New Imigration Reform

[oldmandennis]

The more open the border, and indeed, the more open all borders, the better, in my mind.

I disagree, and I vote. There is a very real limit to the number of immigrants that roads, schools, sewage, police, fire, and healthcare systems can absorb in a given period of time. As a resident of San Diego, I can clearly see that effect - we are definitely not very far from that point.

In the end, immigrants cannot 'funnel' money out of the country in a lasting way. The money goes out, people outside buy products with it, which fuels demand, which creates production back inside your country. The whole loop may take decades or even centuries to return the prosperity, but trade brings wealth everywhere.

I'm not sure how well the remittance thing is quantified, but I'm not going to vote for somebody who thinks "all those Mexican remittances will go to Japan and China... then return to the US centuries from now".

[Swiss Mercenary]

For a given amount of products, if money is flowing in and not out, then all you have is inflation. If you're buying products with them from outside, then money is flowing out. If you could have increased production locally with the money, then what you had was a shortage of cash, and the sensible thing to do would be to save money anyway

Even on a local scale, closed economies only seem like a good idea. They aren't really.

-Jester

You are forgetting that goods may still flow in and out. A net gain of money in the closed economy could mean that the money will be hoarded, and hence devalued... Or spent on purchasing more goods, bringing in more wealth into the community.

As opposed to that net surplus of money leaving that community, and getting spent by other people on purchasing goods for themselves, I'm not quite sure there's only a 'seeming'.

[Jester]

You are forgetting that goods may still flow in and out. A net gain of money in the closed economy could mean that the money will be hoarded, and hence devalued... Or spent on purchasing more goods, bringing in more wealth into the community.

As opposed to that net surplus of money leaving that community, and getting spent by other people on purchasing goods for themselves, I'm not quite sure there's only a 'seeming'.

If goods come in, money goes out to pay for them. If money comes in, goods go out in exchange. There's no way to simultaneously keep cash circulating within a community and yet also spend it on stuff from outside that community.

There is no way to magically generate a surplus of both cash and goods. One needs high productivity or smart investments. But a community with those is not a community that wants to remain insular.

-Jester

[Jester]

I disagree, and I vote. There is a very real limit to the number of immigrants that roads, schools, sewage, police, fire, and healthcare systems can absorb in a given period of time. As a resident of San Diego, I can clearly see that effect - we are definitely not very far from that point.

Like I said. There are social costs, and they must be accounted for. Trying to run your infrastructure on the cheap while also increasing your population is a recipe for disaster. But, then, nobody likes taxes.

I'm not sure how well the remittance thing is quantified, but I'm not going to vote for somebody who thinks "all those Mexican remittances will go to Japan and China... then return to the US centuries from now".

Money flowing from a 'community' the size of the US will return to the US very quickly. US dollars are used primarily to buy US products. (Maybe not directly, but fairly quickly.) The money that goes out finds its way back to the US much sooner than the more ethereal case of a small town's wal-mart increasing overall prosperity.

-Jester

[Swiss Mercenary]

If goods come in, money goes out to pay for them. If money comes in, goods go out in exchange. There's no way to simultaneously keep cash circulating within a community and yet also spend it on stuff from outside that community.

I'm pretty sure there's a difference between surplus cash leaving the community, in exchange for goods, and surplus cash leaving the community, in exchange for nothing (Profit margins getting spent by the Jones' down the street, vs profit margins getting spent by Billy Bob from NYC).

[Jester]

I'm pretty sure there's a difference between surplus cash leaving the community, in exchange for goods, and surplus cash leaving the community, in exchange for nothing (Profit margins).

Profits do not leave the planet, nor are they made in exchange for nothing. Every dollar they make is a dollar that was given to them, by free choosing individuals, in exchange for a commodity. If they didn't want the commodity at that price, they should have bought it somewhere else. The profits made contribute to overall consumption and overall savings. This increases demand for whatever products the first community produces, and increases the availability of capital for new investment. The money that left in profit margins comes back in new loans, investment income, lower prices, and increased demand.

Unless, of course, the heads of Wal-Mart (or any big company) are actually mercantilists, and hoard the wealth like dragons. I think it's safe to say they don't. They take that money and reinvest it, which is how they make their billions in the first place.

-Jester

[Swiss Mercenary]

Profits do not leave the planet, nor are they made in exchange for nothing. Every dollar they make is a dollar that was given to them, by free choosing individuals, in exchange for a commodity. If they didn't want the commodity at that price, they should have bought it somewhere else. The profits made contribute to overall consumption and overall savings. This increases demand for whatever products the first community produces, and increases the availability of capital for new investment. The money that left in profit margins comes back in new loans, investment income, lower prices, and increased demand.

But not all of it to that specific community - only a small portion of it does. 99.99% of it comes back to other similar communites. However, the reason for why demand for the goods produced by the community exists, is because there's more then one Wal-Mart in the world.

You're looking at things on a different level of scale then I. Of course the money goes back into the economy - the difference is, most if it goes into other communities' economies.

