Imigration in America

[kandrathe]

Controlling a border is relatively easy when you're only looking out for a handful of wanted criminals. It's basically impossible when you're trying to stop the flow of hundreds of thousands of people and billions of dollars in drugs across a border two thousand miles long. How controllable a border is depends on what you mean by control, what your objective is. Change your objectives, and control will be much easier. Keep the existing ones, and I bet you never gain control of labour migration, let alone the drug trade, or violent gangs.

I'm still not sure drugs and easing immigration are the answer. Unless, the government actually works hard to either discourage usage, to dry up demand, or to promote the distribution of drugs, to undercut the market price. Whatever was in demand would need to be readily available to prevent an illegal black market. Can you see any legitimate government doing that? Allowing is one thing, but promoting? I just don't see the moralistic US being able to do a 180 on drug policy. We don't even allow people to buy more than 1 package of OTC pseudo-ephedrine at a time now for fear they will turn it into meth.

And, for the human traffic; until there is enforcement of hiring illegal labor, there will be illegal labor. So long as there is a way to come to the US and make more than the squalid slum they came from, they will come. So, even when the number is liberal, or very, very liberal, there will be others who are willing to come and undercut the current lowest rate. The whole reason illegal immigrants are employed is that employers pay cash for wages only. No health insurance, no social security, no taxes. For 100 employees, that can add up to over $2 million in illegal savings per year. It's a win-win for the employer and employee, but a net loss for the State who must support the dead weight (roads, hospitals, schools, and other services). It's not unusual for certain businesses to keep two sets of books.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If I wanted to read 450 major novels, I'd have to set aside at least a whole year, just for that, and even then I doubt I'd get it done. That's a colossal amount of reading. Did they really get everyone to do this?

You realize, of course, that those numbers are for a four year period. A book a week for the school year (36 weeks) comes out to 144, which may be closer to the actual number. And this does include anthologies of both poetry and short stories. And for each Anna Karenina there were at least two Lord of the Flies. In paperback form, it probably averages about 250 pages per book. At 50 pages an hour (slow enough to read and take the occasional notes) that's five hours a week plus, maybe two, for the report.

Tripling that number for the prep curriculum didn't really triple the workload. For one thing, 30 to 40 of the additional books were on the Summer reading list. We also did not write more reports, since many of the works were only discussed in class. And, of course, the people in the prep curriculum were expected to do more, including reading faster and understanding better.

Did they get everybody to do that? It was a private school, about 600 students, and had a long waiting list. They didn't get everybody to do it, just everybody that got to stay.

EDIT: And the original mention of 'major novels' was wrong -- that should have been '150 books including major novels'. Sometimes my mind moves faster than my body. Sorry about that.

--Pete

[Jester]

I'm still not sure drugs and easing immigration are the answer. Unless, the government actually works hard to either discourage usage, to dry up demand, or to promote the distribution of drugs, to undercut the market price. Whatever was in demand would need to be readily available to prevent an illegal black market.

What sets the price of drugs? It's surely not production costs - that happens at pennies to the dollar in South America, or Afghanistan, or in grow-ops, or meth labs. It's not transport costs - they weigh little and cost a lot. It's not taxes - they're untaxed. There's no patents to pay for. So what is it?

It's the cost of doing the trade illegally, the costs of smuggling, and the markup the middlemen get to charge. Change that, and the cost will plummet. The market price could be undercut by an absurd margin, by a legal supplier. You don't need to change demand, you don't need to promote drug use. Just legalize, and the gangs lose their no. 1 source of revenue.

Can you see any legitimate government doing that? Allowing is one thing, but promoting?

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.

To legalize, you don't need to promote the use of drugs. In fact, you can set your education and propaganda against them. You just have to make them available.

I just don't see the moralistic US being able to do a 180 on drug policy. We don't even allow people to buy more than 1 package of OTC pseudo-ephedrine at a time now for fear they will turn it into meth.

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.

And, for the human traffic; until there is enforcement of hiring illegal labor, there will be illegal labor. So long as there is a way to come to the US and make more than the squalid slum they came from, they will come.

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?

So, even when the number is liberal, or very, very liberal, there will be others who are willing to come and undercut the current lowest rate. The whole reason illegal immigrants are employed is that employers pay cash for wages only. No health insurance, no social security, no taxes.

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.

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.

For 100 employees, that can add up to over $2 million in illegal savings per year. It's a win-win for the employer and employee, but a net loss for the State who must support the dead weight (roads, hospitals, schools, and other services). It's not unusual for certain businesses to keep two sets of books.

