has some links to some papers that study things from both sides of the issue (immigration controls vs. open borders), particularly from an economics point of view, I'd be very interested in reading them.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I lean toward open borders, but I'm not convinced that's actually practicable. It just sounds like a nice ideal to me. So another good question for Tatiana would be if she favors that as an ideal, or as something to immediately push for.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Wow, three replies just to me!
Irami, I do think we should eliminate extreme poverty on moral grounds. I'm trying to appeal the the hard-nosed realists among us by pulling in the survival angle. I believe equally strongly that we have to do it to survive.
Bao, by opening the borders, I mean that governments don't have the natural right to dictate where people can live, any more than they have a natural right to tell them whom they should marry or what profession to follow or what books to read. Imagine if you had to apply to Georgia for a visa and to Alabama for an exit visa if you wanted to move from Birmingham to Atlanta. Imagine if this process took 5 years and was likely to be denied. That would probably make you pretty annoyed. I believe the same should be true of national governments. We're just used to it, so we don't see how wrong it is.
Icarus, I think huge changes in the law are generally most wisely implemented gradually. This gives people and systems time to adjust, and in the event that it turns out to have been a really bad idea, a chance to change our minds.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod* Gotcha. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
That last paragraph by Tatiana is one I agree with.
-Bok
Posted by Phan90125007 (Member # 9570) on :
Let's take another analogy for the same situation. Say you woke up tomorrow morning and found a family camped out in your living room. When you ask what they're doing there, they reply that you have nicer furniture than they have at their house, a bigger TV, better food in the fridge, and a computer with a broadband connection. So, since this family wanted a better life for themselves, they thought they'd move into your house.
If you called the police, would the officer be cold and heartless to tell them to go back to their own house? Or would the cop's only morally justifiable answer be that you don't have the right to tell these people where they can live, and you can't deny their right to pursue your quality of lifestyle, even if they have to come to your house to do it?
What's wrong with the idea of private property? What's wrong with just saying that America belongs to us, and we can decide, on a case-by-case basis, who we want here and who we don't? Why do we have to go into all these discussions about our moral duty to every other human in the world and all the children they decide to have if the bottom line is that we'd feel better if they weren't sleeping on our couch?
There's a lot of talk fro the open-borders advocates about how the Europeans didn't have any right to be here in the first place because the Native Americans didn't want them here. There's a feeling that if they had won their battles and booted us all off their continent and back to Europe, they would have been in the right. If even the open-borders people are admitting that the Native Americans had the right to defend their lands from us, why are they denying us the right to defend our lands from others that we don't want here now? Or are they saying that the Native Americans should have just moved into their reservations and let us take over without a fight?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Let's take another analogy for the same situation. Say you woke up tomorrow morning and found a family camped out in your living room. When you ask what they're doing there, they reply that you have nicer furniture than they have at their house, a bigger TV, better food in the fridge, and a computer with a broadband connection. So, since this family wanted a better life for themselves, they thought they'd move into your house.
Mexicans aren't crossing the border to mooch off our welfare system.
They aren't coming over here to watch cable television.
They aren't coming to leer at soccer moms and their HOT mini-vans.
Most of them are here to get work at wages they can't get in Mexico.
quote:What's wrong with just saying that America belongs to us, and we can decide, on a case-by-case basis, who we want here and who we don't? Why do we have to go into all these discussions about our moral duty to every other human in the world and all the children they decide to have if the bottom line is that we'd feel better if they weren't sleeping on our couch?
For me, this about sums it up:
quote: Matthew 25
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee asick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
That's the ideological basis for my belief in a more open immigration policy, and for resisting the idea of immigrant==moocher.
Logically speaking, we've got jobs no one wants to do; Immigrants are willing to do them.
Posted by Phan90125007 (Member # 9570) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Mexicans aren't crossing the border to mooch off our welfare system.
They aren't coming over here to watch cable television.
They aren't coming to leer at soccer moms and their HOT mini-vans.
Most of them are here to get work at wages they can't get in Mexico.
Even if that's true, so what? It doesn't have anything to do with what I said.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: For me, this about sums it up:
quote: Matthew 25
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee asick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
That's the ideological basis for my belief in a more open immigration policy, and for resisting the idea of immigrant==moocher.
And what if I'm not a Christian? What if some Bible passage doesn't convince me that I have an obligation to make sure everyone in the world enjoys my quality of life? What if I don't believe that's an achievable or practical goal, let alone a desirable one? What then?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Even if that's true, so what? It doesn't have anything to do with what I said.
