Ah, Compromise

Thinking more about immigration policy, Mark Krikorian outlines the sort of compromise he'd think about:

But if they wanted a genuine compromise that would lead to amnesty, they needed to pair it with an end to future mass immigration — not just (theortically) re-orienting a portion of the family visas at some distant point in the future, but abolishing them now, along with deep cuts in employment-based and refugee immigration as well.

This sort of thing, I think, is what makes compromise so hard to come by. It's genuinely ridiculous, in my opinion, that we accept the level of illegal immigration that we have right now. It's ridiculous, rather than just plain bad, because it seems we could put a stop to it fairly easily. The basic shape of a crackdown-plus-amnesty compromise makes a ton of sense. The restrictionist view that implementation of an amnesty should be conditional on some evidence that the cracking down is having an impact makes sense. And with that framework in place, we could then allow for the level of immigration to the United States to be set by law in a manner of our choosing.

At this point, though, efforts at compromise totally break down. Mark Krikorian is upset about high levels of illegal immigration because he's upset about high levels of immigration. He's afraid of the looming Hispanic Pizza Menace. I, on other hand, have no such concerns. It seems undesirable to me to have large numbers of people living and working in the country illegally, but I have no problem with large numbers of people coming here from around the world to live and work. If I were dictator, we would step up enforcement, then have an amnesty, then raise the levels of legal immigration. Compromise efforts, however, keep trying blur the lines between people who want to reduce illegal immigration as part of an effort to reduce the number of foreign-born people in the United States, and people who want to reduce illegal immigration as part of an effort to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, people whose status has become a large moral and practical problem.

It's hard, however, to see legislation that could actually embody those goals -- they're too much in conflict.

Comments

Actually, several years ago I came up with an ideal solution to the illegal immigration problem---simple, elegant, workable, and enormously politically popular across the ideological spectrum.

Unfortunately, the margins of this comment thread are just a little too small to contain my proof...

Posted by RKU | May 20, 2007 1:46 PM

I tend to think that rather than pass some new immigration law, we should try actually enforcing the one we currently have. I would think that if illegal aliens couldn't find work because potential employers feared being caught hiring them, the illegals would return to their countries or find another place to make a living.

Posted by Tillman Fan | May 20, 2007 2:02 PM

Well ... here is a solution originated by someone else that is not too small for the margins ... a technical solution, not a presently political possible solution. It's valid for all countries:

Let citizens determine immigration policy by answering questions at the time of each ten-year census.

Each citizen (I suppose only citizens should be asked, citizenship is not a question I believe, in the current census; but the answer could be kept private.) is asked three questions:

(1) From what country would you prefer to have immigrants?

(2) By what percent would you prefer that the US population change in the next 50 years? (-5%, 1%, 6%, 17%, 28%, 39%, 50%, 60%, 72%)*

(3) Would you prefer that immigrants from your preferred country be selected on the basis of:
o skills
o family unification of current citizens
o family unification of the admitted immigrant
o fear of persecution
o other (specify).

The answers to these questions would be transformed mathematically as below into immigration policy which would reflect these preferences.

The percent of total immigrants for a particular country would be proportional to the number of citizens who selected that country. The bases of admission for the overall quota of every country would be proportional to the percent of all citizens who selected a particular basis.

For example if 10% of US citizens preferred Mexico; and if 50% of US citizens preferred skills and 50% preferred family unification with current citizens; then 5% of immigrants would be admitted from Mexico on the basis of skills, and 5% would be admitted from Mexico on the basis of family unification with current citizens.

The percentage of each different skill to be admitted would be determined by the current administration.

The Census Bureau would use the resulting percentage distribution of each type of immigrant, together with the predicted fertility of each type, to determine the total number of immigrants who could be admitted while meeting the desired total percent change in US population. The desired total percent would be the median of all answers to question (2); so half of the citizens would want more, and half would want less.

Should insufficient numbers who have a particular required basis to fill a country's quota wish to immigrate, candidates may be picked on the most popular other basis for that country, and so on though other bases for that country. Should there still be insufficient numbers of immigrants available for that country by the end of ten years; the remaining quota would be added to the overall quota determined by the next census for the next ten years.

For example if 1% of citizens favored immigration from Switzerland and if this translated to a quota of 100,000 over ten years, then if only 10,000 immigrated from Switzerland over the course of the ten years, then the total quota determined ten years later for all countries would be increased by 90,000.

Various interest groups could engage in activism in advance of the census to encourage citizens to give answers which would favor countries and oppressed peoples of the activist's choice. For example, the religious or humanistic might prefer a country where people are suffering greatly and as a basis they might work in favor of a minority persecuted on the basis of their race, sex, religion, etc.

The quota of a country with many persecuted individuals could, by law, be increased, but at the expense of that country's quota in future years.

---------------------------------------------------
*These percentages are determined by the list of expressions: (LL, LL+D/2, LL+D, LL+2D, LL+3D, LL+4D, UL, UL+D, UL+2D) where LL (Lowest Level) is the percent change projected by the Department of the Census assuming zero immigration and the current fertility of citizens, UL (Upper Level) is the Census projection assuming current levels of immigration and current fertility of citizens and immigrants, and D=(UL-LL)/5.

The assumption here is that it is fruitless to offer an option of growth which is below that projected for zero immigration and current fertility.

For example, for the example question above, if LL= -5% and UL=50% then the options would be (-5, 1, 6, 17, 28, 39, 50, 61, 72). If LL were 0, then the options would be (0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 50, 60, 70). If LL were +5% then the options would be (5, 9, 14, 23, 32, 41, 50, 59, 68).

Posted by Robert Hume | May 20, 2007 2:03 PM

I've been reading a lot of immigration stories lately, and the consensus seems to be that conservatives are fooling themselves if they think that anti-immigration policies will help them win national elections, and liberals are fooling themselves if they think that immigration isn't a real issue. (Check out this great piece from Mother Jones by Charles Bowden: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/09/exodus.htmlA, which compares immigration in the Southwest to a human hurricane.)

But one point that neither side wants to face, I think, is that without an impossible-to-fake national ID card, employer sanctions will be meaningless, and without meaningful employer sanctions, reducing immigration by reducing the supply of jobs will be impossible. Given that neither side has even suggested proposing a national ID card (that I know of) I don't see any easy solutions, unfortunately.

Posted by Kit Stolz | May 20, 2007 2:20 PM

" It's ridiculous, rather than just plain bad, because it seems we could put a stop to it fairly easily"

Which is what Nixon thought when he launched Operation Intercept to keep Mexican marijuana from coming over the border in 1969.

Operation Intercept worked. Over time it largely eliminated the ready supply of cheap $10 a bag Mexican marijuana. But had four results. First smugglers turned to more potent and hence less bulk marijuana like Michoacan and the added risk added violence to what had been kind of a lark. My brothers went over the border and brought back pot in 1968, it was kind of like buying fireworks and bringing them across state lines. Illegal but not particularly harmful. Second Operation Intercept spurred the production of Colombian marijuana. Colombian Gold. And incidentally opened the smuggling lines that would be converted to cocaine in years to come. Third Opeation Intercept spurred domestic production and turned Mendocino County from a land of peace, love and drugs into a place where hiking into the wrong place could get you killed. Similar things happened to British Columbia later. Fourth Operation Intercept created dry markets. There were times in the 70's when you simply couldn't score no matter how hard you tried. The result? People turned to other drugs. The crack epidemic which has no been followed by the meth epidemic, and both associated strongly with violence, might well have been avoided if they had just left us with a $10 bag and the necessity of separating seeds and stems from leaf.

