Enforcement

This is really neither here nor there as far as the current politics of immigration go, but it is worth taking the opportunity now and again to point out that securing the southern border is a pretty dumb approach to immigration control. It's extremely hard to do it with any degree of efficacy in a way that doesn't seriously impede commerce and tourism. Meanwhile, even when it is done effectively, it still leaves all kinds of other routes -- overstaying visas, coming on a boat, etc. -- open. Last, if someone happens to be physically inside the United States for some period of time -- jumping back-and-forth over the board for fun, or heading into some border town for the afternoon to buy something -- it's really not what we're worried about.

Conversely, if you can make it really difficult for visa-less person to get a job, rent an apartment, etc., then this will dramatically curb illegal immigration while simultaneously allowing the government to not spend a huge amount of effort on hassling legitimate border-crossers.

To do that, all you need to do is establish a hefty incentive for illegal immigrants to rat out people who illegally employ them. Mark Kleiman has proposed a "poetic justice" version of this where an illegal who rats his employer out gets a green card in exchange. More prosaically, a ratter out could get a one-way ticket back to his home country plus a big fat check financed through employer fines. An enforcement system like this would be cheap to administer since you mostly wouldn't need to administer it at all -- illegal immigrants looking for a bonus, and potential employers of illegal immigrants afraid of being caught in a sting, would do the vast majority of the work.

Comments

This works well for me, but sadly, nobody is proposing anything like this.

Posted by soullite | May 19, 2007 3:21 PM

That would have to be a pretty big bonus to encourage an illegal to accept deportation. A green card would encourage the "ratters" for sure -- you'd have a race between illegal employees to see who'd be the first to rat out the employer.

Posted by Traven | May 19, 2007 3:22 PM

Say, we could do the same thing with terrorists! First person to "rat out" a terrorist gets $100 grand and a Kawasaki. Then, that terrorist goes to Guantanamo on the double! And, hey, since to a lot of Republicans "terrorist" could just mean "liberal," sure, there might be some hang-ups with those pinko commies at the ACLU. But the effect is great: bureaucracy-free terrorist-catching!

Posted by Media Glutton | May 19, 2007 3:26 PM

Under this plan, if I was an illegal, I would approach an employer and offer to pay him the fines so we could have a win win situation.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | May 19, 2007 3:31 PM

Under this plan, if I was an illegal, I would approach an employer and offer to pay him for him the fines and a something extra for his co-operation so we could have a win win situation for both rat and ratee.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | May 19, 2007 3:32 PM

Come on Matt, Mark Krikorian and others have outlined the simple way to solve illegal immigration.

1) Build a wall on the border. Won't catch 100%, but it'll catch 95% and, critically, discourage alot more from trying to be part of the 5% who make it.

2) Enforce laws already on the books against hiring illegals. Most will go back to their home countries -- you know, the ones they are citizens of.

3) Need more workers? No you don't! If businesses like housing construction and restaurants truly need subsidized illegal labor to exist, they'll go out of business. But they don't -- because everyone will be playing by the same rules, businesses won't be undercut by competitors hiring illegals. The price of a restaurant meal will go up, but we won't be paying the financial and social costs of having 20 million illegals in the country.

Enforce. the. laws. already. on. the. books. QED.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 3:34 PM

Under this plan, if I was an illegal, I would approach an employer and offer to pay him the fines so we could have a win win situation.

I see this as a potential problem with the green card version of the scheme. But if you make the fine exceed the cash bonus, everything would work out.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | May 19, 2007 3:40 PM

Zagnut:

The problem with enforcing the laws already on the books, like the problem with a wall, is that it's very difficult and/or expensive to enforce them rigorously. Hence my proposal, which is not an alternative to enforcing the laws on the books, but rather a method of enforcing them effectively.

Now, where I suspect you and I will disagree is that I would favor expanding the level of legal immigration.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | May 19, 2007 3:42 PM

Media, you're simply against hindering illegal immigration. Stop pretending this is based on some sort of civil rights issue. I'm not sure if you know this, but we have these things called juries. They look at cases brought by the state against people or entities. In this case, there would be something called a "trial" where "evidence" is presented and a finding of fact is arrived at as to whether a person is guilty or not.