Well, I didn't want to come out and say, "Your analogy sucks." But since you asked...
quote:what if I'm not a Christian? What if some Bible passage doesn't convince me that I have an obligation to make sure everyone in the world enjoys my quality of life? What if I don't believe that's an achievable or practical goal, let alone a desirable one? What then?
You'll notice that I started the expression of my opinion with the words "For me..."
There are other reasons to support the loosening of immigration laws in this country. I even expressed one. If you look, I'm sure you can find it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And what if I'm not a Christian? What if some Bible passage doesn't convince me that I have an obligation to make sure everyone in the world enjoys my quality of life? What if I don't believe that's an achievable or practical goal, let alone a desirable one? What then?
People in this country vote based on their values. If someone has deeply held beliefs, those values will inform their vote.
If you're not convinced by those values then obviously Scott's argument based on them won't convince you.
So?
quote:What's wrong with just saying that America belongs to us, and we can decide, on a case-by-case basis, who we want here and who we don't? Why do we have to go into all these discussions about our moral duty to every other human in the world and all the children they decide to have if the bottom line is that we'd feel better if they weren't sleeping on our couch?
What's wrong with it is that it's inaccurate. "Us" and "we" include lots of people who don't want to decide on a case-by-case basis as well as people who don't think letting someone into America is akin to letting them sleep on our couch.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I think what bothers me most about the whole OSC article is the analogy at the beginning. It is a call for open borders effective immediately, because any other immigration policy is not defensible under the moral argument that he makes.
Furthermore, I appreciate what Irami said about the differences between a moral and practical standpoint. Were the borders completely open, I would think that there would be a saturation point for unskilled workers. The wages for the unskilled workers depress almost to the point they are in Mexico? Even with minimum wage laws, according to OSC's moral scenario, employers would be doing the moral thing by helping people from other countries work here for $3 an hour. Or $2 an hour, and the government would be doing the moral thing by ignoring this. After all, the immigrants of 10 years ago who make $5 an hour are less needy than the ones in the mountains of Peru living of $1 a day. At what point then, does America become less able to help people than Germany, France, Canada, Brazil, etc? This is not a slippery slope, this is what is demanded by the boy/sister/driving moral framework.
Posted by Phan90125007 (Member # 9570) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Well, I didn't want to come out and say, "Your analogy sucks." But since you asked...
Go ahead and say it. But I expect you to be able to back it up instead of digressing to non sequiturs.
Posted by Phan90125007 (Member # 9570) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: What's wrong with it is that it's inaccurate. "Us" and "we" include lots of people who don't want to decide on a case-by-case basis as well as people who don't think letting someone into America is akin to letting them sleep on our couch.
Nevertheless, there are a lot of people who do feel that way. If it were not the case, where did our current immigration policies, or the debates we're having here, come from? And if someone feels that way and chooses to vote based upon those feelings, what's wrong with it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Depends on what you mean by "wrong with it?"
What's wrong with the general idea of voting based on your principles? Nothing.
However, that doesn't mean that someone isn't free to comment on what they consider to be misguided principles. And some people have made it quite clear that they consider the principle you are basing this on to be selfish and immoral.
quote:Go ahead and say it. But I expect you to be able to back it up instead of digressing to non sequiturs.
He didn't digress into non-sequitors. In fact, his response was a pointed refutation of your analogy by attacking one specific element of it.
Your analogy: squatters:your house::immigrants:our country.
Scott pointed out several ways in which squatters are different from immigrants, specifically related to their willingness earn their pay as opposed to taking something they didn't earn.
Or, in other words, your analogy sucks.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Stop flirting with me, Dag. We both know it would never work. I'm a baby-eating pagan writer, and you're a papist bloodsucking lawyer.
Er... wait, no, it STILL wouldn't work. Because...
Yes. Because.
Your eyes are the dreamiest...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Could we make it a threesome? I adore you guys.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
One problem with your analogy: most illegal immigrants pay for their shelter and basic needs. The squatters in your example don't.
As a result your private property non-sequitor is moot. Someone is renting to these illegal immigrants; renting their own private propety. Still others are hiring them to work on their private property, for their private businesses.
quote:What's wrong with the idea of private property? What's wrong with just saying that America belongs to us,
Do you see the contradiction in this sentence? Private property belongs to all of is? Someone should ring up the Socialists and hand them this rationale!