"we could put a stop to it fairly easily" Yep between you, Mr. Nixon and a fence it always seems easy. Just watch for the Law of Unintended Consequences. Like the War on Terror we launched the War on Drugs in the wrong place at the wrong time. Lets not repeat that with immigration.

Posted by Bruce Webb | May 20, 2007 2:23 PM

The clearest way to find out if an anti-immigration proponent is really just a racist/xenophobe/moron is to see if they want to stop immigration by immediate relatives (spouses and minor children of US citizens) and refugees. If they do then you have an easy answer to your question- the person is a nativist/xenophobe/racist or moron, or some mix of the above. Now, this test won't pick out all of them but it's a pretty good rought-and ready one. It seems to work for Krikorian and the V-dare types.

Posted by Matt | May 20, 2007 2:33 PM

MattY,

Cheap shot to mock "The Hispanic Pizza Menace," since Krikorian himself notes in the link that it's a "trivial example," but that it illustrates his point (that there are so many Hispanics in the Southwest now that they feel less need to assimilate to the American majority, in ways large and small).

Bruce Webb --

There's a key difference between the "war on drugs" and the problem of illegal immigration, a live person is much harder to house, hide and transport than bags of weed, so this problem is much more soluble by enforcement that the drug war is.

Posted by Zagnut | May 20, 2007 2:47 PM

The restrictionist view that implementation of an amnesty should be conditional on some evidence that the cracking down is having an impact makes sense.

Matt: you're completely off base here. A standard "restrictionist" view is that the "crackdown" should yield results (a 60% drop in illegal immigration? 80%? 99%?) and then we'll get around to doing constructive things like amnesty, or increases in legal immigration.

Their stance is akin to somebody saying in 1928: "Ok, let's see if the crackdown by the booze police results in closing all the speakeasies and a 90% drop in alcohol consumption, and then we'll get around to ending prohibition."

Sorry, ain't gonna work. Prohibition -- in those days alcohol and in current times non-familial Latino immigration -- is the problem. And the solution -- a regulated legalization -- is the same in both cases. This country -- and its economy -- are huge. We could easily absorb, say, 800,000 Latin American economic migrants a year. Just hand out some freakin' green cards, and make the penalties for going outside the system severe. End of problem.

Posted by Jasper | May 20, 2007 2:50 PM

I, on other hand, have no such concerns.

With all due respect, what exactly are your qualifications? It looks to me like you'd never been to the southwest before (MY hiking in suit; "the sky's so blue!") much less lived here for decades, and I don't think you follow this issue anywhere near as closely as Krikorian or even me.

It's good that you have an opinion, but I don't think you know what you're talking about.

As a test, I'd like you to discuss the PoliticalPower that the MexicanGovernment has inside the U.S. Tell us what you know about this issue, whether you consider it a problem, and if the latter what you intend to do about it. Here are some starting points: tinyurl.com/8u2jm, tinyurl.com/23xg52, tinyurl.com/yo2j95, tinyurl.com/yns9zd, tinyurl.com/ysnpd2.

Posted by John Edwards: get ready to help us oppose amnesty | May 20, 2007 2:57 PM

Matt the commenter (not Yglesias) wrote:

"The clearest way to find out if an anti-immigration proponent is really just a racist/xenophobe/moron is to see if they want to stop immigration by immediate relatives (spouses and minor children of US citizens) and refugees."

"Refugee" is a hugely elastic term, there are immigration lawyers here and in Europe who specialize in coaching would-be immigrants on exactly what to tell immigration in order to get refugee status. Needless to say these stories fall everywhere on the spectrum of truth, which screws over the refugees in real need.

Note how much more generous sentiment would be toward allowing real refugees admittance if the average American didn't feel so strongly that our immigration system is completely out of control.

MattY,

As for a compromise, how about Mickey Kaus's: 1) build a wall 2) enforce laws against hiring illegals; 3) return to assimilationist rhetoric and ideals and away from multiculturalism; 4) end birthright citizenship for children with illegal parents (this is insane and we are one of the very last countries in the world who allow it, New Zealand just ended it).

Do those four things, and I'd be in favor of a) letting anyone who's been here for, say, 5 years to stay, with penalties, and b) increasing our legal immigration levels to 2 million a year.

Posted by Zagnut | May 20, 2007 3:02 PM

I'm not sure if the comment was made in jest, but I like Mr. Hume's approach.

One thing that has puzzled me over the debate on legal immigration is why no one has suggested setting a target rate for U.S. population growth -a government agency could do that the same way the Federal Reserve is supposed to set a target inflation rate- then evaluate whether we are falling short of or exceeding that target. The amount of immigration allowed would be the difference between the natural increase of population and the target rate of population growth.

It seems to me that most of the negative consquences of legal immigration is simply due to too rapid popualtion increases in certain areas, with the result of driving down wages, driving up real estate prices, and overburdening servive providers (with illegal immigration you have the additional problem of creating a pool of people who are easy to exploit). I don't know why anyone would object to a target for the population increase.

There are people who view the ability to chose which country you live in as a civil right, and wouldn't like that approach. But I think the value of thei "right" is dubious if it results in a lower quality of life in the host country due to overrapid population increases. Many immigrants are leaving their native countries to get away from the effects of overpopuation.

I would complicate this policy by putting the policy of admitting refugees outside the target. Also, we would probably wind up regulating immigration from Canada and Mexico by treaties with those countries, agin putting those sources of immigration outside the target. But maybe this could be incorporated into the formula, so that more immigrants from Mexico resulting in fewer immigrants from elsewhere and vice versa.

Posted by Ed | May 20, 2007 3:02 PM

There's a key difference between the "war on drugs" and the problem of illegal immigration, a live person is much harder to house, hide and transport than bags of weed, so this problem is much more soluble by enforcement that the drug war is.

Zagnut: Your claim is almost certainly off base. By most estimates people smuggling is a substantially larger business than drugs smuggling, and the amounts to be made are larger. Human smugglers and traffickers have proved every bit as resistant to the efforts of law enforcement officials as drug traffickers. Indeed, the smuggling and trafficking of human beings is the world's largest illegal trade. There are differences between the two, to be sure, but some of these differences help illegal immigrants. A dog can be trained to detect the presence of drugs in a suitcase, for example. But no dog can determine that the Brazilian tourist arriving at JFK has no intention of returning home to Sao Paulo.

Posted by Jasper | May 20, 2007 3:07 PM

Let citizens determine immigration policy by answering questions at the time of each ten-year census.

How about they have to pass a basic test on their understanding of immigration law and policy first? Oh, no: that would mean only naturalized citizens and the spouses or employers of legal immigrants could vote.

As a test, I'd like you to discuss the PoliticalPower that the MexicanGovernment has inside the U.S.

As a test, I'd like you to guess where those concealed links lead, and the equally-concealed ethnic background of their author. Cut and paste from a Wiki, Wack O'? (And by the way, Los Angeles isn't exactly Yuma, AZ.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 20, 2007 3:13 PM

But Jasper, we haven't tried to enforce illegal immigration laws very hard at all in recent decades, even as we've ramped up the War on Drugs with little success. A 175-pound man is much more difficult to hide than a 175-pound man-sized block of doobage; he needs a place to live, a job, etc. Even visa overstays need all these things, so it's not just a catching at the border issue.