THE reason for why it's a bad idea to discourage foreign investment, unless you have a high unemployment rate, is because everybody else is going to hate you for it.

[Jester]

But not all of it to that specific community - only a small portion of it does. 99.99% of it comes back to other similar communites. However, the reason for why demand for the goods produced by the community exists, is because there's more then one Wal-Mart in the world.

You're looking at things on a different level of scale then I. Of course the money goes back into the economy - the difference is, most if it goes into other communities' economies.

THE reason for why it's a bad idea to discourage foreign investment, unless you have a high unemployment rate, is because everybody else is going to hate you for it.

It makes no sense to consider the money going out from one specific community to every other community without also considering the money going the other way, no matter what scale you're looking at. Money from those other communities flows back (on average) to the first community as much as it goes the other way.

Discouraging trade is a bad idea, all other things being equal. On any but the shortest time scales, it hurts employment, investment, wealth, and just about everything else.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Like I said. There are social costs, and they must be accounted for. Trying to run your infrastructure on the cheap while also increasing your population is a recipe for disaster. But, then, nobody likes taxes.
Money flowing from a 'community' the size of the US will return to the US very quickly. US dollars are used primarily to buy US products. (Maybe not directly, but fairly quickly.) The money that goes out finds its way back to the US much sooner than the more ethereal case of a small town's wal-mart increasing overall prosperity.

-Jester

The point is that illegals tend to earn money in a black market economy, funnel it out of the country and simultaneously burden ALL the social systems of the host nation. They can earn quite a bit of money (e.g. I know of one Santa Barbara gardener that earned $100K while I was there), yet pay zero taxes, then get quite a bit of free social services, and also the benefits of infrastructure.

All this would be cured by an effective method of registering aliens for whatever purpose they arrive, enforcing their Visas, and severely punishing those with forged documents. On the other side of the equation we need to more effectively deter hiring undocumented aliens, limit the available free social services and have aliens pay their fair share of taxes. If it is worth coming to this country to work, then people should pay their own way. If they need aid to survive or are in any other way undesirable, then let their own nations bear that burden.

[Taem]

The point is that illegals tend to earn money in a black market economy, funnel it out of the country and simultaneously burden ALL the social systems of the host nation. They can earn quite a bit of money (e.g. I know of one Santa Barbara gardener that earned $100K while I was there), yet pay zero taxes, then get quite a bit of free social services, and also the benefits of infrastructure.

All this would be cured by an effective method of registering aliens for whatever purpose they arrive, enforcing their Visas, and severely punishing those with forged documents. On the other side of the equation we need to more effectively deter hiring undocumented aliens, limit the available free social services and have aliens pay their fair share of taxes. If it is worth coming to this country to work, then people should pay their own way. If they need aid to survive or are in any other way undesirable, then let their own nations bear that burden.

Yes, I concur with everything you just said!

However... this is obviously an issue which should have been addressed a long time ago, wouldn't you agree? As it stands now, there are so many illegals here, by their choice or not (such as the girl who was born in Mexico, but taken to the states when she was 2-mo. old) that there must be a way to give illegals here now amnesty in the form of temporary work visas for the year. Then they can go threw the system to renew their visa, apply for citizenship, or get the hell out if they aren't being productive. But there has to be a middle ground for these people - not just a, "surprise, your *ucked and can't work here anymore. Abandon your families and houses which are American and go home now!"

[kandrathe]

Yes, I concur with everything you just said!

However... this is obviously an issue which should have been addressed a long time ago, wouldn't you agree? As it stands now, there are so many illegals here, by their choice or not (such as the girl who was born in Mexico, but taken to the states when she was 2-mo. old) that there must be a way to give illegals here now amnesty in the form of temporary work visas for the year. Then they can go threw the system to renew their visa, apply for citizenship, or get the hell out if they aren't being productive. But there has to be a middle ground for these people - not just a, "surprise, your *ucked and can't work here anymore. Abandon your families and houses which are American and go home now!"

I'm not advocating a clean sweep. The first step is to require all aliens to have a documented status, and to then begin the arduous process of deciding what is fair treatment on a case by case basis. So, crocodile tears aside, if Elian Gonzales belongs with his father in Cuba, some "Americans" by birth may be should go live with their families in Mexico if that is how things turn out. For those rare cases of adults who have been in America illegally for decades and have no native roots, we can make some exceptions. There are thousands (and maybe tens of thousands) of similiar anecdotes, which came about through decades of mismanagement, and poor policy and enforcement.

[Taem]

I'm not advocating a clean sweep. The first step is to require all aliens to have a documented status, and to then begin the arduous process of deciding what is fair treatment on a case by case basis. So, crocodile tears aside, if Elian Gonzales belongs with his father in Cuba, some "Americans" by birth may be should go live with their families in Mexico if that is how things turn out. For those rare cases of adults who have been in America illegally for decades and have no native roots, we can make some exceptions. There are thousands (and maybe tens of thousands) of similiar anecdotes, which came about through decades of mismanagement, and poor policy and enforcement.