-Bok
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Bao, by opening the borders, I mean that governments don't have the natural right to dictate where people can live, any more than they have a natural right to tell them whom they should marry or what profession to follow or what books to read. Imagine if you had to apply to Georgia for a visa and to Alabama for an exit visa if you wanted to move from Birmingham to Atlanta. Imagine if this process took 5 years and was likely to be denied. That would probably make you pretty annoyed. I believe the same should be true of national governments. We're just used to it, so we don't see how wrong it is.
Ok, so that's pretty much what Bok said a page ago-eventually move to open borders, and support legislation that moves that direction.
But what about the here and now-today, what should our immigration policy be?
Posted by Phan90125007 (Member # 9570) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Scott pointed out several ways in which squatters are different from immigrants, specifically related to their willingness earn their pay as opposed to taking something they didn't earn.
Or, in other words, your analogy sucks.
So are you saying that if the people camping in my living room started leaving me rent checks and cleaning up, I wouldn't have any moral right to kick them out? What if they started paying my entire mortgage, utilities, car payments, cleaning up after me and themselves, and making it undeniably economically advantageous for me to have them there (something that illegal immigrants aren't doing)? Does this remove my right to say that I prefer to live alone?
quote: Do you see the contradiction in this sentence? Private property belongs to all of is? Someone should ring up the Socialists and hand them this rationale!
There is such thing as private property for a select community. If I buy a TV and allow my children to watch it, does that mean everyone in the world has free access to it? If I move into a condo that provides an exercise room and a pool to its members, do they have the right to deny access to street-dwelling vagrants who want to use the pool to take a bath? Since when does the fact that more than one person has the right to something mean that it's up for grabs to everyone in the world?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We own houses and real estate. We don't own the United States.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
[EDIT: This is directed to BQT] For me, I would provide guest worker registration centers for easier registrtion. I would ideally have no limit as to how many or who could register for the year-long visas (though that isn't a make-it-or-break-it condition; if we need to cap them, we need to figure out a reasonable cap, or else we'll still get illegals coming in undocumented). I would expect documenting fingerprints (and possibly further identification tests, maybe DNA?), issuing an id card, and even an orientation to educate the applicants on what they have for rights (and also what they don't have). This would include avenues for citizenship (if we decide to provide any). I would also be open to providing more harsh penalties (and enforcement!) for anyone who still enters/hires an illegal immigrant.
I'd also ideally drop the minimum wage by a fair bit, since if they are forced to work at our minimum wage, no one will hire the registered workers, and we are back to the current system. If that is too politically untenable, I'd be willing to set a special minimum wage just for the workers that is lower than the normal minimum. I'd also waive the social security witholding, though keep the medicare/medicaid witholding. I'm not sure what to do with the income tax stuff, and that will be particularly thorny for states with income tax, since I'm not comfortable (and it probably isn't constitutional) to force the states to NOT collect on these registered workers.
The thing is, I think a lot of the people pushing for open borders find catering to the "supply-side", as it were, either a tad detestable, or are afraid to come out in favor of it for fear of looking like a greedy capitalist pig. In reality though, these employers have already shown a propensity to violate the law to get cheap labor, so whatever is done to create more open borders needs to make sure these people don't just end up going for illegals because the cost is too much to bear. I know, it's placating criminals, but the alternative is the current situation.
This might seem like a lot, but at it's minimum it would be a guest worker program that is capped at a max every year, and requires registering with security checks/id data collected, as well as an id card issued. Employers are given a lower wage to pay these workers, legally, as well as not having to withold as much in taxes.
Maybe that's too much change, but when you are taking the first step, it takes a bit more to get started; afterwards we can tweak the system.
-Bok
[ July 17, 2006, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phan90125007:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Scott pointed out several ways in which squatters are different from immigrants, specifically related to their willingness earn their pay as opposed to taking something they didn't earn.
Or, in other words, your analogy sucks.
So are you saying that if the people camping in my living room started leaving me rent checks and cleaning up, I wouldn't have any moral right to kick them out? What if they started paying my entire mortgage, utilities, car payments, cleaning up after me and themselves, and making it undeniably economically advantageous for me to have them there (something that illegal immigrants aren't doing)? Does this remove my right to say that I prefer to live alone?