Again, the "we can't enforce our immigration laws" sentiment isn't hard to rebut. "Should we?" we can debate, but the "Can we?" arguments are getting pretty thin.

Posted by Zagnut | May 20, 2007 3:17 PM

Jasper writes:

"A standard restrictionist view is that the "crackdown" should yield results...and then we'll get around to...amnesty, or increases in legal immigration. Their stance is akin to somebody saying in 1928: 'Ok, let's see if the crackdown by the booze police results in closing all the speakeasies and a 90% drop in alcohol consumption, and then we'll get around to ending prohibition.'"

Analogy truly is the weakest form of argumentation, this analogy is not an exception to that rule. Forbidding adult Americans to drink alcohol was immoral and impractical, preventing illegal immigration to the country is both moral and practical.

If you had to use an analogy a more apposite one would be: you walk in and find the tub you're running has overflowed. First thing you do is *turn the water off so the problem doesn't get any worse*.

Once the water's off you can clean up the mess without worrying about more water.

Posted by Zagnut | May 20, 2007 3:37 PM

But Jasper, we haven't tried to enforce illegal immigration laws very hard at all in recent decades, even as we've ramped up the War on Drugs with little success.

Absurd claim. Off the top of my head I suspect we're spending three or four times in real terms what we were twenty years ago on immigration enforcement. Well-publicized, widely reported workplace raids are a common enough feature in the headlines. We've doubled or trebled the number of people working our southern border, and beefed up security and screening resources at airports. Should we do a lot more? Maybe so. But the resources we do spend would yield much more satisfactory results if we reduced the size of the problem by coming at once to the conclusion we are inevitably going someday to reach: an open, free, capitalist democracy sharing a two thousand mile border with a poor country can only manage, not prohibit, immmigration-induced demographic change.

Posted by Jasper | May 20, 2007 3:46 PM

Well Jasper, let's see: we have the mayors of large metropolises like New York, San Francisco, and LA officially declaring that their "sanctuary cities" will not enforce illegal immigration laws; we've got banks openly giving loans to matricula-carrying obvious illegals; we've got official policies of in-state tuition given to children of illegals; and of course, we've got a president who has little interest in enforcing the immigration laws, and who appointed an attorney general who has little interest in that, either. For example, Bush signed a bill last year promising 700 miles of fence, of which a big 2 miles have been built.

How you can label these official policies of non-enforcement as anything approaching a serious attempt to curb our illegal immigration problem is a mystery to me. If we really did try, we could drastically curb illegal immigration in a matter of months. We should do it.

Posted by Zagnut | May 20, 2007 3:58 PM

Forbidding adult Americans to drink alcohol was immoral and impractical, preventing illegal immigration to the country is both moral and practical.

Zagnut: It certainly not a part of any moral code I'm aware of to forbid a man who wishes to feed his family from accepting a job from another man who wishes to hire him. And it's certainly not practical, as massive evidence informs us every day.

Your argument might have more impact if we were as densely populated as Japan, but we're not. The reality is we can handle a certain amount of economic migration from south of the border. In fact we're doing so currently, to the tune of 400k-500k annually. And know what? Streets still manage to get swept. And taxes get collected. And the mail gets delivered. And the dry cleaner doesn't lose my shirts. And people get married, and divorced, and the sun comes up in the morning and sets in the evening. I just don't perceive the crisis other seem to. I'm certainly not arguing for unlimited economic migration from Latin America. I'm just arguing that our current policy -- which basically prohibits it outright -- isn't, well, practical. Nor is it moral.

Posted by Jasper | May 20, 2007 4:01 PM

Jasper writes:

"an open, free, capitalist democracy sharing a two thousand mile border with a poor country can only manage, not prohibit, immmigration-induced demographic change."

We can reduce it to a trickle if we want to, and we should. Because remember that Mexico's poverty is relative, look at this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

Mexico is 55th in the world from 180 countries, in the top third. It's far less rich than the U.S. but the U.S. is in the top 10. Mexico is not badly off at all by world standards.

Posted by Zagnut | May 20, 2007 4:02 PM

"It certainly not a part of any moral code I'm aware of to forbid a man who wishes to feed his family from accepting a job from another man who wishes to hire him."

But it is immoral for an illegal immigrant to consume public benefits he has no right to. Just ask the legal immigrant waiting in Pakistan.

"And it's certainly not practical, as massive evidence informs us every day."

We're beating a dead horse, you say wall + enforcement crackdown isn't practical, I say it's not only practical but easy. So why not try it?

"The reality is we can handle a certain amount of economic migration from south of the border. In fact we're doing so currently, to the tune of 400k-500k annually. And know what? Streets still manage to get swept. And taxes get collected. And the mail gets delivered. And the dry cleaner doesn't lose my shirts. And people get married, and divorced, and the sun comes up in the morning and sets in the evening. I just don't perceive the crisis others seem to."

Well, where do you live and what's your situation? I'm guessing you don't have kids in public school in Southern California, or live next door to a boarding house in Northern Virginia, etc. Your perspective might be different.

Posted by Zagnut | May 20, 2007 4:08 PM

Mexico is 55th in the world from 180 countries, in the top third. It's far less rich than the U.S. but the U.S. is in the top 10. Mexico is not badly off at all by world standards.

Not sure what your point is. I'm aware Mexico is not that bad off by world standards. Indeed one reason I'm not too agitated by the influx of Mexican economic migrants is the realistic hope that, as Mexico continues to grow wealthier and its population growth slows down (it's approaching zero), the economic and demographic forces driving this migration will subside. One day, a very gray American might long for the days when she actually had to pay soldiers to keep out young, hard-working Latin Americans.

Posted by Jasper | May 20, 2007 4:12 PM

Jasper --

I see from your blog that you live in Boston, which explains how you can sincerely write a sentence re immigration like "I just don't perceive the crisis others seem to."

Posted by Zagnut | May 20, 2007 4:21 PM

But it is immoral for an illegal immigrant to consume public benefits he has no right to.

I have no objection to strict limits on what people who are here illegally can receive in the form of taxpayer-provided benefits.

We're beating a dead horse, you say wall + enforcement crackdown isn't practical, I say it's not only practical but easy. So why not try it?

I can say the same to you: Why not try legalizing economic migration from Latin America?

Well, where do you live and what's your situation? I'm guessing you don't have kids in public school in Southern California, or live next door to a boarding house in Northern Virginia, etc. Your perspective might be different.

I live in an inner city neighborhood in the Northeast that is (conservatively) 40% Latino or Brazilian, with a sizable contingent of Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Russian. I'm told the neighborhood is a lot more vibrant and safe than the decaying, scary place it was thirty years ago. The ethnic food is certainly good, and cheap.

Posted by Jasper | May 20, 2007 4:26 PM

The right amount of money to spend on immigration enforcement is this: when the marginal cost of preventing the nth illegal immigration equals the marginal (external) cost of that illegal immigrant's presence in this country.