Employers who hire illegal immigrants won't be whisked away to Guantanamo. That is a very dishonest comparison to make.

Posted by soullite | May 19, 2007 3:46 PM

Gah. This is a terrible idea. Yes, let's create a culture of snitching, suspicion and paranoia among immigrant workers. Let's make their jobs even less secure. Let's make them even more vulnerable to patrons and go-betweens.

The "solution" to illegal immigration is to adopt macroeconomic and labor market policies that result in rising wages and low unemployment. Then only racists and nativists will care about immigration, and we can just ignore them.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | May 19, 2007 3:48 PM

Ok, but if you re going to do it for cash, then the question is whether the immigrant views the cash bonus as more beneficial over the long-terms of his illegal presence in the country.

Also, what would be the disincentive for the illegal to rat someone out, leave the country and NOT return?

I guess the counter-point to that is that -regardless of the immigrants incentives- the mere fear of being ratted out will instill the fear of God to employees.

I dunno, I need to think it over. What I am certain however, is that ultimately, illegal immigration exists on account of pretty strong reasons both in labor supply and labor demand. Also, overall -and especially if per Alex Tabarrok your allegiance supersedes the moral community of a nation- immigration is beneficial to everyone.

Last but not least, in phenomena of essentially mass disobedience - like this one or music piracy- the disincentive of state/legal repression is unlikely to work. In these cases, economic and political systems need to adjust to the dynamic of the situation rather than trying to impose their will on them.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | May 19, 2007 3:52 PM

It's extremely hard to do it with any degree of efficacy in a way that doesn't seriously impede commerce and tourism.

I don't think you even need the qualifier at the end. It's incredibly hard to secure a border that size, period. Like a lot of things in our national debate, we do a lot of talking about what we should do without first establishing what we can do. The United States isn't omnipotent. I'd be interested to know if there has ever been a border of that size and physical ruggedness that has been totally secured.

Posted by Freddie | May 19, 2007 3:53 PM

The thing that amazes me about today's immigration debate is that rarely does anyone mention the 1986 immigration reform.

It included amnesty, and hefty employer sanctions.

So now we are discussing amnesty (what form it takes is the only variable) and maybe employer sanctions.

The 1986 employer sanctions didn't take because the interest group affected were typically Republicans who liked cheap labor. The amnesty part worked like a charm.

One drawback to being an "enfant terrible" is that one's memory only barely reaches the 20th century. Lucky for you.

The gun debate got buffaloed by the refrain: Enforce the laws already on the books. This debate should be derailed too. But Matt is right that an ironic way of enforcing the law is the best way to get it done.

Posted by NE PDX | May 19, 2007 3:58 PM

soullite,
I'll take the sprinkling of condescension in your response as a sign you're just a sassy person, not a complete jerk. To your point, yes, I am against illegal immigration. But I disagree with Matt's idea for enforcement.

This method of "ratting out" people for cash and/or benefits reminds me of the way we caught some of the people in Guantanamo right now: by telling Pakistanis and Afghanis that, if they turned a "terrorist" in, they would get rewarded. And, no, soullite, a lot of these people do not get a "trial" with "evidence." So we don't always have "these things called juries," as you so sassily put it.

And, even though illegal immigration is wrong, the treatment of immigrants IS a civil rights issue. Setting up a system that plays migrants off each other for cash just seems too reality show-esque to me. And inhumane.

Posted by Media Glutton | May 19, 2007 4:07 PM

My one concern about putting too much emphasis on employer sanctions is the risk that you'll end up making legal immigrants or hispanic Americans unemployable. I mean, if I can lose a significant amount of profit for hiring an illegal it would be awfully tempting to not hire anyone named Rodriguez or Garcia no matter what proof of citizenship they had.

I'm not sure what the answer is to this problem-- not that it matters, because employer sanctions is a non-starter under this administration anyway, and we won't be addressing immigration again until we have another lame-duck president and divided-- if not entirely opposition-- Congress.