Except that they aren't sending you rent checks, they are going to your neighbor, who is willing to take them in (for a price), and in return is mowing your neighbor's lawn for half the price your son/daughter is willing to do it for.
quote: Do you see the contradiction in this sentence? Private property belongs to all of is? Someone should ring up the Socialists and hand them this rationale!
quote:There is such thing as private property for a select community. If I buy a TV and allow my children to watch it, does that mean everyone in the world has free access to it? If I move into a condo that provides an exercise room and a pool to its members, do they have the right to deny access to street-dwelling vagrants who want to use the pool to take a bath? Since when does the fact that more than one person has the right to something mean that it's up for grabs to everyone in the world?
About the only thing that illegal immigrants use that they don't often pay for are roads and medical care. This is problematic, but really, until you go after the root cause (did you know that in the last several years, we've been more lax at investigating companies to see if they do employ illegal immigrants?) these horrible illegals will still come.
But those who hire like the current way the debate is set up; it leaves them in relative anonymity, and almost all the invective is directed at the illegals they hire.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So are you saying that if the people camping in my living room started leaving me rent checks and cleaning up, I wouldn't have any moral right to kick them out? What if they started paying my entire mortgage, utilities, car payments, cleaning up after me and themselves, and making it undeniably economically advantageous for me to have them there (something that illegal immigrants aren't doing)? Does this remove my right to say that I prefer to live alone?
No, I haven't said any such thing. Why would you suppose I had?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Thanks Bok, that was awesome, I appreciate you taking the time to outline some of your thoughts.
I would also be interested in expanding on ideas for a path to citizenship...so it's not just a one year, then see you later proposition for those people that are interested in becoming part of America by staying. On the other hand, it might be more beneficial to more people if it was just limited to one year and then more people could come in and make some cash.
What about the border security issue, what place do you think it has? Your method seems to be more about making things regulated at the source, which I agree will ultimately do more to solve the problem more than putting a bunch of the NG on the border ever could.
Any finally, what to do about the 12 million+ people here without documentation now? Put them on the guest worker program then send them home? I don't like that option much since many of them have children that are US citizens and have built lives here. Let them work on being citizens? Doesn't seem as fair to those that didn't already come here.
Thanks for engaging in this with me Bok- I've really been wanting a Hatrack discussion on immigration that moves beyond the 'they're a bunch of squatters' and 'we should open the borders to help everyone in the world' idealogical arguments and deals with realistic policy ideas.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
BQT, no problem. I'm likewise glad someone is willing listen, rather than debate every little nit in my suggestion
One thing I forgot to add was that the Guest Worker visas would be renewable, if there was no cap. If there was a cap, then there would have to be a different system in place...
As for the existing folks here, my magnanimous side says to give them US citizenship if the can prove they have a child who is a citizen. But then you end up with a bunch of citizens who are now unemployable since they have to follow US laws, and are in "The System".
I personally don't see the use in beefing up security too much more. If the guest worker program works (mine or someone else's), then that lowers the need for security, since presumably fewer people are going to try and sneak in. As I mentioned earlier, I would be open for harsher punishments for those caught doing so, or for those still hiring illegals, since we would now have a more accessible system to work in our country. That said, if it is a worry, I'm not against more human presence on the borders, but new fencing and the like leave me cold.
BTW, do you have any ideas? As you can see, even my currently not-fleshed-out idea has some potential problems; have you thought of a novel approach yourself?
-Bok
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I think OSC's essay makes a lot of sense, but I wish he had said something about what punishment he thinks illegal Mexican immigrants deserve. Surely someone who broke the law to get into this country deserves some punishment, no matter how well they've behaved in the U.S., if only to deter others from sneaking into the country. After all, because of terrorism we can't afford not to monitor who's entering and leaving our country. (But I am convinced from OSC's essay that shipping every illegal immigrant back to his or her own country is unfair to the good ones.)
I'm still not convinced that translating public documents into Spanish is a good idea. We can't translate the documents into every language spoken by immigrants, and Spanish-speaking immigrants don't deserve special treatment just for being the biggest group. If they get used to being able to survive in the U.S. speaking only Spanish, there's a good chance they'll see themselves as more closely allied to their fellow Spanish speakers than to other Americans and as a result demand more special rights for their group in the future, even (though this is probably far in the future) the right to form their own country in areas where they're the majority.