It's really that simple. I'd like to see a set of numbers, that doesn't leave anything out (like, say, the sales and fuel taxes paid by illegal immigrants), that at least shows that the current level of immigration enforcement meets this requirement (i.e., that we aren't spending more to keep people out than it would cost to let them stay) before I sign off on spending more on enforcement. And please, economic factors only in this equation; we all have our own cultural preferences, and they have no place whatsoever in these calculations.

Posted by kth | May 20, 2007 4:35 PM

I see from your blog that you live in Boston, which explains how you can sincerely write a sentence re immigration like "I just don't perceive the crisis others seem to."

Again, I live in a neighborhood that has certainly been impacted by immigration (the foreign born percentage of residents surely approaches or exceed 50%). I just perceive that impact as mostly being beneficial. Nope, I definitely don't see it as a "crisis."

You do bring up a good point, though. My hunch is that that one reason sentiment in blue states tends to be more favorable toward immigrants is that many urban areas in blue states have unambiguously been helped by the increases in immigration over the last several decades. Places like DC, Boston, New York and Chicago all had serious urban blight issues once upon a time. Many still struggle with certain issues, of course (like crime), but all seem to be much more vital, healthy places, especially in terms of economics. Indeed those cities that seem to have more difficulty attracting immigrants (Detroit? New Orleans?) are the same ones that have not partaken of the rebirth of the American city. Needless to say I make no apologies for forming my opinions on immigration based on observations about how the phenomenon affects my community.

Posted by Jasper | May 20, 2007 4:38 PM

"I have no objection to strict limits on what people who are here illegally can receive in the form of taxpayer-provided benefits."

OK, but that's politiclly not going to happen -- if we let people in we're going to give them certain benefits.

"I can say the same to you: Why not try legalizing economic migration from Latin America?"

Because if I'm wrong, and assimilation doesn't turn out to be a problem, we can grant more visas and increase our immigrant flow again. But if you're wrong, and assimilation turns out to be problematic, then the country is fucked, we'll have a permanent economic and racial underclass that'll be 25 or 30% of the country in a few decades, with reasonable irredentist claims and understandable anti-white sentiment.

Risk/reward ratio of the two scenarios are much different.

Posted by Zagnut | May 20, 2007 4:39 PM

JasperFest!

Off the top of my head I suspect we're spending three or four times in real terms what we were twenty years ago on immigration enforcement. Well-publicized, widely reported workplace raids are a common enough feature in the headlines.

Those are for show. In 2003, just four (4!) companies were prosecuted for IllegalHiring. Around that time, I wrote a post called "TheBigShowOnTheBorder". The show goes on.

It certainly not a part of any moral code I'm aware of to forbid a man who wishes to feed his family from accepting a job from another man who wishes to hire him.

Obviously, society's interest is in restricting the jobs that person can take (since this is a "liberal" site, let's try "gun running"), the conditions the job is performed under (since if someone works with toxic waste they might require state-subsidized healthcare at a later point), and many other factors including the effect that the hiring will have on actual U.S. citizens. There are many other effects to be considered in the moral equation as well, such as the impact hiring away 14% of Mexico's workforce has on Mexico.

Posted by John Edwards: get ready to help us oppose amnesty | May 20, 2007 4:40 PM

"I live in a neighborhood that has certainly been impacted by immigration (the foreign born percentage of residents surely approaches or exceed 50%)...Needless to say I make no apologies for forming my opinions on immigration based on observations about how the phenomenon affects my community."

OK, but one neighborhood does not a region make. A white person who lives in an illegal immigrant enclave in Minneapolis will view II differently than someone who lives in LA or El Paso or Miami or Dallas. Sure you're entitled to not view illegal immigration as a crisis, but you can also see the points of view of people in other parts of the country who've had their cities impacted in different ways than you have. Opinions differ on what to do, but there aren't many Southern Californians left who don't view illegal immigration as a crisis.

Anyway, good conversation Jasper, thanks. I'm going out to enjoy what's left of the DC Sunday afternoon. Adios compadre.

Posted by Zagnut | May 20, 2007 4:45 PM

Re: The crack epidemic which has no been followed by the meth epidemic, and both associated strongly with violence, might well have been avoided if they had just left us with a $10 bag and the necessity of separating seeds and stems from leaf.

Unlikely, since in my experience pot attracts a different sort of person than either coke/crack or crystal due. Pot, like alcohol, attracts people looking to mellow out. Coke and meth attract people looking to rev themselves up.

Re: Indeed those cities that seem to have more difficulty attracting immigrants (Detroit? New Orleans?)

Detroit has no problem attracting immgrants (I am referring to the area as a whole, not just Detroit city in isolation). It has in fact the largest Middle Eastern immigrant community in the country.

Posted by JonF | May 20, 2007 4:56 PM

Obviously, society's interest is in restricting the jobs that person can take...

Fair enough. I just happen to think it's not in society's interest (and it's not moral) to prohibit me from hiring a foreigner to watch my children while I work.

Those are for show. In 2003, just four (4!) companies were prosecuted for IllegalHiring.

You may be right, but if you are, this could simply mean that Americans don't have the stomach to send to jail those who hire someone who happens to have the wrong color passport. Or it may also point to the possibility that it is extremely difficult to obtain evidence of criminal intent in such cases, and without such evidence, prosecutors quite rightly don't want to waste public resources. Either way, what we may have here is more evidence of the innate limits of an enforcement-only approach. You're perfectly free to advocate for more "enforcement-only" of course, but it doesn't seem to be resonating very strongly at election time. In 2006, the party that was loudly bloviating about the brown menace got a bloody nose.

OK, but that's politiclly not going to happen -- if we let people in we're going to give them certain benefits.

I think it's at least as politically feasible to crack down on benefits for illegals (many benefits are already denied those here illegally) as it is to get the votes for the huge spending increases I believe are necessary to make an enforcement-only approach work.

But if you're wrong, and assimilation turns out to be problematic, then the country is fucked...

But if I'm wrong, we're already fucked, because under the status quo, we're already getting upwards of a half million (illegal) economic migrants annually. I want to change that status quo and try something new: an explicitly assimilationist policy that works with, rather than against, the country's well-documented, historical ability to create shiny new Americans. What you're proposing, more spending on enforcement, is the path we've been pursuing for two decades -- that path that has led us to the status quo you find so fraught with risk.

Posted by Jasper | May 20, 2007 5:05 PM

Detroit has no problem attracting immgrants (I am referring to the area as a whole, not just Detroit city in isolation).

Right. And I was referring to the city proper. The whole gist of my argument is that formerly blighted, declining inner cities have usually benefited from the arrival of immigrants. Detroit mostly has not, hence her unfortunate position (still) relatively high on the "blight" scale.

Posted by Jasper | May 20, 2007 5:10 PM

The people who solemnly intone that illegal immigration can't be stopped are, of course, wrong. Whether they are being conveniently, deliberately wrong is a judgment I'll leave to others.

We know the horrible conditions in North Korea -- the starvation,etc. Yet how many North Korean cross the DMZ? We are spending almost $600 BILLION per year on defense -- so why can't we defend our southern border?

Answer: Because the Democratic leadership -- and some Republicans -- are whores for the Hispanic Lobby and knife the rest of us in the back to pander to that lobby. Just as that same leadership voted to send 3000 of our soldiers to Iraq to die in order to pander to the billionaires of the Israel Lobby.