Posted by Dave Pooser | May 19, 2007 4:42 PM

To do that, all you need to do is establish a hefty incentive for illegal immigrants to rat out people who illegally employ them.

A side benefit is that immigrants are inculcated with good East German American ideals and culture.

Posted by RSA | May 19, 2007 4:46 PM

Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party. On the contrary, they adored the Party and everything connected with it… All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals. It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children.

The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed—would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper—the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you.

Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia! I don't care what you do to her. Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me! Julia! Not me!

The endless march to high broderism continues....

Posted by jerry | May 19, 2007 4:49 PM

This sounds like a good idea at first, but, in addition to some complaints already said: what happens to, say, the 9 other illegal employees of an employer when the 10th rats out the employer?

Do they all get green cards, or just the 10th one? Do the first 9 get deported? Seems to me a humanitarian plan should be sure to take care of all the humans involved.

Posted by Adam | May 19, 2007 4:51 PM

Do what made (and makes) the US unique and powerful - tax them and let them stay (unless they are criminals or terrorists, then throw them in jail). Simple, huh?

If things get too costly here, they will not come. Even now, folks from Puerto Rico turn around and return to PR, often, because they can flip-flop without penalty and costs are high in the US (even though wages are higher).

Recall that a wall (and byzantine immigration procedures) keeps folks in who might otherwise leave.

More people, up to a point, means more power for the US. We are nowhere near "full up" in terms or land, equipment, materials or opportunities for those now here or on the verge of coming here (provided everyone pays a fair share of taxes).

Posted by cfw | May 19, 2007 4:58 PM

Extrapolating from RSA's comment, if we do go along with this "ratting out" reward system, why not push it into all forms of criminal justice? You report an underage drinker, a jay-walker, a sidewalk spitter, a speeder, a wife-cheater, you get more and more rewards from the state.

And, hey, if you're not reporting anything, you MUST be hiding criminal activity, because surely you've seen some illegalities in your life. Well, you get reported for that, too. And felons can't vote, so those who are the most rewarded are also the most likely to vote. And on and on and on. All we are sayyying is give totalitarianism a chance...

Posted by Media Glutton | May 19, 2007 4:59 PM

Re Freddie

"I'd be interested to know if there has ever been a border of that size and physical ruggedness that has been totally secured."

The answer to the question is yes. The border between the Soviet Eastern bloc and the West was almost totally secured, although the idea there was to keep people in, not keep them out.

If all we are trying to do is to prevent illegal aliens from crossing the border with Mexico, the answer is simple. Give the border guards shoot to kill orders, just as the Soviet Eastern bloc border guards had shoot to kill orders. I guarantee that illegal immigration across the Mexican border will slow to a trickle within 1 month as the word gets back that such crossing is suicide. Since, in fact, we are unwilling to take such a draconian step, I don't see any solution to the problem that will pass muster in the Congress and be signed by the President.

Posted by SLC | May 19, 2007 5:10 PM

Great idea, and here is my modification.

First, send the migrant back home by first class air with unlimited free drinks so our elite can share some open borders vibrancy first hand.

Second, give 1/2 the fine paid by the illegal employer to the migrant worker but face to face in his home country.

For the migrant, true amnesty. We forget his offense but give him no more than this well-earned informer's fee.

Posted by anon | May 19, 2007 5:11 PM

This is great! I have some similar ideas for other US "problem areas:"

• any student who "rats out" another student for cheating gets an automatic A+ in the course!

• any man who "rats out" a woman for providing him with sex-in-return-for-money gets free blowjobs for a year!

• any junkie who "rats out" his dealer gets free crack for life!

• any Iraqi who "rats out" an insurgent gets a green card to come live in America!

Woo hoo! It's morning in Snitch Nation! All we need to do now is figure out who'll be giving the blowjobs.

Posted by James Gary | May 19, 2007 5:18 PM

Freddie: USSR had a pretty secure border, so it's not like it can't be done. All you really need is a double fence with a road in between. Ugly, yes, but effective -- though not 100 percent, of course. And unfortunately necessary.