On another note, I've always thought that granting U.S. citizenship to everyone born in the U.S. is a bad idea. Do we really want to encourage Mexican women to sneak into the U.S. just long enough to have their kids here? Why can't the law just be that anyone born to at least one parent who is a citizen is automatically a citizen?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: I'm still not convinced that translating public documents into Spanish is a good idea.
Go to the airport and look at their documentation, they already translate everything into Spanish.
I've enjoyed reading this thread as it has progressed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why can't the law just be that anyone born to at least one parent who is a citizen is automatically a citizen?
It could be, but it would require a constitutional amendment.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Why? One of Congress' constitutional powers is "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
For border security right now, I would stop building these silly walls. I would focus on developing electronic surveilance, unmanned drones, and similar technologies in combination with training the Border Patrol to be able to quickly respond to electronic flags. A lot of the focus seems to be on increasing the number of agents, I'd rather see use of better technologies. The idea would be that no one would attempt to cross because of the near certainty of getting caught- whether it's terrorists or illegal immigrants. (Aside: I read an article in the paper today about the Border Patrol search and rescue....they save over 2,000 people a year from most likely dying in the attempt to cross). The funds for this would come from the U.S. DoD budget.
Require people currently here without documentation to submit paperwork to apply for permanent residence or Employment Authorization Documents within a certain amount of time, say one year. Require a fine to be paid, with options to spread it over time. Use this additional funding to increase the size and employees of the USCIS. The wait time for application processing and to just have a question answered is nothing short of ridiculous.
Create a a new division of the USCIS to oversee some sort of guest worker program. They would be required to get quotas for immigration from the Fed, who would use it as another tool to help regulate the economy. The duration of the guest worker stay would be short, 1-2 years. Try to balance those coming from a variety of countries, considering diversity, economic need, amount of time waiting, etc. There's plently of needy countries out there, like many in Africa, who we sometimes don't see because they weren't born geographically convenient.
Massively increase the quota for the number of people wishing to immigrate and stay here (become permanent residents and eventually citizens). Have a plan with some sort of balance for people moving here permanently vs. guest workers.
Institute a national database correlating name, fingerprints, SS or alien #, that employers will be required to run every employee they hire through. With the current state of IT, I can't believe that this is not possible as some have said. Heavily fine those, both employees and employers that are not working legally (with a majority of the fine being on the employer). Lower the minimum wage slightly so it is not economically advantageous to hire a guest worker over a citizen/permanent resident- it's only advantageous to hire one if there is no one else. The difference between their minimum wage and US citizens is will be used to fund the infrastructure of the guest worker program- so the employer pays the same regardless of who is employed.
Any children of non-U.S citizens & permanent residents born in this country are not U.S. citizens by default, as has been tradition. Create a seperate Medicare type program for guest workers, funded through their checks. Require no SS contributions. Keep tax brackets for them the same level as citizens, not any higher. Provide a path for citizenship for guest workers, but realize that not everyone who is a guest worker can immediately become a citizen- doing so would almost immediately shut down the guest worker program and immigration outside the guest worker system.
Honestly I could be happy with just about any fair, comprehensive policy even if I disagree with a few specific points. The problem is, like everything else in the country, it's become so politicized that getting such a policy out of Congress seems pretty much impossible.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.:
On another note, I've always thought that granting U.S. citizenship to everyone born in the U.S. is a bad idea. Do we really want to encourage Mexican women to sneak into the U.S. just long enough to have their kids here? Why can't the law just be that anyone born to at least one parent who is a citizen is automatically a citizen?
The right of citizenship, for most of us, was granted to us because we were born here. What makes us more deserving than the kid?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The main problem I see with your proposal, IMO, is how willing you/me/we are to stomach reports of illegal immigrants getting shot and killed when they try to come in, due to the increase in security. Your system, if the minimum wage does not get lowered a fair amount will not incentivize employers to hire legally, if they are already doing so.
You are relying on constant and unceasing vigilance and dedication to both border security as well as corporate audits for illegal employees. I think that would become untenable and too expensive for anyone to stomach.
Some of the other things you mention offend me at a more idealistic level (people born here no longer citizens, major investments in border security under the oversight of the DoD, etc), but aren't flaws in your proposal, per se. It is very interesting in seeing a plan coming from a different direction though.