No one is pointing out that when our National Guardsmen and Army Reservists return from the Middle East, they may not get their jobs back.
Their employer may prefer to hire all these cheaper foreigners. As I noted earlier, this bill will increase H1B visas for foreign professionals up to 180,000 per year with each visa allowing a foreigner to stay for 6 yeats.

A question I have for Matthew and other advocates of high immigration is this: Why should any US citizen support either the Democratic Party or the US government or should even have any loyalty to this country? Why should anyone pledge allegiance to the Flag? Given that our billionaire, ruling elites have NO loyalty whatsoever to the citizens of this country and betrays them at every opportunity?

Posted by Don Williams | May 20, 2007 5:29 PM

we have the mayors of large metropolises like New York, San Francisco, and LA officially declaring that their "sanctuary cities" will not enforce illegal immigration laws;

My understanding is that such "declarations" are mainly about a separation of concerns. The INS (or whatever it's called these days) is responsible for immigration (a federal issue), not local law enforcement.

we've got banks openly giving loans to matricula-carrying obvious illegals;

If you think that this practice should be made illegal, talk to your local legislators.

we've got official policies of in-state tuition given to children of illegals;

In some situations, at least, we're talking about U.S. citizens, then, aren't we? If the concern is only with illegal immigrants, okay, but otherwise we'll need to amend the Constitution.

Posted by RSA | May 20, 2007 5:32 PM

The people who will be most screwed by this immigration bill will be young Afro-Americans in urban ghettos trying to get a foot on a career ladder.

Yet why do I suspect that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson , poseurs du jour , will remain uncharacteristically silent?

Posted by Don Williams | May 20, 2007 5:34 PM

We know the horrible conditions in North Korea -- the starvation,etc. Yet how many North Korean cross the DMZ?

They cross the Chinese border instead. But if you think you can will a two-thousand mile DMZ into existence, then close your eyes really tightly and see if you can do it without shitting yourself.

Nice variant on the stab-in-the-back legend, too. Can we expect you to quote from the Chronicles of the Elders of Guadalajara next?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 20, 2007 5:49 PM

Re "It certainly not a part of any moral code I'm aware of to forbid a man who wishes to feed his family from accepting a job from another man who wishes to hire him."
--------
How about a moral code that says you owe some loyalty to your fellow citizens --especially when you claim the right to draft those fellow citizens and send them to die in defense of your home?

When you claim the right to demand loyalty FROM him -- to confiscate part of his wages, to demand that he obey your laws, that he serve on juries and performs the other duties of citizens.

I really don't understand why liberals get so upset by gun violence. It seems to me that if a young mugger blew Ted Kennedy's brains out and took Ted's wallet, the mugger would merely be following the same dog-eat-dog calculation that Ted uses when betraying his Afro-American constituents in order to sell out to La Raza.

If you don't give a damm about that mugger, why should he obey your laws, care about your life, or have any loyalty to this society?

Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh, and John Muhammand (DC Sniper) were all veterans of military service. How many of you armchair social engineers can say that?

Posted by Don Williams | May 20, 2007 5:53 PM

--No, wrong order. First you increase legal immigration; then you increase enforcement; then the amnesty. Anyone who accepts an "okay, first we're going to crack down, then we'll certify the borders are policed & let you in" deal is an idiot. The bottom line is that we're not willing to fund decent enforcement. Not close.

--Local cops shouldn't enforce immigration laws. It makes illegal immigrants & their close relatives afraid to report crimes. Not good. If you want to set up a computer database & get people after a criminal conviction, fine.

Posted by Katherine | May 20, 2007 5:55 PM

Jasper says: Or it may also point to the possibility that it is extremely difficult to obtain evidence of criminal intent in such cases, and without such evidence, prosecutors quite rightly don't want to waste public resources.

Actually, the situation boils down to PoliticalCorruption. Illegal aliens are allowed to come and remain here because our politicians are corrupt, either because of money now or later or because they put being an ethnic demagogue ahead of their (supposed) country. Of course, there are even worse possibilities that I suspect but can't prove.

It's awfully hard for the Dems to complain about a culture of corruption when they're an egregious example of the problem.

RSA says: If you think that [banks openly giving loans to matricula-carrying obvious illegals] should be made illegal, talk to your local legislators.

Actually, Congress tried to prevent that. The Bush administration twisted arms to let banks take those cards. The Bush admin even allows Mexico to criss-cross the U.S., visiting their outposts and handing them out to their citizens who they know to be here illegally. See the first tinyurl link I left above.

See, if the Dems were smart they would discuss that; Kerry could be president now if he'd come out against illegal immigration and "guests" (he would have won both Ohio and Arizona on the issue).

The problem is that the Dems are both dumb and corrupt.

Posted by John Edwards: get ready to help us oppose amnesty | May 20, 2007 6:24 PM

Here are some starting points...

JE, I really find it hard to accord any credibility to someone who can't create hyperlinks in his weblog comments.

Zagnut: eliminating birthright citizenship would be an disaster. We can't have two classes of residents in America: one class whose family members are citizens and one whose family, even in 100 years, will not be citizens. Also, I absolutely do not want people to have to "prove their bloodline" to establish their citizenship rights. "If you were born here, you're a citizen" saves a lot of paperwork and a lot of disputes and makes us all more free to go about our business. Eliminating birthright citizenship just adds another layer of background checks and suspicion to subject us all to.

Posted by Constantine | May 20, 2007 6:40 PM

Big business is using both legal and illegal third-world immigration to drive down American wages.

The marriage of big business and multiculturalism is the worst thing ever to happen to the American worker.

See:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265

I am a liberal, but I am opposed to any path to citizenship for illegals, and I think that all legal immigration should be reduced to less than 10,000 a year.

Not to mention the fact that immigration will destroy our environment, public infrastructure, and will turn the U.S. into one big tacky suburban development.

The biggest back of legal and illegal immigration is WalMart, who last year gave more money to La Raza than to any other organization.

Both legal and illegal third-world immigration are but means for big business to drive down American wages.

Posted by Liberal Patriot | May 20, 2007 6:46 PM

Of course, there are even worse possibilities that I suspect but can't prove.

C'mon, Wack O', don't just hint darkly at your paranoid fantasies: you think those dirty Mexicans are an insurgent fifth column come to sap your precious bodily fluids, don't you?

Ah, and to think that 150 years ago it was the Irish who were on the receiving end: people with names like 'Kelly'. Funny, that.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 20, 2007 6:57 PM

Eliminating birthright citizenship would also require amending the 14th Amendment. No thank you.

Posted by Katherine | May 20, 2007 7:18 PM

What is it with Wack O' and WikiCaps, anyway? Cut-and-paste from his Wiki of Filthy Mexicanitude? Or a way to track his hundreds of blogwhoring comments about the Taco-Eating Menace by neat little search terms?

On topic:

The restrictionist view that implementation of an amnesty should be conditional on some evidence that the cracking down is having an impact makes sense.

Outside the realities of the political timetable, sure. But since elections intervene every two years, there's a tendency towards for headline-grabbing (and Dobbs-appeasing) enforcement legislation that kicks bureaucratic reform down the road.

And, as Jasper notes, that sets up a situation where, next time round, people say enforcement didn't work well enough, so more is needed. The division of INS between USCIS and ICE has some advantages, but it also enforces the idea that enforcement and bureaucratic reform are separable.