NE PDX: the employer sanctions in the 1986 bill failed because there was/is no provision for checking the docs of job applicants. So any old fake birth certificate, green card is OK, because the employers can rightly say, "How am I supposed to know if the documents are fakes?" Checking the legal work eligibility of someone should be easy: verify, through SSA (toll-free number or other such system), that SSN is OK; that photo ID is real (national database already exists -- ICE uses it); and that SSN is not already being used multiple times or in different name. This would not be a big burden on employers, since most of us only change jobs four or five times in our lives. Credit card companies follow millions of transactions each day and have software to catch anomalies like the same card being used in two places at once so it's ludicrous to suggest we can't set up a system to verify someone is a citizen or legal resident, or has a proper work visa.

cfw: I beg to differ. We are full up, if we want to retain any quality of life. California's already ruined, housing is becoming increasingly expensive, the whole West is running out of water. Sure, we can support 500 million people here -- but who wants to? We ought to set the number of immigrants to achieve more-or-less ZPG (taking into account our demographics) or at least much slower growth. I don't want my grandchildren living in a new India.

Posted by Traven | May 19, 2007 5:20 PM

Tavern: "California's already ruined." It's actually a beautiful day outside today in California. I'm going to go to a nice immigrant-run restaurant tonight, then going to an Irish pub, and partying with my Peruvian friend, Argentinian friend, German friend and evangelical Christian friend. It sure will be hell!

Posted by Media Glutton | May 19, 2007 5:32 PM

That illegal immigrants rating out their employers idea is really shockingly dumb. Illegal immigrants risk and sacrafice a tremendous amount to come to the United States. They do not leave their families and undergo a dangerous border cross to leave the country for any bounty that the government could possibly afford to offer.

Posted by Patrick | May 19, 2007 5:33 PM

Also, the problem with the "enforcing the laws on the books" argument is that the laws on the books are impossible to enforce because: the government does not let any unskilled mexican workers into the US legally. Period. Look at the statistics. Of course people are going to come illegally, there is nothing to "wait in line for."

Posted by Patrick | May 19, 2007 5:40 PM

Media Glutton wrote:

"Tavern: "California's already ruined." It's actually a beautiful day outside today in California. I'm going to go to a nice immigrant-run restaurant tonight, then going to an Irish pub, and partying with my Peruvian friend, Argentinian friend, German friend and evangelical Christian friend. It sure will be hell!"

Don't mistake fake diversity for real diversity, MG. Do any of your all-white but still somehow diverse friends (maybe the Peruvian?) have kids in public school in California? I didn't think so. That really is hell, which is why whites are moving out of majority-minority California in droves.

This is one of the tiresome rah-rah-diversity platitudes: elites who enjoy the company of other wealthy people of various backgrounds sneering at those poorer or middle-class white families who can't afford to insulate themselves and their kids from the negative effects of massive illegal immigration.

Bill Kristol calls them "Yahoos" but of course his children don't go to school with illegal Salvadorans.

On this thread, Lemuel Pitkin calls them "racists and nativists." Hey Lemuel, to the nearest 100K, what's the price of your house? I bet you don't have a lot of illegal Mexican neighbors! Only racists and nativists are poor enough to have those.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 6:30 PM

I find it amazing how people who go through life with innumerable examples of the efficacy of fences remain convinced the one place a fence wouldn't work is on our border with Mexico. So instead, we should resign ourselves to UAVs, electronic sensors, and other new-fangled technologies that won't actually impede anyone from walking across the border.

Listen, the principle behind fences isn't quantum physics -- centuries of experience and common sense tells us fences work, even when there is plenty of incentive for people to want to violate the fence. That's why, for example, prisons have fences, instead of just sensors and UAVs. If you look around your hometown, you'll probably see plenty of examples of this time-tested form of barrier. There are even examples along our southern border where fences have been built (e.g., San Diego) and illegal crossings have dropped. So why not put a fence along the whole southern border?

And then require employers check for a government-issued photo ID before hiring someone?