In the end, your proposal seems a bit too xenophobic for my inclinations. I am suspicious of any plans that would shrink the tent, rather than enlarge it. I realize you propose upping quotas, but the problem here is not about equitable immigration; my assumption is that most of the people coming in illegally would only want to be citizens insofar as it would provide a more safety for them, in reality, they just want the jobs. I think that isn't a bad thing, because some will stay, and the rest will bring back general goodwill to their home, if nothing else.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why? One of Congress' constitutional powers is "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
quote:U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That's why. In case you're worried about "subject to the jurisdiction":
quote:The Court has accorded the first sentence of Sec. 1 a construction in accordance with the congressional intentions, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who themselves were ineligible to be naturalized is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. 7 Congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase ''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'' was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, 8 as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.
Congressional representatives wanting to make illegal entry a felony are admitting that illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:In the end, your proposal seems a bit too xenophobic for my inclinations. I am suspicious of any plans that would shrink the tent, rather than enlarge it.
Could you expand on this a bit please, especially what you consider xenophobic?
In response to your specific points, I fail to see how more people will be shot under my plan than under the current plan. Increased security does not mean lethal force. Additionally, I don't think I'm asking unceasing vigilence to the extent that it would be a burdon. I'm suggesting supplimenting what we have with technology, and letting it pick up the slack. Furthermore, I think the idea of corporate audits will be a deterant...much the way IRS uses the audit to deter tax fraud.
There might need to be a temporary transition period of lower minimum wages to ease into compliance, but if the policy is implemented long term I see problems of resentment among American unskilled workers as they begin to lose out on jobs to guest workers. However, if the quotas are closely monitored and successfully managed, then it may be possible to keep the wage lower permanently.
I have to disagree about people coming here just for jobs. Lots of people honestly like it here. Lack of political corruption, opportunity, education, more liberty, more women's rights, and less crime are just a few of the non-job related things that motivate people to want to stay in Amercia, but that we often take for granted.
I know you're pretty dead-set against anything to do with borders Bok, but for the world here and now, I'm hard pressed to think of some workable plans that completely neglect them at least short-term. I think economic pressure here not to hire illegal immigrants would be most effective if less people were coming across undocumented.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition, and I don't think there's anything stopping Congress from asserting jurisdiction over people naturalized in that way anyways.
Posted by Phan90125007 (Member # 9570) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Except that they aren't sending you rent checks, they are going to your neighbor, who is willing to take them in (for a price), and in return is mowing your neighbor's lawn for half the price your son/daughter is willing to do it for.
They're going to Canada? Then what's the problem?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phan90125007:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Except that they aren't sending you rent checks, they are going to your neighbor, who is willing to take them in (for a price), and in return is mowing your neighbor's lawn for half the price your son/daughter is willing to do it for.
They're going to Canada? Then what's the problem?
Are you really not clear on the difference? We don't own America. We didn't buy it. It doesn't belong to us. It isn't property.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Are you being insincere, or did you not get what I was saying, Phan?
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: That's a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition, and I don't think there's anything stopping Congress from asserting jurisdiction over people naturalized in that way anyways.
I have no idea why you are saying this to me.
Omega M. wanted to know why we couldn't deny citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to two non-citizen parents. I told her why.
If you think Congress has the power to declare that persons born in the U.S. (except those not subject to U.S. jurisdiction) are not citizens, could you please cite the authority for that contention?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, I hadn't read his post, I thought he was proposing an expansion by adding the rule you quoted.
quote:Why can't the law just be that anyone born to at least one parent who is a citizen is automatically a citizen?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, that explains it. I couldn't wrap my mind around what you were referring to. Sorry for the confusion - I should have quoted the previous sentence.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I get paid under the table I'm 19 why should I have to pay .15% of my hard earned money now? Why not you know later on when I earn 6 figure where the gov't will actually get something from it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because you're a member of society partaking in the benefits of that society.
Because you don't want to go to jail.
Because you shouldn't be dishonest.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You only pay .15% of what you make? Dude, don't complain... Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
Omega M. wanted to know why we couldn't deny citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to two non-citizen parents. I told her why.
Um, I'm a man, not a woman. I'm flattered that I was able to fool you, but I always thought the tone of my posts and the topics I post about signalled "man" to everyone. Oh well.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Uh oh....we'll now have to change the way we communicate with you, stop assuming your boyfriend is posting for you when you do a good one, stop interupting you, and take you much more seriously now.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sorry, OM.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
No need to apologize; I was just surprised that it happened.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
It’s not everyone, though. At least twinky recognized that it’s still the same Card. Just to clarify, I don’t have that big a problem with OSC’s style no matter which side of the issue I’m on.