I'd lean towards small-scale pilot schemes on both the enforcement and bureaucratic side, because right now legislators are working half-blind.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 20, 2007 7:47 PM

Still waiting to hear why illegal immigration has led to the end of civilization. Living in So. CA, coming across many illegal immigrants every day, with my own kids in public schools, I see no real problem. Most work and mind their own business.

Any proposed solution to this "problem" will involve bigger government, to police the border, to police employers, banks, landlords, to ensure *everyone* is who they say they are. It will involve the government deciding what is best for the labor market rather than market demands. It will involve the economic hurt caused by the increased tax burden, and government intrusion into everyone's personal lives.

And all for what? With 10-12 million illegal aliens in the country now, the economy is fundamentally strong, unemployment is low, crime is lower than it was 20 years ago, prosperity is higher. Government interventions will slow or reverse those real gains, all for the sake of what is essentially a victimless crime, a crime that the American economy willfully accepts and encourages, voting with dollars whenever it can.

Posted by shecky | May 20, 2007 7:49 PM

Re "With 10-12 million illegal aliens in the country now, the economy is fundamentally strong, unemployment is low, crime is lower than it was 20 years ago, prosperity is higher. Government interventions will slow or reverse those real gains, all for the sake of what is essentially a victimless crime,"
------------

Let's see.

According to the US Census Bureau,
42.72% of all US citizens 25 years or older have an income of LESS than $25,000.

That's roughly 82 MILLION US citizens. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

Good into all your malls and ask the people working in Nordstroms etc how much per hour they earn.

Note that we have this "prosperity" only because Bush stole $4 TRILLION out of our Trust Funds for Social Security/Medicare and used it to prop up the economy.

Which raises two interesting questions:

One, what happens to the economy when the borrowing has to stop?

Two, how will all those elderly baby boomers get a job when their Social Security checks turn out to be too low to buy dog food?

Yet some of you want to drive your fellow citizens even deeper into the dirt.

WHY?

Posted by Don Williams | May 20, 2007 8:19 PM

Mexicans are NOT Western. Remember, for most of Western Civilization, ancestry has been the determining factor. For example, the Roman Republic was predicated upon a tribal system, and the classical definition of a nation roots itself in ancestry, blood and birth, kith and kin.

And let's look at Mexicans:

(1) There is a very small upper class of pure European blood, but these area not the people swimming the Rio Grande.

(2) About 30% of Mexicans are Amerindian (Asiatic).

and

(3) About 60% of Mexicans are Mestizo (mostly Amerindian with a few drops of Spaniard or Negro blood).

But these people are not Western, which is why they have demanded that all "European elements" be removed from their liturgy, why they have banned white authors at many schools, and why in the past few years over 200,000 Hispanics in the U.S. have converted to Islam.

Thomas

P.S. And before anyone questions my credentials, let me just say that I've had one of those genealogical DNA tests, and I have 100% pure European blood running through these veins. Color me elitist, but so be it.

Posted by Thomas | May 20, 2007 8:31 PM

"Mark Krikorian is upset about high levels of illegal immigration because he's upset about high levels of immigration. He's afraid of the looming Hispanic Pizza Menace."

Sheesh. You know, it's perfectly possible to be in favor of large scale legal immigration, and still think that having most of the immigrants be English illiterates out of a single country is a bad idea? That maybe we'd have an easier time of assimilation if we were admitting a ballanced selection of different nationalities, and only people who could already speak our language?

"Matt: you're completely off base here. A standard "restrictionist" view is that the "crackdown" should yield results (a 60% drop in illegal immigration? 80%? 99%?) and then we'll get around to doing constructive things like amnesty, or increases in legal immigration."

Indeed, and quite sensibly. Given how consistantly politicians have failed to deliver on promises of enforcement, this demand is roughly the same as Charlie Brown saying to Lucy, "Set the football down, and back away, and maybe THEN I'll try kicking it."

We ARE allowed to learn from experience, aren't we? The presumption of good faith IS rebutable, isn't it?

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 20, 2007 8:34 PM

Shecky -- Beverly Hills High doesn't count as public schooling!

Posted by Zagnut | May 20, 2007 8:41 PM

RE "crime is lower than it was 20 years ago,"
--------
That is also bullshit.

If crime is low, it's because 1 out of every 32 Americans is incarcerated -- over 7 million people.

The USA has the largest number of citizens incarcerated and the highest incarceration rate in the WORLD. It is WAY above the civilized nations in this regard.

Even Totalitarian China ,with a population of
over 1.3 BILLION people, has a much smaller prison population -- 1.5 million prisoners.

See http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/488120/923258

Any guess why our buttkissing sycophants for the rich -- in the Republican party, in the Democratic party, and in the news media -- never mention the above?

It's far easier to bury a citizen in a hole somewhere than to press the rich to provide that citizen with the wages for a decent life. After all, the rich are investing their tax cuts from Bush and Congress over in China , aren't they?

Posted by Don Williams | May 20, 2007 8:53 PM

You know, it's perfectly possible to be in favor of large scale legal immigration, and still think that having most of the immigrants be English illiterates out of a single country is a bad idea? That maybe we'd have an easier time of assimilation if we were admitting a ballanced selection of different nationalities, and only people who could already speak our language?

No, it's not possible to reconcile those two notions, unless there's a large number of prospective U.S. immigrants hiding somewhere in Europe. I hate to break it to you, but the percentage of Swedes who'd like to come to the States =/= the percentage of Mexicans or who'd like to come to the States. You can't have a solution that's both high-immigration and "balanced" in terms of nationality, because the demand for U.S. residency isn't balanced in terms of nationality.

Posted by aeroman | May 20, 2007 9:00 PM

Don Williams:

I am against unlimited unskilled immigration from Mexico too, but you're not helping the cause with clunkers like these:

"Good into all your malls and ask the people working in Nordstroms etc how much per hour they earn."

Nordstrom pays better than you might think, which is one of the reasons it's one of the 100 best companies to work for. I doubt illegals are putting downward pressure on the pay of Nordstrom retail salesmen.

"Note that we have this "prosperity" only because Bush stole $4 TRILLION out of our Trust Funds for Social Security/Medicare and used it to prop up the economy."

This "raiding the trust fund" phraseology should be retired by folks on both sides of the political spectrum. The Social Security trust fund is "invested" in a class of Treasury securities. Since Treasurys are, by definition, liabilities of the United States government, rather than assets, the Federal government has been effectively borrowing and spending the temporary Social Security surpluses for as long as those surpluses have been used to buy Treasurys. Americans are largely unconcerned by this, as President Bush learned when he (clumsily) tried to use this a rationale for adding private accounts to Social Security.

Not to get too far OT, but I do think that the temporary Social Security surpluses should be invested in assets that the Federal government can later draw upon, rather than liabilities they will have to pay back (i.e., anything but Treasurys -- corporate stocks, bonds, municipal bonds, whatever), but there is an obvious political obstacle -- without being able to use those funds in the budget, Congress would need to either lower its spending, or raise taxes by an amount equivalent to the funds invested in non-Treasury securities. As long as Dems and GOPs in Congress prefer to keep the temporary SS surplus in Treasurys, they spending the surplus, as it were.

Posted by Fred | May 20, 2007 10:08 PM

1) Re "Nordstroms pays better than you might think"
-- the "displayed" $34,500 is for "full time" salespeople. But department stores fill a number of jobs with "part time " salespeople. I've been informed that the rate at a Macy's store in suburban Philadelphia is $6.50/hour although that probably rises with experience. Go and ask the salespeople the next time you are in a mall.