Then illegals would stop trying to come here, and many already here would go home.

Posted by Fred | May 19, 2007 6:33 PM

I'd be interested to know if there has ever been a border of that size and physical ruggedness that has been totally secured.

My guess is the Iron Curtain might be a comparable example. Crossing it illegally was a feat so rare as to make front page headlines, so we know it was effective. Problem is, we'd have to do things like lay land mines. And we wouldn't need an increase of 18,000 border agents. We'd need, like, a million. I think the silliest misconception from the "build a fence" crowd is their touching faith in the ability of inanimate objects to stop demographic change. Inanimate objects won't get the job done. The Commies needed hundreds of thousands of men with guns to stop border crossings. We'll need such numbers, too.

Posted by Jasper | May 19, 2007 6:34 PM

Matt Y wrote:

"The problem with enforcing the laws already on the books, like the problem with a wall, is that it's very difficult and/or expensive to enforce them rigorously."

No, it's very difficult and expensive to have 20 million illegal aliens in your country, in both social and financial costs (no illegals in Lemuel Pitkin's neighborhood, so he and his family are unlikely to be bothered by the social costs.)

Building a 2,000-mile wall on our border is cheap and easy to do, and would work -- the one near San Diego that Duncan Hunter crows about is a great example.

It's not worring that the wall *wouldn't* work that keeps Lemuel Pitkin in opposition, it's the knowledge that it would work, and work well. Just like the one in Israel. If it works for Isral, why not for us? Lemuel?

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 6:38 PM

Last but not least, in phenomena of essentially mass disobedience - like this one or music piracy- the disincentive of state/legal repression is unlikely to work. In these cases, economic and political systems need to adjust to the dynamic of the situation rather than trying to impose their will on them.

Yep, there's the key point. until/unless the economic gap between the US and various third world countries closes, people will come to the US in greater numbers than current law allows. We can either accomodate the law to reality, or create more and more draconian enforcement provisions that won't work but will have all kinds of negative side-effects.

And as RSA and jerry say, creating a culture of snitching is a big negative. Encouraging people to inform on their neighbors, co-workers and employers isn't something any decent society does.

Hey Lemuel, to the nearest 100K, what's the price of your house?

I'm a New Yorker. I rent.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | May 19, 2007 6:48 PM

Jasper wrote:

"My guess is the Iron Curtain might be a comparable example. Crossing it illegally was a feat so rare as to make front page headlines, so we know it was effective."

Such touching, sincere concern over whether the wall will work. We wouldn't want to waste a few billion dollars of taxpayer money on such a frivolous enterprise as securing a border over which hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens cross every year, would we?

Look Jasper, and Lemuel, and others falsely proclaiming to be concerned over whether the wall will work: it will. It already does in the walled areas of Southern California. It not only works, it works really well, starts working immediately, and...no land mines! Just a manned wall.

Again, as Krikorian guides us: 1) build the Wall; 2) enforce laws against hiring illegals. 3). you're done. No new bills or laws necessary, no fake "deals" full of false enforcement promises necessary. Instead: very few new illegals come over; you don't have to deport 20 million illegals because if they don't have jobs and know there's not going to be an amnesty, they go HOME -- you know, to the countries they are citizens of. And it's not expensive to enforce rigorously, MattY: after a couple of well-publicized enforcements, people change their behavior.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 6:49 PM

That's why, for example, prisons have fences, instead of just sensors and UAVs.

If we can persuade the population of Mexico to consent to daily cell inspections and the occasional body cavity search, I think this might be a good model to base our intuitions on.

If you look around your hometown, you'll probably see plenty of examples of this time-tested form of barrier.

It's true that I've never seen my next-door neighbors climb over our fence, and fortunately their dog is not bright enough to have figured out the gate latch mechanism.

There are even examples along our southern border where fences have been built (e.g., San Diego) and illegal crossings have dropped.

. . .in San Diego.

So why not put a fence along the whole southern border?

Sounds workable to me.