So we are in complete agreement then. The only reason I posted in the first place was to voice my objections to this new reinforcement of the old alien reform by disallowing illegals to earn income in the states. I feel, and it sounds too me like you do also, that in rare cases where an illegal does deserve a visa, they should be able to bypass the system and get their papers. The problem is, of course, there are so many illegals with SOB stories (which are true), it would undoubtedly overwhelm any system that deals with this sort of thing.

I know I'm repeating myself without offering any new information or insight, but the only was I can see to logically accomplish giving illegals that deserve work visas visas would be to give work visas to all illegals here now; is there any other way? I suppose short of doing this - which I doubt will ever happen, then what is happening now is the next best thing. It has to start somewhere and I understand, and agree with this concept, just not its implementation.

However, is there any speculation as to the aftermath of this reform? My fears are the repercussions (I'm imagining the L.A. Riots) that might occur on a national scale if there are millions of illegals who can't find work here to support their families and pay for their houses and cars bought here. Desperate people do desperate things. There is a lot of strong emotions about this issue on both sides, and I fear the radicals who support the idea of hostility towards Americans; it reminds me of your post about that MS13 gang and their ties to Al Quida. But I have been known to over-speculate - just my mind wandering.

[kandrathe]

The problem is, of course, there are so many illegals with SOB stories (which are true), it would undoubtedly overwhelm any system that deals with this sort of thing.

Actually, not. It just takes good planning, and then follow through. What is missing is the political will to risk pissing off millions of Hispanic voters.

[Taem]

Found two interesting articles while reading Google News the other day:

Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants in UK

LONDON: A political party in the UK has called for long-term illegal immigrants to be offered an amnesty and the chance to gain British citizenship.

According to a proposal adopted at the Liberal Democrats' party conference, nearly 600,000 people living in "a perpetual twilight world" could get a chance to regularise their status after ten years, report said on Wednesday.

"The issue of immigration has become the dog-pit of British politics. That (amnesty) is the only sensible way to persuade the public that this is a measured, pragmatic way of proceeding," the party's home affairs spokesperson Nick Clegg said.

More than 560,000 people have been arriving in the UK with the intention of staying more than a year, say government figures. Insisting that immigration into Britain was "not too high", he said, "If you have an immigration system where you have large numbers of people coming..., the system is not competent and you don't plan for the consequences, and you don't work to integrate people, then of course the numbers can seem too high."

But both the ruling Labour Party and the Tories have opposed the move. "An amnesty is unnecessary and would simply create a strong pull for waves of illegal migration," Liam Byrne, the UK immigration minister said.

That last comment really caught my attention because of the discussion kandrathe and I were having about the possibility of giving amnesty to those illegals here in the US who for whatever reason "deserve" citizenship, but read on...

New Immigration Reform in UK

Associated Press
Brown Says UK Will Rank Immigrants
By RAPHAEL G. SATTER 09.24.07, 2:38 PM ET




BOURNEMOUTH, England -

Britain will rank potential immigrants according to what they offer the country, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Monday, promising to streamline his country's clunky immigration system.

Britain has been trying to find a way to keep its doors open to the foreign doctors, nurses, engineers and technology workers it needs while keeping a firm hand on which individuals are admitted. Earlier this year, Britain announced plans to adopt a system similar to Australia's point-based plan, which gives the highest priority to immigrants with the most badly needed skills.

"Britain will continue to benefit from skilled workers abroad and they will understand their responsibilities to earn the right to settle," Brown said in his speech to the Labour Party conference.

The new program assigns points to immigrants for the skills they possess. That would offer an advantage to workers with higher degrees. The least skilled workers would find it tougher to stay in Britain.

The new system is expected to come into force in the middle of next year and will apply to citizens of countries outside the European Union, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. It will not apply to refugees or asylum cases.

Advocates say the system is simpler, cleaner and easier to enforce than the current rules governing foreigners. Participants in more than 80 different work and study programs will now be ranked by skills and put into five different groups.

Scientists or entrepreneurs will comprise the top group and be able to come to Britain without a job offer. Next come nurses and teachers, who can stay if they are sponsored. The third group will be temporary workers, who can come to fill labor shortages. Students make up the fourth group while working vacationers or touring artists such as musicians make up the fifth.

Each would have different rights and different prospects for being allowed to stay in the country - and eventually earn British citizenship.

That bothers immigration advocacy groups, who say the process effectively makes it impossible for unskilled workers to stay in the country long term or acquire citizenship and all the rights that come with it.

"Unskilled workers, when you really limit their rights, you really are saying that they can't come here," said Rhian Beynon, a spokeswoman for Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. "There may be a utilitarian argument, but then you ignore the human rights argument."

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

If the US only accepted "educated" Mexicans as citizens, wouldn't that be interesting? I can't even begin to imagine what would happen. It's actually quite the opposite here, where we accept only the most uneducated so that they can take on the most piss-poor jobs that no American wants for minimum wage. It seems to me America has a very symbiotic relationship with Mexico that no other country truly has.