2) Re "This "raiding the trust fund" phraseology should be retired "

-- NO it should not.

The way to have "invested" the payrolls taxes was to have paid down the half of federal debt that is known as "debt held by the public " --the Treasuries sold to and held by investors --both foreign and domestic.

So that the federal debt would have gone from $5 Trillion held by US and foreign investors to $5 Trillion held by the Trust Funds -- which the government could pay off with Social Security/Medicare checks because it would no longer need to pay $hundreds of Billions every year in interest to the CHinese and other investors.

3) Instead, money from Both the Trust Funds and from issuing publicly traded Treasuries was spent --spending exploded. WHen Bush leaves office, the federal debt will be almost $10 TRILLION -- $4 TRILLION more that what he said it would be when he entered office in Feb 2001. Compare the tables that go with his budget statement of 2001 with those he released this year.

4) $2 TRILLION of that debt came from his tax cuts for the superrich -- which he claimed was to stimulate the US economy. Which is bullshit --because federal figures for "foreign direct investment" vs the "domestic investment" part of GDP shows that most of his tax cut went to create jobs in CHINA !

5) Basically, what Bush did was borrow $200,000
from your Social Security account and give you a Treasury. But you get your $200,000 back ONLY if YOU pay off the Treasury -- probably via high taxes levied on your future withdrawals from your 401K/IRA savings. Those savings -- which the government propaganda so strong encourages -- are in "before tax" dollars and can be taxed as high as future governments want -- at 90% if need be.

That is why it is stupid to save money in IRAs/401Ks -- those accounts are traps the government set up to catch middle class savings so that the government can seize them in the future to meet its own obligations.

6) When the issue of Social Security reform came up, the Democrats lied to their base -- telling us that Social Security/Medicare are not in trouble. Which is obvious bullshit -- even with its fictional $4 Trillion in "assets", Social Security is underfunded by $8 Trillion and Medicare by $40 Trillion. Look at the Trustee Reports.

7) The thing to have done was to make Social Security/Medicare accounts into "wealth" accounts -- i.e., into an asset actually owned by the individual worker which cannot be taxed by future governments because of the 4th Amendments ban on government seizure of property without compensation.

8)The Democratic leadership didn't do that --for obvious reasons. They want the Trust Funds to be fictional money which Congress can pay with at will.

They want retirees to be deeply dependent upon the good will of Democratic Members of Congress. That way, the baby boomers will get (some) of the Social Security/Medicare benefits owed to them only if they vote Democratic in every election for the next 30 years.

Posted by Don Williams | May 20, 2007 11:09 PM

PS Al Gore, to his credit, warned us in the 2000 Presidential debate about what Bush was doing -- although Gore could have been clearer in his statement.

Bush responded with a deeply deceitful complaint about Gore's "Fuzzy Math". But it was Bush's con game that depended on fuzziness -- whereby he took $200000 from a middle class voter and gave the voter an IOU that the VOTER is on the hook to pay off. If a banker did this, we would throw him in prison.

Posted by Don Williams | May 20, 2007 11:19 PM

OK, but one neighborhood does not a region make. A white person who lives in an illegal immigrant enclave in Minneapolis will view II differently than someone who lives in LA or El Paso or Miami or Dallas.

OK, I'll bite. I live in LA. You know what illegal immigration means to me? It means I can go to Watts, or South Central, or Compton, and not be afraid of getting my white ass beat for being white, 'cause the Mexicans came in and bought the houses no one else would, allowing the black owners to move their families to the outer suburbs with decent schools and lower-middle class jobs.

And La Raza? Ha! It's not a movement of the underclass, it's a vanity issue for those that've already made it. It doesn't have any serious influence outside of the academy, and like pretty much all university-based movements, it's mostly a bunch of delusionals who think that "leadership" is a matter of issuing strongly-worded statements. You just made the mistake of taking them at face value.

Posted by Senescent | May 20, 2007 11:49 PM

This site gives wages for various types of jobs: http://www.payscale.com/mypayscale.aspx

A query re salary for a Retail Sales Associate with one year of experience in a Philadelphia suburb yielded an answer of $8.61 per hour to $11.23 per hour tops with a median of $9.88 per hour. Appears to be for a full time position.

So that's around $20,000 per year BEFORE income and payroll taxes.

Posted by Don Williams | May 20, 2007 11:54 PM

And before anyone questions my credentials,

Well, there's definitely a flood of Sailer-groupie who just love stinking the place out with their bullshit pseudo-science. Fuck off back to Stormfront, Tommy.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 20, 2007 11:55 PM

Hmmm. They might go to $9.92/hr for a Harvard graduate, provided he loses the beard, showers, and wears a blazer.

Plus shoes.

Posted by Don Williams | May 20, 2007 11:59 PM

I very strongly suspect that if shecky doesn't have a problem with public schools in SoCal he lives in an upscale suburb or semi-rural area with a functioning district, rather than the LAUSD. No one who has any knowledge - even in passing - of the latter would say anything similar to what shecky says.

And, he's also disastrously wrong about many other things, but let's look at whether this is a "victimless crime". More people have been killed by illegal aliens - people who would not be here if our laws had been followed - than were killed in 911. If those illegal aliens had not been here, it's not like there's a crime vacuum that someone else would have filled.

And, of course, as I pointed out above, massive IllegalImmigration is an indicator of massive PoliticalCorruption. While I'm sure many Dems would disagree, when the government goes corrupt it's a very, very bad thing.

If anyone has a reply, save it for MattY's next post on this topic (maybe in another few months or something).

Posted by John Edwards: get ready to help us oppose amnesty | May 21, 2007 12:15 AM

Just why does ChrisKelly aka PissStainedMexicanInsurgentObsessive use WikiCaps? See http://snipurl.com/scaredofbrownfolks for more.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 21, 2007 2:00 AM

"I live in LA. You know what illegal immigration means to me? It means I can go to Watts, or South Central, or Compton, and not be afraid of getting my white ass beat for being white, 'cause the Mexicans came in and bought the houses no one else would, allowing the black owners to move their families to the outer suburbs..."

This is an example of what Steve Sailer has called the economic cleansing of native-born blacks from major cities by illegal immigrants. By replacing poor/lower class African Americans with similarly poor, but marginally more economically productive immigrants, many cities experience an economic boost from low-skilled immigration. But the country as a whole retains its poor/lower class African Americans and augments them with poor/lower class Mexican Americans. This is the point where one usually hears arguments that Mexicans will assimilate like the Poles, Italians, Irish, etc. before them. The flaw with this argument is that we already have data on several generations of Mexican American achievement and it's not encouraging: according to The Hispanic Challenge (at Foreign Policy -- you'll need to register to read it), the highest educational level attained by 41% of fourth generation Mexican Americans is "no high school degree".

Posted by Fred | May 21, 2007 2:31 AM

"No, it's not possible to reconcile those two notions, unless there's a large number of prospective U.S. immigrants hiding somewhere in Europe."

I hate to break it to you, but there are a rather large number of college educated, English literate people in, for instance, Asia who'd just LOVE to move here. But who just can't swim across the Pacific ocean the way Mexicans can wade across the Rio Grande. Do you think that Europe is the only place you can find people literate in English?