Posted by RSA | May 19, 2007 6:55 PM

Actually I haven't said anything about the wall. I'm not even sure I'm against it. Sure beats MY's snitching program, at least.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | May 19, 2007 7:00 PM

My old drinking buddy Lemuel Pitkin writes:

"there's the key point. until/unless the economic gap between the US and various third world countries closes, people will come to the US in greater numbers than current law allows. We can either accomodate the law to reality, or create more and more draconian enforcement provisions that won't work but will have all kinds of negative side-effects."

This is the Tamar Jacoby, we can't do anything so we might as well accommodate it line. But we *can* do something to stop the tide, and we can do it easily: build a wall, and enforce our laws against hiring illegals. Problem solved in 6 months.

So Lemuel, chaver, what's wrong with Krikorian's 2-part plan, outlined above? 1) build wall 2) enforce existing laws -- already passed by Congress! -- against hiring illegals.

That it would work is not is dispute, is it? Part 2 of the plan removes the carrot, part 1 puts a partition in the way of the carrot.

Now, is it draconian? No. I wouldn't want to be an illegal who's lived here 15 years and has to go back to Mexico now, but you knew the bargain when you came over. And who is it that set the expectations up, who created this cruel situation? Why, the greedy Republican businessmen who wanted a labor force instead of human beings (as Max Frisch put it), plus the multiculti, anti-white Democrats who want their "multicultural welfare state," as Ira Mehlman put it.

And both will lose out, so sad. I feel sympathy for the illegal pawns in this game, but none for the players.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 7:03 PM

Jasper wrote:

"And we wouldn't need an increase of 18,000 border agents [to patrol the wall]. We'd need, like, a million."

Let's see, a 2,000-mile walled border would need a million border agents. That's 500 agents per mile. I'll assume you were kidding, they could stand at 10-foot intervals with that kind of manpower.

The truth is that we wouldn't need more than 20,000 border agents to patrol our border. But even if we needed double that, so what? Civilized countries defend their borders. A country that doesn't police its border isn't a country, as Reagan said.

These "we can't do it!" arguments are so transparently weak.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 7:12 PM

LP escribe:

"Actually I haven't said anything about the wall. I'm not even sure I'm against it. Sure beats MY's snitching program, at least."

Agreed, but MY is a demigod so he is allowed to make mistakes sometimes.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 7:13 PM

The problem with walls is that they are effective at constraining a particular tactic.

Obviously the wall in San Diego is going to work because no one is enough of a moron to attempt a crossing when there are other places where there's no wall.

But what happens once you do get a southern wall?

Prospective illegals will find the next weakness. The water. Overstaying visas (which btw you would really have to become a police state in order to stop that tactic).

If these don't work, then I bet there's going to be more collective action to overcome the burden of the wall. And so on and so on.

PS And again, illegal immigration isn't a clear-cut case that's not beneficial. There's a lot of myths and handwringing but no consensus. Empirical research however shows that at worst, the costs are marginal.

PS2. And another thing. Perhaps the most effective way for illegal flows to stop would be for the Mexican economy to develop. In order for that to happen, I think that Mexico should overcome its biggest hurdle which is corruption and its political institutions.

One heavy handed and facetious solution would be for the Mexicans to petition the US for their country's annexation or its transformation into a US protectorate. That would allow what is really feeding Mexican mouths in the US - effective governance to work its miracle cure in Mexico too.

That of course would never happen. What would be realistic however is an imitation of the EU model. I don't know how many people know this, but the EU is very attractive option for underdeveloped countries not only because of the development handouts dished out by the richer, but because their entrance into the EU means the gradual incorporation of a more credible and rational legal and political framework that over the long term helps their economic growth.

The problem in this scenario is not that Mexico would refuse such an offer but that the US doesn't have the same incentives as Germany and France to propose it. It would be however a good and stable long term solution to the immigration problem.

Last but not least, NAFTA plays a constructive role to the problem. But in NAFTA as it is in here, it's virtually the same people who oppose it. Nativists or people who really don't know economics.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | May 19, 2007 7:25 PM

The Mexican American border provides the sharpest economic divide in world history, period. There is no border in history that is even close. The only approximation might be the Iron Curtain but even that doesn't quite match up.

