Imigration in America

[LavCat]

Until the year I was born the state of Arizona withheld the right to vote from Native Americans, contrary to federal law. You think things are different now?

It looks like things are changing. While turnout still seems a bit depressed compared with the ~42% nationwide turnout, this article also discusses some cultural barriers of engaging Native Americans in non-tribal politics. I confront these statistics all the time. To me, the crux of the racism is in measuring them by, and expecting Native Americans to embrace the culture of the white oppressor. The same struggle exists worldwide in how Europeans brought the modern world to indigenous peoples. Part of the discrimination (and an insidious one) is using our yardstick to measure their achievement in our culture.

So, the best we can do now is to offer them the opportunities they were denied in the past, and respect them for however they choose to live their lives. They can choose to live in the tribes, or in our world. A little disclaimer here; my wife attended a tribal grade school, and a majority black high school.

Denying suffrage did make the choice easier I suppose. My disclaimer is that my father's grandmother was Cherokee.

In the year that I was born, black students were denied access to the University of Georgia, blacks were arrested for sitting at "White only" lunch counters across the south, the Supreme Court outlawed segregated inter-state bus service in Boynton v. Virginia, etc, etc, etc.

Do you think things have changed?

---

Of course things have changed. My state ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 2003.

But then again our governor just declined to reappoint the only African American on the State Supreme Court. I gather that the Supreme Court has always been somewhat political, however from when the court was created in the State Constitution of 1947 till now, no governor, Republican or Democrat, has declined to reappoint a sitting justice.

Thinking again of Indians (Native Americans, if you will), in our ancient state constitution, if a dispute was between two Europeans, it was to be decided by a jury of twelve Europeans. If between two Indians, Indian law would apply. If between a European and an Indian, a jury of six Europeans and six Indians would decide.

[LavCat]

Yes, racism is an easy charge to claim. Doesn't always make it false. And, in this case, there's a lot of indicators that there definitely is an element of that involved. Doesn't mean that your opinion is based on racism, and I believe that in your case it isn't. Still, that doesn't mean that it isn't the basis for others, maybe even most others.

Yes, there is that. Most bigots will choose any flimsy argument, rather than come right out and say, "I'm a bigot" (barring Fred Phelps family, the KKK, and a few notable exceptions).

A CBS/NYTimes Poll released this week show that 51% of Americans are "racist bigots" (at least to the vocal militant minority that don't support the Arizona bill). I am wondering though, about the 9% who thought the bill did not go far enough. What to they want? (e.g. concentration camps???).

Another disclaimer: my father was a member of the Klan.

[Jester]

I am wondering though, about the 9% who thought the bill did not go far enough. What to they want? (e.g. concentration camps???).

I think there there is a fair undercurrent of support for rounding up all illegal migrants in a gigantic purge and giving them a long, involuntary vacation in sunny Sonora.

-Jester

[eppie]

So no, you are incorrect. You want to be right, because that would justify your own pathetic and misguided views, but you are not.

Your 5 or 6 last posts on the lounge made me almost type in a discriminating rant. (and I hate discrimination) Please keep things nice around here and don't try to get the blood out under people's nails.
Respect to Pete and Jester that reply you in a civilized way.

[kandrathe]

What sets the price of drugs? ... So what is it?

The price a user is willing to pay for them (both monetary and physically).

Just legalize, and the gangs lose their no. 1 source of revenue.

I just don't see the same progressive government that is contemplating outlawing salt allowing the use of heroin. They know what's best for us. The gangs will turn to kidnapping, and other crimes (e.g. Somalia).

Go to a pharmacy, or a hospital. If you've got the basics of chemistry, you can find near-exact equivalents for speed, heroin, opium, tranquillizers, you name it. It's all there, in the *legal* pharmacopoeia, already.

In very limited supplies. I'm sure Pfizer and Merck would be able to find a ready supplier though.

There's a difference between "unwilling" and "unable". I'm offering my solution. I think it would work - or at least, work a hell of a lot better and cheaper than what's happening now. Whether there is the will to implement this solution is another matter. If the US will never adopt any policy but drug war, then obviously, the drug war will continue.

I agree. Both Republicans and Democrats here are following the "drug war" path. Funding waxes and wanes with the political winds. It's the local cops who have to deal with streets inundated with narcotics as interdiction fails to cut off supplies.

So long as migrating to work is illegal, yes. If migrating to work was easy and legal, then there would be much less market for people to enter illegally. Why pay for a coyote, when you can just go to the border and apply?