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 21, 2007 7:14 AM

Senescent escribo:

"You know what illegal immigration means to me? It means I can go to Watts, or South Central, or Compton, and not be afraid of getting my white ass beat for being white, 'cause the Mexicans came in and bought the houses..."

Compton is improved from illegal immigration, but that's not saying a whole lot, because Compton was famously a hellhole. But the $64,000 question is whether America beyond Compton is improved by illegal immigration. That's not a tough question for most Americans.

"And La Raza? Ha! It's not a movement of the underclass, it's a vanity issue for those that've already made it. It doesn't have any serious influence outside of the academy"

Then why did they just build the nice, big new Raul Yzaguirre building a few blocks from the White House? To lobby. They are the most prominent organization of the country's largest (and still quickly growing) minority and you want people to believe they are some uninfluential, Mickey Mouse organization? Por favor.

Posted by Zagnut | May 21, 2007 7:46 AM

Re "You know what illegal immigration means to me? It means I can go to Watts, or South Central, or Compton, and not be afraid of getting my white ass beat "
--------

Actually, I kinda like the idea of immigration advocates getting their white asses beat by our impoverished Afro-American citizens.

Posted by Don Williams | May 21, 2007 8:27 AM

One of the interesting aspects of illegal immigration is the disconnect between African-American "leaders" (=the ones white American elites listen to) and regular African-Americans. The elites are all for illegal immigration, the rank and file is against it.

For example, here's the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson:

"For the two groups to fight over low-skilled, low-wage jobs would be a tragic waste of time and effort. The issue is how both African Americans and Latinos can claim a fair share of this nation's vast wealth and opportunity, not how we can wrestle the scraps from one another. The issue is who gets to occupy the corner office during working hours, not who gets to clean it at night."

Well, gee, for the African-American who lost his cleaning job to an illegal Salvadoran, it sort of is kind of important who gets to clean the corner office at night.

Anyway, we can see the dream of a black-brown coalition forming beautifully in the schoolyard race fights, prison ethnic gang battles, and street brawls between blacks and browns in California.

Posted by Zagnut | May 21, 2007 9:08 AM

This would seem to indicate that we need three separate pieces of legislation, the details of which can each be debated individually.

This whole "comprehensive" thing seems totally unwarranted.

Posted by TW Andrews | May 21, 2007 10:40 AM

There's one side to this debate that has, bizarrely, been totally ignored. Mainly, how any change in immigration laws will affect the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico.

From my non-American perspective, this is astonishing. Like it or not (mostly the latter I guess), the U.S. will have Mexico as a neighbor like, FOREVER! One would imagine that the U.S. would be at least interested in knowing how any policy change would impact Mexico and affect the bilateral relationship. Alas, no.

Whatever your impression/opinion of Mexico may be, and fully recognizing that any decision on immigration is a sovereign matter, couldn't the U.S. show a modicum of interest or concern? Like hearing their concerns on an issue that is also critically important to them?

I despair. In a way, the whole immigration debate encapsulates, even better than Irak, why U.S. foreign policy is a staggering mess.

Posted by Andrew | May 21, 2007 2:04 PM

I'll worry about how the immigration debate effects Mexicans' attitudes towards the US, when Mexicans worry about how sending hundreds of thousands of their citizens to illegally enter this country every year effects the Americans' attitudes towards Mexico.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 21, 2007 2:18 PM

"Whatever your impression/opinion of Mexico may be, and fully recognizing that any decision on immigration is a sovereign matter, couldn't the U.S. show a modicum of interest or concern? Like hearing their concerns on an issue that is also critically important to them?"

Cry me a river...and build me a wall on the bank of that river!

Posted by Zagnut | May 21, 2007 2:54 PM

Well, where do you live and what's your situation? I'm guessing you don't have kids in public school in Southern California, or live next door to a boarding house in Northern Virginia, etc. Your perspective might be different.

Zagnut-
I've lived in nova for the past 14 years, some of that time literally next to a boarding house. So, let me say...

I don't get what the crisis is, either. I never have. Here in South Arlington, our streets are safer than they were 10 years ago, we have a vibrant civic community, and a wide(r) variety of culinary options (more Salvadorean in flavor than Mexican, really).

Frankly, I couldn't imagine a place I'd rather be in the DC metro area.

Posted by Brad L | May 21, 2007 4:03 PM

Re: Those savings -- which the government propaganda so strong encourages -- are in "before tax" dollars and can be taxed as high as future governments want -- at 90% if need be.

I rather doubt that would happen, since it defies the ideologies (and self-interest) of both parties. The GOP after all, is the party that likes to tax labor while doling out big tax breaks to investment income. I don't see that changing any time in the near future. And the Democrats at least like to pose as the party of the common people while relying in the retiree vote. Besides which, Social Security is simply not in all that much trouble and even moderately good economic growth will delay its shortfalls indefinitely. The most likely fixes involve a raising of the income cap to which FICA tax applies, an increase in the retirement age, and some cutting of the COLA formula governing future raises. Seizing people's retirement income, which would make them even more dependent on government transfer programs, will not be part of that.

Posted by JonF | May 21, 2007 5:47 PM

Brad writes:

"I've lived in nova for the past 14 years, some of that time literally next to a boarding house. So, let me say...

I don't get what the crisis is, either. I never have. Here in South Arlington, our streets are safer than they were 10 years ago, we have a vibrant civic community"

Some guesses: you didn't own the house you lived in next to the boarding house, so you didn't mind the affect on the property values since you were more interested in the restaurants.

Also, you didn't have kids in the public schools, so you didn't mind the effect of illegal immigration there.

Am I right? Tell me I'm right!

Posted by Zagnut | May 21, 2007 5:59 PM

Some guesses: you didn't own the house you lived in next to the boarding house, so you didn't mind the affect on the property values since you were more interested in the restaurants.

Also, you didn't have kids in the public schools, so you didn't mind the effect of illegal immigration there.

Am I right? Tell me I'm right!

Ok, but before you start the jig...

The property I rented from, back when I lived there, has well more than doubled their rent. The management group, Dittmar, has seemingly bought up every inch they can build on in the area. If they think it's a bad investment, they have a funny way of showing it.

Meanwhile, the property I bought when I moved, in a rather mixed-income neighborhood, went up in value over 250% in 5 years. Generally speaking, if you want to make any sort of depressed-property-value argument, Northern Virginia isn't a fertile ground for examples. The only mistake I made when I bought property here was that I didn't buy more of it.

As for kids, you're right. But...

A quick look at the data shows that 3 of the 4 Arlington high schools produce substantially higher SAT scores than both the Virginia and Nat'l average: http://www.arlington.k12.va.us/IS/plan_eval/sat/

I'm happy to see more data, this is what I could find in 5 mins. If you are saying that schools are in crisis, there should be some kind of data to demonstrate the point.

And while anecdote isn't data, my child-raising neighbors have, on occasion, complained that they have to send their special-needs child to private education (when they'd rather send him public), but seem happy sending their other child to Arlington County schools.

More generally:
If Jasper's view doesn't count because he lives in the wrong city, and my view doesn't count because I do live in one of the example cities, but don't have kids in school, then you are shaving the "legitimate" opinion group ever-smaller. If there is a genuine crisis of some sort, it should be easily observed by near-neighbors like myself.

Posted by Brad L | May 22, 2007 11:00 AM