The minimum wage in Mexico is 60 cents/hr. The suggestion by the supposedly defeated presidential candidate that it be raised to $1 was enough to doom him. One assumes we helped insure his defeat, and by "we" you can guess who I mean. The absence of a substantial middle class in Mexico is guaranteed politically and in that we play a secondary role however. Wild income and asset inequality is pretty much a cultural imperitive in the Americas south of the border. I've worked with enough middle managers in Mexico to know they treasure their status and expect the lower classes to know their place. To a surprising extent they do.

The US now has twice the population of Mexico. The safety valve is workng perfectly, for both sides. I would guess that the flood from the south has peaked.

.

Posted by rapier | May 19, 2007 7:44 PM

Media Glutton: I didn't mean that California had been ruined by "diversity." I meant that it's overpopulated. L.A. was as near to paradise as you could get at one time. Now, one gigantic megamonster of a city. The Bay Area is similarly overrun. When I lived in Santa Barbara as a kid and we went to LA, we considerd Ventura -- then a bucolic kind of place -- to be "half way" to LA. Now, Ventura IS LA... The Central Coast is already getting LA-ified. Thank God the North Coast is rainy, otherwise the same fate would befall it.

Posted by Traven | May 19, 2007 7:45 PM

Legalize them and tax them - like marijuana.

California is not going to the dogs - the southwest is strong and getting stronger. The sun belt is strong and getting stronger. The recent immigrants assimilate well, and generally have no problem paying taxes as required.

My neighbor as it happens is a recent immigrant from down south, has a place worth say 1.1 million (dock worker living with dock worker). Pays lots of taxes. What is not to like?

If they pay their taxes, they can come, in my view, if they are not criminals or terrorists.

I am not expecting a flood - most are lazy and will stay in their home country (or return there soon after finding the US is not a bed of roses).

They are a long term profits stream for the country - just no free-loading please.

Posted by cfw | May 19, 2007 7:47 PM

A couple of thoughts...

1. It's hard to tell whether a wall would really work, and be cost-effective. People on opposite sides of this question sure sound certain, though. I wonder what data y'all are looking at that I haven't seen.

2. I doubt that the actual effect of the proposed snitch-rewarding program would be to turn America into some paranoid 1984-esque society, because I don't think it would result in a whole lot of actual snitching. What it would do, it seems to me, is give employers a strong incentive to actively make sure that they weren't hiring illegal immigrants. The proper response by an employer to the snitch-rewarding program would be, not to have a general attack of paranoia, but simply to make sure none of one's current employees are illegal and then institute procedures so that no illegals are hired from now on.

3. My sense of justice strongly favors punishing employers for hiring illegal immigrants, rather than punishing people for coming here illegally. I mean, who can really blame some dirt-poor Mexican from trying to do whatever he can to get work and money? Those people work way harder than me. God bless 'em. They are not the villains in this scenario.

The employers are the villains. If they're employing illegal immigrants, then by doing so they are driving everybody's wages down and making it harder for people to organize unions. When an employer hires an illegal immigrant, he does so at the expense of every exploited low-wage worker in America who deserves more pay and better working conditions.

Therefore, I think the snitch-rewarding program is a good idea. It is the most effective way I can think of to deter and/or punish employers. Clearly, relying on the government to prosecute employers for hiring illegal immigrants hasn't worked nearly well enough. The snitch-rewarding program would outsource enforcement to the people who are in the best position to do it.

Posted by Tom | May 19, 2007 7:47 PM

Nick,

Point taken that illegals who would've crossed at San Diego might cross somewhere else. So the logical next question is, why not wall the whole border?

Your answer -- that they'd find other ways to get in -- isn't an argument against the wall. The fact that a wall wouldn't be 100% effective doesn't mean the wall wouldn't be 90% effective and therefore shouldn't be built. It would be effective and we should build it. Yes, some illegals would still get in, *but it would be far fewer, especially if we also enforce workplace laws that already exist against hiring illegal workers*.