The traffic goes both ways. Slavery is illegal, and legalizing slavery would not be an answer to reducing the flow of human trafficking. This is more easily masked currently due to the flood of southern commuters going to work in the US.

First, there is a restricted pool of people who want to migrate. It's large, but it's not infinite. There is also a restricted pool of opportunities, and once they are filled, people will no longer come to fill them. If migration stops because the jobs are already filled, then great. Equilibrium! You might have to fiddle with lowering minimum wage laws, but I wouldn't be opposed to that.

The people who come now don't know if there is a job for them or not. They come based upon hope alone.

Second, lots of illegal migrants receive paycheques, which means they pay social security - and never collect. I'm sure they don't get much in the way of a benefits package, but they do generate tax revenue. Cash under the table does not generate a paper trail, and if they're hoping for citizenship, they're going to need a paper trail.

Paper trails lead to investigations and deportation. They know the game. Most illegal workers don't pay any taxes.

However, you are absolutely right that it is employers' savings driving this. But, if minimum-wage guest-worker labour was readily available in whatever quantities you needed, would employers risk hiring illegals on a large scale? Would migrants choose to migrate illegally for terrible wages, when they had the option of migrating legally for minimum wage? It would at least diminish the problem. I suspect it would more or less eliminate it.

I think there is something that can be done for guest workers, beyond making it easier to become documented (in a US embassy in their home nation preferably). If the law allowed that guest workers payed no social security, minimal taxes, and had some cheap option for health care, then it might work. It would be ironic that guests workers, would from a libertarian sense, be freer than the citizens.

[Jester]

The price a user is willing to pay for them (both monetary and physically).

No. The price a consumer is willing to pay is the demand curve. Day one, Econ 101 - prices are determined by the intersection of supply and demand.

Right now, demand is high, and supply is restricted. Costs of smuggling and running illegal operations drive the price up for everyone, and where there is little competition between dealers, there are market power issues as well that increase prices. Get rid of all that, and prices will drop dramatically.

I just don't see the same progressive government that is contemplating outlawing salt allowing the use of heroin. They know what's best for us.

As I said. This is not about what I think *will* happen. It's about what I think *should* happen.

By the by, nobody is advocating outlawing salt, straight up. There is the push to legislate the maximum salt content in processed foods, and there is the crazy idea in New York to disallow salt in restaurant preparation. Even the craziest of the crazies is not saying you can't use salt yourself to your heart's content, or discontent, as the case may be. (And yes, at least the second idea is entirely ridiculous, and I suspect will go exactly nowhere.)

The gangs will turn to kidnapping, and other crimes (e.g. Somalia).

What's possible in Somalia, or some parts of Colombia, is not possible in the United States. Kidnapping and ransoming on a large scale is not a plausible revenue stream for gangs in the US.

In very limited supplies. I'm sure Pfizer and Merck would be able to find a ready supplier though.

Supplier? Hell, they'll be the producers! New, designer heroin, now with nasal decongestants! Methamphetamines with viagra - for the young at heart!

My point there is that every nation already sells these "bad" drugs, in slightly altered forms, as perfectly legal perscriptions. We've just stigmatized a segment of them for no good reason, and created a gigantic problem in doing so. (Our brilliant idea now is to ban the legal ones, one by one, until everything you can get high off of is banned except for gasoline and alcohol, because we're complete hypocrites when it comes to our favourite drug.)

The traffic goes both ways. Slavery is illegal, and legalizing slavery would not be an answer to reducing the flow of human trafficking.

Where did this come from? Who's talking about slavery? The key to getting rid of slavery is substitutes - wage workers can do more or less the same thing as slaves. However, similar logic still applies: abolishing slavery did not abolish exploitation of former slaves.

The people who come now don't know if there is a job for them or not. They come based upon hope alone.

Maybe you think they come based on hope alone. But they actually come based on what they hear, what they see, what friends and family tell them. They don't know that there's a specific job for them, but they know that there are jobs. When the jobs start to dry up, they stop coming, or head home. Notice the massive decline in illegal migration since the beginning of the economic crisis? Hope is one thing, but the migrants aren't idiots. They aren't sticking around where there's no work. When they go home and tell everyone there aren't any jobs left, fewer will make the trip.

Paper trails lead to investigations and deportation. They know the game. Most illegal workers don't pay any taxes.

Got a source for that? Because it contradicts everything I've ever read on the topic.