I'm not actually sure it is a net loss for the state. Again, labour generates production. Production generates taxes. Taxes pay for programs. Now, that does have to be weighed against the costs, but do remember Bastiat - just because it's easy to see the costs going out the door, and difficult to see the tax money coming indirectly, doesn't mean we can forget about it.

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.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Whatever was in demand would need to be readily available to prevent an illegal black market. Can you see any legitimate government doing that? Allowing is one thing, but promoting?

How many states have package stores? How many states restrict the sale of alcohol (some, only hard liquor, others, everything) to their monopoly?

I just don't see the moralistic US being able to do a 180 on drug policy.

Did Prohibition occur in your universe?

It's not unusual for certain businesses to keep two sets of books.

Tighten up the laws, tighten up the enforcement, and make the penalties such that the risk is not worth the result. Usually I agree that increasing the penalties does not deter crime since most criminals are either stupid, sociopaths, or both and do not consider the risks. But we're talking business people here, if they stand a very good chance to lose everything they own (as proceeds of a criminal activity) and spending ten or more years in jail, I suspect most of them would not risk it.

That would, indeed, be addressing the problem. Of course, the savings you envision to the taxpayers are ephemeral. The amount saved in taxes would be spent many times over in higher cost goods and services. Or the migration of more jobs to low labor cost countries. I'm enough of an idealist to think the cost is worth the results, but I don't think most of the country would agree.

Have you ever noticed how many "Buy American" bumper stickers there are in a WalMart parking lot?

--Pete

[Taem]

Hi,

Whatever was in demand would need to be readily available to prevent an illegal black market. Can you see any legitimate government doing that? Allowing is one thing, but promoting?

How many states have package stores? How many states restrict the sale of alcohol (some, only hard liquor, others, everything) to their monopoly?

There was a news article last month about Ireland's drug problem, how drugs there are now legal as "bath salts", "not meant for consumption." Just Google "Ivory Wave" and a plethora of 'legal' purchasing sites will show up. It's been going on for quite awhile now. America's answers overseas?

[--Pete]

Hi,

There was a news article last month about Ireland's drug problem, how drugs there are now legal as "bath salts", "not meant for consumption." Just Google "Ivory Wave" and a plethora of 'legal' purchasing sites will show up. It's been going on for quite awhile now. America's answers overseas?

I'm not sure what your point is, but apparently you and I did not get the same information from that article. Apparently, recreational drugs (other than caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol) are not legal in Ireland. The substances mentioned in the article are getting by because of an apparent loophole in the law. It's not clear just what that loophole is, or how wide it extends. Apparently, it does not include opium, heroin, or cocaine, so there's some limits on it.

As to that being any kind of answer -- no way in hell. Just because there's a way around a bad law, or because a bad law is not enforced, does not make it right. One does not solve a problem by ignoring it or denying it.

--Pete

[Taem]

Hi,

There was a news article last month about Ireland's drug problem, how drugs there are now legal as "bath salts", "not meant for consumption." Just Google "Ivory Wave" and a plethora of 'legal' purchasing sites will show up. It's been going on for quite awhile now. America's answers overseas?

I'm not sure what your point is, but apparently you and I did not get the same information from that article. Apparently, recreational drugs (other than caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol) are not legal in Ireland. The substances mentioned in the article are getting by because of an apparent loophole in the law. It's not clear just what that loophole is, or how wide it extends. Apparently, it does not include opium, heroin, or cocaine, so there's some limits on it.

As to that being any kind of answer -- no way in hell. Just because there's a way around a bad law, or because a bad law is not enforced, does not make it right. One does not solve a problem by ignoring it or denying it.

--Pete

Very true. I didn't mean it to be the answer, although I suppose that is what I said. What I meant was that the current War-on-Drugs is simply not working, and over in Ireland, they have a model which is perhaps equally dysfunctional, yet giving the people what they want and perhaps getting rid of the more despicable drug criminals, thus a win-win. This could be the basis for slowly integrating recreational drug use into our system without fully legalizing it right off the bat, because we all know full legalization of drugs in America will never happen. This, at least, provides a means to accomplish such a task slowly while collecting taxes off of it and perhaps even regulating it. You know my stance on drugs, even though I don't use them myself.

But really, is this the answer to our border problems? It's only half the problem. The other half being Mexico's corrupt government and dirt poor pay rate. So long as that exists, illegals will still come into America seeking a better life.

