Imigration in America

[kandrathe]

Smuggled cigarettes are cheaper than legal ones because they're exactly the same as legal ones, only without the sin taxes. I wouldn't advocate massively taxing heroin, pot, or meth, because that would just put you back to square one - a tax is just a lesser form of a ban. Put the taxes up high enough, and you create a potential black market equal to the price differential between the smuggled and legal substances. Keep the taxes low, and that differential will be zero or negative - hence, no black market, no profit for gangs.

Everyone will want they're cut though, in a legal market you pay for distribution, marketing, profits, taxes. The government has two overwhelming reasons to do the opposite of what you suggest. First, the promise of tax money to offset the costs of prevention programs and addiction treatment, second, that enforcement makes the government bigger.

Bootleg liquor is a quality issue, in addition to a tax issue. Your bottle of JD's is, in the end, a high-quality premium product. Your crazy uncle's backyard moonshine, on the other hand, tastes like industrial solvent and hellfire, and will probably make you blind. If you want super cheap liquor, just buy some bulk alcohol from a chemical supply store, and dilute it with something or another. Wham, cheap liquor. It'll just be totally disgusting and maybe a little dangerous.

That is the myth, and some illegal liquor was dangerous. But, like any illegal product it needs to pass for the legal one. The businesses that distribute alcohol and cigarettes have always been on the shady side of the law. Illegal alcohol is a huge part of the bar and restaurant business.

That's crazy talk. Have you seen the price of cocaine on the street? 100 bucks a gram. A *gram*. That's the down payment on a small house per kilo, and for a truckload of the stuff? Millions and millions of dollars. Hiring a couple Bolivian campesinos to make the stuff with plastic buckets and machetes is cheap. Really cheap. It would cost even less if there were no paramilitaries taking a cut.

The price will plummet, yes, of course. The question would be is the profit margin for smuggling it still worth it, and that depends on how high the price is raised by fixed overhead costs.

Only a devout libertarian could possibly think that government regulation costs *that* much, that a legal pharma company couldn't put cocaine on the shelf for less than $100 a gram. I bet they could do it for a tenth of that. No patents to worry about, no R&D, just manufacture and bottle.

You could do it illegally. Look at what has happened on the internet with something as simple as Viagra.

You're seriously comparing the US, in terms of being potentially overwhelmed with crime, to South Africa, Somalia, or (gods forbid) Zimbabwe? I'm no big fan of the cops in the States, but I'm pretty sure they can keep at least that much of a lid on things, that it doesn't degenerate into Colombia circa 1970. Heck, even Colombia is managing to get a handle on its kidnapping problem, and it still doesn't even come within a mile of the US in terms of enforcement power.

While violence, and enforcement has not deteriorated to that point, it very well could. Especially, when the "emergency measures" are controversial and populace refuses to enforce the law. So, like an insurgency, when a significant portion of the populace sides against law enforcement, it will spiral out of control. Add to that the shrinking revenues due to the "recession".

Well, human trafficking is still about getting poor Mexicans (or Asians, or Africans, or Eastern Europeans) to work in the US. They're just taking it a step further - rather than individuals working voluntarily for employers willing to look the other way (or being deceived), it's families or organizations sending people into quasi-slavery to service willing employers.

It occurs often where immigrants (legal and illegal) are bound by illegal contracts to work off the cost of their own transport. Then, they find they are incarcerated until their debt is paid off, and must also pay for room and board for their own incarceration.

But the same concept applies - the easiest way to combat this process is to have a safe, legal alternative. Prostitution is probably the most odious form of human trafficking, although I do always wonder the extent to which there is more compliance than the figures let on. But, allow legal prostitution, and the market for coerced prostitutes diminishes.

Maybe. Maybe the "slaves" are cheaper and offer more depraved services.

They are plainly not an unbiased source, and this is plainly not an impartial analysis. I'd characterize them as being extreme.

Finding an unbiased source for or against in this debate is getting difficult.

Third, this does not challenge the assertion - that most illegal migrants pay taxes, at least the ones that come off your paycheque. (Almost none earn enough to owe income taxes anyway.) It merely asserts that the costs far outweigh the benefits.

I agree that most pay some taxes, at least consumption taxes. Many are filing their tax returns using a federal ID number, which also allows them to get their refunds. So, no, I don't believe that many illegal immigrants are earning enough to pay billions of dollars of taxes. I guess another question would be, "who is really paying the tax?" Is it the employer, who passes the costs on in the costs of goods and services? I think so. Not that this would have been different had the labor been entirely legal. But, given that then, there is the additional unremunerated costs born by the local and state governments.

Fiscally, they are probably right, although I don't think by the margin they give. (Specifically, lumping the education costs of US citizen children of illegal migrants in with the costs of illegal migrants is unfair, since it is also the US who will gain the benefits of their education and labour when they grow up. These are citizens, and dealing with them as exceptional smacks of xenophobia, at best.)

Although, they did get here by having their parent skip to the front of the line illegally. Some legal immigrant was denied, and that is the injustice.

Economically, they're wrong. Lower prices and a more flexible labour pool generate substantial revenue to offset the costs. Remember Bastiat! An employer's savings, an illegal worker's wages, or a consumer's cheaper grocery costs go *somewhere*, even if you can't see where.

You are citing Bastiat to me. I'm getting though to you, aren't I? I agree with you (and Bastiat), by the way.

In any case, the amount lost by Joe Average in the US from illegal migration is practically zero. If you're rich and you live in California, it might show up on your tax bill, but even then, it's not a heck of a lot. If migration stopped dead in its tracks tomorrow, I doubt anyone would even notice, in terms of their tax burden.

Again, I'm not against this very productive group of workers from coming and working here. I'm against the lack of order involved in the human trafficking, and the risks of having a porous border or stupid immigration officials allowing potential terrorists here.

I presume they can't be "owed" tax credits, since they can't claim anything back - they have no legit social security number. To whom are they going to direct a rebate? To a nonexistent individual?

I hope they don't qualify for EITC, but with a federal tax id they can get a tax return.

That's just about 7 billion a year in free money the US Federal government gets, with no way for the worker to ever claim it back.

It seems like a huge number, but I doubt its anywhere near that high and would hardly offset the costs of illegal immigration in just Arizona.