My understanding is that, ever since fines for employers were ramped up, the game changed from "we'll hire you under the table" to "their papers looked legit, officer!" and illegal migrants started receiving normal paycheques under false social security numbers. Specific numbers are difficult to find, but the IRS gets eight million returns a year that do not correctly match any social security number. That's billions in revenue. There are only maybe 11 million illegals in the US, total. Most of these returns are from border states - hmmm, I wonder why?

I think there is something that can be done for guest workers, beyond making it easier to become documented (in a US embassy in their home nation preferably). If the law allowed that guest workers payed no social security, minimal taxes, and had some cheap option for health care, then it might work. It would be ironic that guests workers, would from a libertarian sense, be freer than the citizens.

I suppose, in that particular libertarian sense that is utterly tone-deaf to democracy. Citizens collectively make their own rules, and their "unfreedom" is chosen rather than imposed. Guest workers have no such responsibility for their political future.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

No. The price a consumer is willing to pay is the demand curve. Day one, Econ 101 - prices are determined by the intersection of supply and demand. Right now, demand is high, and supply is restricted. Costs of smuggling and running illegal operations drive the price up for everyone, and where there is little competition between dealers, there are market power issues as well that increase prices. Get rid of all that, and prices will drop dramatically.

Illegally smuggled cigarettes are much cheaper than legal ones, and sin tax free. What would be different? Bootleg liquor is cheaper than the legal, and highly taxed stuff. Once government, and the pharma companies are involved, they will not be able to make the price competitive with what is available on the street. The illegal trade will continue.

As I said. This is not about what I think *will* happen. It's about what I think *should* happen.

By the by, nobody is advocating outlawing salt, straight up. There is the push to legislate the maximum salt content in processed foods, and there is the crazy idea in New York to disallow salt in restaurant preparation. Even the craziest of the crazies is not saying you can't use salt yourself to your heart's content, or discontent, as the case may be. (And yes, at least the second idea is entirely ridiculous, and I suspect will go exactly nowhere.)

That some are seriously contemplating it concerns me. It concerns me that our legislators have become the watch dogs of the public good, rather than allowing people to be responsible for their own good. All processed food products in the US are labeled with Fat and Sodium content. Now informing is not enough, because people don't read them or care to read them. Now, they need to go further to restrict the formula's of the manufacturers.

What's possible in Somalia, or some parts of Colombia, is not possible in the United States. Kidnapping and ransoming on a large scale is not a plausible revenue stream for gangs in the US.

I think there is a tipping point where law enforcement gets overwhelmed by the incidence of crime, and investigation becomes nearly impossible. I've seen this happen elsewhere, such as Zimbabwe, or even South Africa.

Supplier? Hell, they'll be the producers! New, designer heroin, now with nasal decongestants! Methamphetamines with viagra - for the young at heart!

My point there is that every nation already sells these "bad" drugs, in slightly altered forms, as perfectly legal perscriptions. We've just stigmatized a segment of them for no good reason, and created a gigantic problem in doing so. (Our brilliant idea now is to ban the legal ones, one by one, until everything you can get high off of is banned except for gasoline and alcohol, because we're complete hypocrites when it comes to our favourite drug.)

I agree. It should be this way, and consumers should be able to weigh and take their own risks. I've been trying to put together a chemistry set for my sons. Do you know how hard it is to find certain chemicals these days? You have to get them from products meant for other purposes and distill your own.

Where did this come from? Who's talking about slavery? The key to getting rid of slavery is substitutes - wage workers can do more or less the same thing as slaves. However, similar logic still applies: abolishing slavery did not abolish exploitation of former slaves.

Yes, we are talking about degree. I'm looking at the motivation for human trafficking, which is not about getting poor Mexicans to work in the US. If the reason for coming voluntarily disappears, the trafficking of people will continue (as it does from other places not south of us). We are the destination for victimized peoples from every place where life is cheap.

Maybe you think they come based on hope alone. But they actually come based on what they hear, what they see, what friends and family tell them. They don't know that there's a specific job for them, but they know that there are jobs. When the jobs start to dry up, they stop coming, or head home. Notice the massive decline in illegal migration since the beginning of the economic crisis?

There is a silver lining in every cloud, I guess.

Hope is one thing, but the migrants aren't idiots. They aren't sticking around where there's no work. When they go home and tell everyone there aren't any jobs left, fewer will make the trip.

Maybe we could pay them to go back and "say" there are no jobs here.