[Jester]

There was a news article last month about Ireland's drug problem, how drugs there are now legal as "bath salts", "not meant for consumption." Just Google "Ivory Wave" and a plethora of 'legal' purchasing sites will show up. It's been going on for quite awhile now. America's answers overseas?

The UK tabloids recently went berzerk over mephedrone - the usual tactic of freaking out over a few deaths of ambiguous cause, and pinning the whole case for a ban on the emotional, rather than rational, argument.

So, they banned it. Now, rather than getting mephedrone from the supermarket, kids have to get methamphetamines from dealers. Party kids become criminals, deaths increase due to adulterated drugs, and people switch to harder drugs. Gangs and dealers win, everyone else loses, and we all get to bask in the moralistic glow of having done the "right" thing, rather than the smart thing.

-Jester

[LavCat]

Whatever was in demand would need to be readily available to prevent an illegal black market. Can you see any legitimate government doing that? Allowing is one thing, but promoting?

How many states have package stores? How many states restrict the sale of alcohol (some, only hard liquor, others, everything) to their monopoly?

I just don't see the moralistic US being able to do a 180 on drug policy.

Did Prohibition occur in your universe?

Need I mention the green fairy? The U.S. more or less rescinded the 95 year ban in 2007.

Interesting the history in various countries: Britain never banned the drug but wanted to ban the immoral Degas painting that portrayed its use. France technically does not allow the sale, but production may be legally exported.

The Swiss ban was enshrined in their constitution for ninety years, and then for an additional four years Absinthe was prohibited by law. Now the drug is legal but there still seems to be a significant black market.

Returning to the topic of Immigration in America: I am firmly persuaded that restrictions on immigration are rooted in racial bigotry and that economic arguments are merely an excuse.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Need I mention the green fairy?

Yes, and the bans were based on exaggerations, half truths, and outright lies. In doing god's work, truth is, at best, an impediment.

. . . but there still seems to be a significant black market.

Just as there's still a significant market for moonshine in the USA. Some don't want to pay the taxes, some think the commercially available stuff is too 'sissy'. I just thought it was a great way to make money in high school.

Returning to the topic of Immigration in America: I am firmly persuaded that restrictions on immigration are rooted in racial bigotry and that economic arguments are merely an excuse.

Shh! On some topics, the truth can no longer be spoken. Prejudice is not dead, it is just mute.

--Pete

[Ashock]

Returning to the topic of Immigration in America: I am firmly persuaded that restrictions on immigration are rooted in racial bigotry and that economic arguments are merely an excuse.

This is what's wrong with people like you. You project your own inner thoughts upon others.

No one has issues with Asian immigrants, for example, and for a reason.
Asians were as much discriminated against in the past as any other immigrant group and that really was racial. However, this was at a time in this country, just like in the rest of the world, when people really were much more ignorant and bigoted than they are now.
These days, people see that when Asians come here, they become productive members of society. They do not sit on welfare. They work and give back to this country as much as they take. They are not a burden and they do not scream about Asian pride while taking from this country after running away from their own. We welcome them in this country.

Generally speaking though, we don't want illegals (from any country) here for a simple reason. By getting here illegally, you are breaking our laws. Period. If you break our laws and you are a foreigner, you do not deserve to be here.

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

[--Pete]

Hi,

No one has issues with Asian immigrants, for example, and for a reason.

Ah! That must be why I so often hear them referred to as 'chinks', 'gooks', 'slopes', etc.

However, this was at a time in this country, just like in the rest of the world, when people really were much more ignorant and bigoted than they are now.

Right, because humanity has evolved past bigotry in the last 50 years. Tell that to the 'rag-heads' who get preferentially checked out at airports.

These days, people see that when Asians come here, they become productive members of society.

Yeah, especially the ones who get here in shipping containers. After all, they're not illegal -- oh, wait, yes they are.

. . . they do not scream about Asian pride while taking from this country after running away from their own.

No, they just move into their enclaves and, after as much as a century and a half, still do not integrate with the white devils.

Generally speaking though, we don't want illegals (from any country) here for a simple reason. By getting here illegally, you are breaking our laws. Period. If you break our laws and you are a foreigner, you do not deserve to be here.

If we really don't want them, how come we hire so many of them? And buy the goods and services they provide?

And, please, argue the points, not the person. Ad hominem attacks are a poor way of making any point other than your dislike for the person.

--Pete

[Jester]

These days, people see that when Asians come here, they become productive members of society. They do not sit on welfare. They work and give back to this country as much as they take.