Got a source for that? Because it contradicts everything I've ever read on the topic.

http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/ca_...?docID=141

My understanding is that, ever since fines for employers were ramped up, the game changed from "we'll hire you under the table" to "their papers looked legit, officer!" and illegal migrants started receiving normal paycheques under false social security numbers. Specific numbers are difficult to find, but the IRS gets eight million returns a year that do not correctly match any social security number. That's billions in revenue. There are only maybe 11 million illegals in the US, total. Most of these returns are from border states - hmmm, I wonder why?

The lowest 40% of wage earners owe no taxes, and many are "owed" tax credits by those who do pay taxes. I believe we are near the point where the majority of people in the US do not pay income taxes at all.

I suppose, in that particular libertarian sense that is utterly tone-deaf to democracy. Citizens collectively make their own rules, and their "unfreedom" is chosen rather than imposed. Guest workers have no such responsibility for their political future.

Only from the point of view of that democracy who is voting themselves more money from the treasury than they contribute back into it. Yes, I would say that the majority and their representatives are choosing their own "unfreedom" (slavery) expecting that some nebulous "rich" will continue to pay their bills. In your language then, collectively, it is chosen, but individually, it is imposed.

[--Pete]

Hi,

All processed food products in the US are labeled with Fat and Sodium content. Now informing is not enough, because people don't read them or care to read them. Now, they need to go further to restrict the formula's of the manufacturers.

It's a little bit more complex than that. I'm on a low salt diet. Sue and I are more than capable of reading product labels and deciding what will work and what won't. The problem is finding foods that are low enough in salt. Very many companies put in a lot more salt than needed because salt enhances the flavor of foods. To compound the situation, the more one eats salt, the less one notices it. To maintain that 'salty goodness' level requires progressively more salt. Even 'reduced salt' and 'low salt' items often have much more than is desirable.

So, I consider that proposal a consumer protection issue. After all, as Jester pointed out, there is nothing stopping a person from adding all the salt they desire. However, I'd be satisfied with only regulating the 'low salt' products.

--Pete

[Delc]

Illegally smuggled cigarettes are much cheaper than legal ones, and sin tax free. What would be different? Bootleg liquor is cheaper than the legal, and highly taxed stuff. Once government, and the pharma companies are involved, they will not be able to make the price competitive with what is available on the street. The illegal trade will continue.

Yea, the gang violence over cigarette and alcohol territory is insane. Oh wait, it doesn't exist in any significant amount. What sort of market share do you think untaxed cigarettes and alcohol have? A couple percent maybe? Even with untaxed cigarettes being a fraction of the cost of legal ones, people still buy the taxed ones. Why? Because the risk and effort aren't worth it. You really think the majority of people would rather talk to some back alley thug to save a couple bucks than swing by the gas station?

[kandrathe]

Yea, the gang violence over cigarette and alcohol territory is insane. Oh wait, it doesn't exist in any significant amount. What sort of market share do you think untaxed cigarettes and alcohol have? A couple percent maybe? Even with untaxed cigarettes being a fraction of the cost of legal ones, people still buy the taxed ones. Why? Because the risk and effort aren't worth it. You really think the majority of people would rather talk to some back alley thug to save a couple bucks than swing by the gas station?

I think you might live in ignorance of what *real* organized crime looks like, and how they distribute their goods.

"Illegal tobacco trade accounts for about 10% of global tobacco sales and costs governments between $40 billion and $50 billion in lost tax revenue per year, according to the Framework Convention Alliance, a coalition of more than 300 campaign groups."

http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/tobacco/

"The illicit trafficking of tobacco is a multibillion-dollar business today, fueling organized crime and corruption, robbing governments of needed tax money, and spurring addiction to a deadly product. So profitable is the trade that tobacco is the world’s most widely smuggled legal substance. This booming business now stretches from counterfeiters in China and renegade factories in Russia to Indian reservations in New York and warlords in Pakistan and North Africa."

[kandrathe]

So, I consider that proposal a consumer protection issue. After all, as Jester pointed out, there is nothing stopping a person from adding all the salt they desire. However, I'd be satisfied with only regulating the 'low salt' products.

It would be fine to better 'define' what can be advertised as 'low' and sodium free. Too often, the big bold letters on packaging claiming 'reduced' fat or salt are meaningless. I think the market should ultimately decide what the products contain, and if the market share of 'low' and 'free' users is large enough, then products will be made for them. But, many people (as evidenced by their unhealthiness) do not care what is in their food.

I too am an avid label reader, seeking truly 'low' sodium/fats and 'free' where the taste is not appalling. We even cycle through multiple grocery stores in a month just to buy certain products carried by each, but not by the other.

[Jester]

Illegally smuggled cigarettes are much cheaper than legal ones, and sin tax free. What would be different? Bootleg liquor is cheaper than the legal, and highly taxed stuff.

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.

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.

Once government, and the pharma companies are involved, they will not be able to make the price competitive with what is available on the street. The illegal trade will continue.

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.

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.

Pot, meth, heroin, extacy, etc... all have similar price profiles. Made for peanuts, sold for riches, with all the money going to the layers of smugglers, gangs and middlemen.

I think there is a tipping point where law enforcement gets overwhelmed by the incidence of crime, and investigation becomes nearly impossible. I've seen this happen elsewhere, such as Zimbabwe, or even South Africa.

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.

Yes, we are talking about degree. I'm looking at the motivation for human trafficking, which is not about getting poor Mexicans to work in the US. If the reason for coming voluntarily disappears, the trafficking of people will continue (as it does from other places not south of us). We are the destination for victimized peoples from every place where life is cheap.

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.

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 we could pay them to go back and "say" there are no jobs here.

Yeah, there's that whole thing about them not being stupid, though. They'd take your money, go back, say there are a bunch of idiots in the US giving out free money, and be back across the border before lunchtime.

http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/ca_...?docID=141

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

Second, their estimates of revenues from taxes are based on one study from 1994. On this topic, 16 years is a very long time, and with the rise of widespread employer penalties, much larger numbers of illegal migrants are moving to forged documents rather than avoiding taxes. Fake green cards and SSNs are not that hard to get, but if you want to use them, you have to suffer the tax consequences.

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. 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.) 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.

So, maybe let's try someone else. How about this guy? Or maybe the CBO? Both of them pretty much say that migration is somewhere between a small net cost, and a wash - although the net winner is the Federal Government, and the net losers are the State governments of the border states. In a fair world, that would be easy to fix - just transfer the cost back from Washington to the border states. But that's another issue.

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.

The lowest 40% of wage earners owe no taxes, and many are "owed" tax credits by those who do pay taxes. I believe we are near the point where the majority of people in the US do not pay income taxes at all.

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?

The only real taxes they'd be paying anyway, even if they were as legal as the Supreme Court itself, are social security contributions, and they don't get those back because they have no legal identity. 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.

-Jester

[Jester]

Even with untaxed cigarettes being a fraction of the cost of legal ones, people still buy the taxed ones. Why? Because the risk and effort aren't worth it. You really think the majority of people would rather talk to some back alley thug to save a couple bucks than swing by the gas station?

Why would it need to be the consumer who buys directly from the criminals? Why not the gas station owner? Or a distributor? Any one of them could pocket a significant profit.

-Jester

[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.

[Jester]

Everyone will want they're cut though, in a legal market you pay for distribution, marketing, profits, taxes.

Don't tax it. Don't allow marketing. Distribution is already a part of the costs of illegal drugs, and cannot take advantage of the easy distribution already enjoyed by pharmacists. Profits are also already a part of the cost (duh). Insofar as everyone wanting a cut, just let the market do its work. Inefficient middlemen will be bypassed. Efficient ones will get a cut, but that's no different from now. So far, all I'm seeing is savings.

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.

Once again: this is what I suggest. If they do something else, then tough beans for them. Offsetting the price of prevention programs and addiction treatments is, I suspect, best done with other taxes. And I'm afraid I don't follow the libertarian tune - the government expands, but it doesn't expand simply for its own sake. It does what it does because there is a reason to, and while it is hardly a paragon of efficiency, it wastes far, far less than most people believe.

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.

I suspect reducing the sin taxes would clean up that problem, or at least sharply reduce it. Whether that's worth the decreased revenue and the increase in alcohol consumption, I don't know.

The price will plummet, yes, of course.

This wasn't what you were claiming before...

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

The retail price of Viagra is driven by pharma overhead - notably marketing and patents. Currently illegal drugs have no patents, and I marketing them should probably be banned ayway. The illegal stuff does not suffer those costs, and is of seriously dubious quality.

To be clear, I don't think legalization will absolutely eradicate all counterfeiting, ersatz production, or gang involvement in the bottom end of the business. What it will do is cut out the heart of the business, putting a major dent in gang funding, and improving the overall safety of drug use, both in terms of quality and violence. If the gangs are competing for small margins rather than large ones, that means smaller gangs, less violence, and less money for their other activities. That, in turn, makes them easier to suppress with ordinary law enforcement.

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.