The vast majority of illegal Latino migrants are workers. That's why they migrated: to work. More than that, they're working long hours at shitty jobs. The entire restaurant industry lives on hard-working Latinos. A surprising amount of them pay taxes, because it's much easier to find work by pretending to be a legal migrant (with fake documentation) than by finding an employer who pays under the table. They seldom use any public services at all, out of fear of being discovered as illegal migrants, and deported. They'll never collect their social security deductions back, because they can't collect social security at all.

You might not like their migration because it is illegal, but they are certainly productive, they don't generally sit on welfare (too risky), they work hard, and at least as far as payroll taxes are concerned, they give back.

-Jester

[LavCat]

Returning to the topic of Immigration in America: I am firmly persuaded that restrictions on immigration are rooted in racial bigotry and that economic arguments are merely an excuse.

This is what's wrong with people like you. You project your own inner thoughts upon others.

No one has issues with Asian immigrants, for example, and for a reason.
Asians were as much discriminated against in the past as any other immigrant group and that really was racial. However, this was at a time in this country, just like in the rest of the world, when people really were much more ignorant and bigoted than they are now.
These days, people see that when Asians come here, they become productive members of society. They do not sit on welfare. They work and give back to this country as much as they take. They are not a burden and they do not scream about Asian pride while taking from this country after running away from their own. We welcome them in this country.

Generally speaking though, we don't want illegals (from any country) here for a simple reason. By getting here illegally, you are breaking our laws. Period. If you break our laws and you are a foreigner, you do not deserve to be here.

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

Within the past month a Romanian neighbor of mine complained that she was thinking of moving back to Europe. When she moved here, she said, this was a nice development but now every other family is Chinese or Indian. "And the Chinese are taking white people's jobs!"

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?


Edit: Spelling.

[kandrathe]

Returning to the topic of Immigration in America: I am firmly persuaded that restrictions on immigration are rooted in racial bigotry and that economic arguments are merely an excuse.

Yes, that is a useful canard in any debate, and if you disagree with me you must be a homophobic wanker with homicidal tendencies.

[kandrathe]

How many states have package stores? How many states restrict the sale of alcohol (some, only hard liquor, others, everything) to their monopoly?

Yes, but in those dry areas, drunkenness is usually a short drive away to the nearest wet county/state line. Now you have DUI to worry about.

Did Prohibition occur in your universe?

Yes. I think Americans might be on the verge of allowing some lifting of restrictions on pot, but cocaine and heroin are still considered too deadly. Besides, you may have missed the memo on this one, this is a nanny state. They don't even want you to be able to add salt to your own food, for fear of what it does to your circulatory system. And, so you think they may allow you to freely snort cocaine?

Tighten up the laws, tighten up the enforcement, and make the penalties such that the risk is not worth the result. Usually I agree that increasing the penalties does not deter crime since most criminals are either stupid, sociopaths, or both and do not consider the risks. But we're talking business people here, if they stand a very good chance to lose everything they own (as proceeds of a criminal activity) and spending ten or more years in jail, I suspect most of them would not risk it.

My experience in working with the upper management of most companies is that if there is a large enough financial disincentive, that will be an easy company policy.

That would, indeed, be addressing the problem. Of course, the savings you envision to the taxpayers are ephemeral. The amount saved in taxes would be spent many times over in higher cost goods and services. Or the migration of more jobs to low labor cost countries. I'm enough of an idealist to think the cost is worth the results, but I don't think most of the country would agree.

The costs to businesses would be in making them compete legally and fairly with all other businesses, instead of getting away with what is essentially massive tax fraud, as well as breach of employment law. I believe that if the law is stupid, then repeal the law. But, if it is arbitrarily enforced, then we are led by a corrupt government.

Have you ever noticed how many "Buy American" bumper stickers there are in a WalMart parking lot?

Do we make anything in America anymore?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Yes, that is a useful canard in any debate, and if you disagree with me you must be a homophobic wanker with homicidal tendencies.

Reminds me of Kissinger, "Just because you're paranoid does not mean they're not out to get you."

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.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Do we make anything in America anymore?

Yeah, Japanese cars.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

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.

If there are obvious barriers, then yes, by all means let's remove them. 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. I have a minor in Latin American studies, speak Spanish (and some Portuguese) and I spent quite a bit of time during the Reagan administration in Central America. Many of my college friends were from South and Central America. Growing up, my dad and I would hunt in northern Minnesota with my dads Native American friends, so I was exposed to the best and worst of their culture (this was before Reagan, and giving them the gambling monopoly).

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?

---

Yeah, Japanese cars.

I read this week that China's BYD is opening up a headquarters in the LA.

[kandrathe]

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???).