Very few people are going to take that risk if there is a safer alternative readily available. Increased legal migration means far fewer people who resort to these extreme measures, which means less profit for the despicable criminals who take advantage of them.

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

Really? What axe is the CBO supposedly grinding here?

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.

If so, then that would negate the relatively paltry amount they owe in income taxes. I would have thought that claiming tax rebates would be setting themselves up for investigation, but maybe the benefit outweighs the cost? Not sure.

So, no, I don't believe that many illegal immigrants are earning enough to pay billions of dollars of taxes. (...) 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.

Tough luck for your beliefs, because they are. Social security deductions off their paycheques alone are 6.8 percent of their earnings, and their employer kicks in that much again. If 7 million are working, they'd only have to be earning an average $7,500 a year in pre-tax income to generate that whole 7 billion in revenue. That's about what they'd be getting working some craptacular job for minimum wage, 25 hours a week. I'm sure quite a lot of them are working more than full time, and at least some of them for more than minimum wage. Subtract from that the number who are working for cash only, and the number seems about right.

As for costs in Arizona, to what are you referring? I'm sure Arizona state pays more than it takes in, but that the value is cancelled out by the benefits to Arizonans (Arizonians?) from the Federal revenue, and from lower prices for goods and services - and that the same is true for all states, at least roughly. The fiscal situation is not the same as the overall economic situation.

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.

Who is really paying what tax? Wage earners pay pay part of their social security deduction, and employers pay the rest, like any payroll tax. Their consumption taxes are obviously paid by themselves, as are their property taxes. What tax are you talking about, that employers are passing the costs onwards?

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.

Is the number of green cards the US gives out tied to the number of illegal migrants coming in? Legal immigrants being granted or denied a spot is a question decided by the US government, not by migrants.

Regardless, if one is really concerned with the injustice to people waiting in line, the easy solution is to let them in. Problem solved.

You are citing Bastiat to me. I'm getting though to you, aren't I?

Agreeing with elementary principles of economics is something I hope I've always done.

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.

Everyone is a potential terrorist. If actual terrorists have been streaming across the border, they seem to have been lying low, because there isn't exactly an abundance of cases that have come to light.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

It continues to be entertaining watching you two make glue of this subject

Since Jester is making most of the points I would, I've kinda avoided making 'me, too' posts. However, every now and then I think of something I feel should be pointed out.

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.

I suspect reducing the sin taxes would clean up that problem, or at least sharply reduce it. Whether that's worth the decreased revenue and the increase in alcohol consumption, I don't know.

A few misconceptions here. First, a lot of illegal liquor was and is dangerous. And moonshine makes no attempt to pass for anything other than what it is. The other common illegal alcohol is not a false product, but the real thing that has, somehow, avoided being taxed. Some claim that this is a big problem, but if you actually check out their references you'll find that they're actually talking of moonshine. I'm not too sure of exactly from where home made moonshine is being smuggled into Virginia.

A more common occurrence is the counterfeiting of quality wine (and less commonly beer). However, this does not have as much of a tax impact, since often the counterfeiters pay the taxes. After all, what's $2 when you're selling a $4 bottle of wine for $120.

Oh, and if you are thinking of buying pure ethanol for your next party, be sure to get USP quality. Much of the ethanol manufactured for reagent use is purified in a processes using benzene to remove the last bit of water. The trace benzene that is left will not be kind to you.

--Pete

[Vandiablo]

Hi,

Hi,

Much of the ethanol manufactured for reagent use is purified in a ...

I never knew ethanol is used for casting spells!!

Well, except for very simple ones like "Lose Car Keys" or "Talk Too Loud" or "Destruction of Personal Relationships by Attempt to Engage in Physical Contact." You know, real common stuff.

Van

(not to forget "Made Seemed-to-be-funny-at-the-time Post")

[--Pete]

Hi,

I never knew ethanol is used for casting spells!!

Of course it is, it greatly increases the effectiveness of the one line spells. As that great poet, Nash, said, "Candy's dandy, But liquor's quicker."

--Pete

[Vandiablo]

That depends on the ratio of producers to moochers, ...

Rand alert! Rand alert!

[kandrathe]

That depends on the ratio of producers to moochers, ...

Rand alert! Rand alert!

Guilty! I'm about 2/3rds through a re-read of Atlas Shrugged. It's tainted my psyche for the present. I'm working through some further thoughts on objectivism and egoism back to Aristotelian views of individual liberty. More exactly, where does Ayn's work seem to apply, and where not. What role does altruism play in the success of our society... Things like that...