As for your USA-Mexico merger idea: it would be the end of the United States as a first world country. Don't believe me? Take a look at Miami, El Paso, and Los Angeles. You've got Brazil-like economical stratification (lots of poor, lots of rich, small middle class) that maps cleanly onto racial lines. Just like in Mexico, where the elite is almost all white.

Nick and Lemuel, question: if you knew a wall would reduce illegal immigration by, say, 50%, would you be in favor of it? I'm suspecting you wouldn't be, so why not lay your cards on the table?

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 7:48 PM

"California is not going to the dogs - the southwest is strong and getting stronger. The sun belt is strong and getting stronger. The recent immigrants assimilate well, and generally have no problem paying taxes as required."

If California isn't going to the dogs, why are whites moving out at a net rate of 100,000 per year? Why are the public schools increasingly gang-ridden and underperforming? Why is racial friction increasing in the neighborhoods, classrooms, and prisons?

You say your next-door neighbor has a 1.1 million-dollar house, so we know you're part of the upper class, for whom California is not going to the dogs. But what about the inrushing permanent underclass from the south, and the outrushing middle class, headed inland away from the high taxes, racial tension, and cultural chaos?

California is indeed in huge trouble. Not gone, but headed quickly for the same extreme economic and racial splintering we see in Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Caracas, and La Paz.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 7:55 PM

Couple more thoughts in response to Lemuel:

1. The proposed snitch-rewarding program seems unlikely to "create a culture of snitching, suspicion and paranoia among immigrant workers." Why are those workers going to have anything to fear from one another? It's their employers who will have good reason to fear, surely.

2. I basically agree with this:
"The "solution" to illegal immigration is to adopt macroeconomic and labor market policies that result in rising wages and low unemployment. Then only racists and nativists will care about immigration, and we can just ignore them."
But what if one of the policies we need to pursue in order to get a tighter labor market, leading to rising wages and low unemployment, is to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the workforce?

I mean, I don't think any change in immigration policy is going to provide a quick fix for the larger problem of economic inequality in this country. But I can see how having less illegal immigrants in the workforce would at least be a step in the right direction.

Posted by Tom | May 19, 2007 7:58 PM

Hey Zagnut, why don't you go get some exercise, work off that stress, and bring Fred, NE PDX, SLC and the rest of em with you.

The heat coming from the restrictionists shows how important it is for progressives that some type of comprehensive reform goes through now. They are terrified of this going through because comprehensive immigration reform is not only better for business, it is the practical solution and will guarantee electoral dividends for those who support it. And it is going through - the U.S. is not going to remove millions of people - the only question is how much the fine or penalty will be for those who want immigration status to get it. Touchbacks are a foolish idea: if they work they're not necessary, if they're necessary, they won't work. Why should the head of household have to return to their home country, most likely leaving behind an employer and a family who won't know what to do without them. They certainly won't be sending money to the U.S. from where they are. This is one of those provisions that will have to be modified later on.

People who honestly care about the well-being of the U.S. should support this, because it will allow law enforcement to concentrate on known criminals and the potential criminals and terrorists among the immigrants who don't come forward. All this crap about a national system of rewarding snitches or a huge coast-to-coast wall and massive expansion of law enforcement and the prison-industrial complex is positively un-American, and would be ineffective in stopping the alleged menace of illegal immigration.

Posted by WelcometotheFuture | May 19, 2007 8:06 PM

"The US now has twice the population of Mexico. The safety valve is workng perfectly, for both sides. I would guess that the flood from the south has peaked."

1) The US pop is close to 3 times Mexico's

2) How is the "safety valve" working for the US? It's ruining public schools all over the country, overcrowding (and shutting down) hospitals, jamming our prisons, putting drunk drivers and MS-13 on our streets. I know what our Republican businessmen friends get out of it, and I know what our Democratic ethnic activist friends get out of it, but what does the average American get out of it that he doesn't repay many times over in the costs outlined above? Please enlighten. Mass illegal immigration is a bad deal for the American middle class, period.

3) Why do you think the flood has peaked? That's what they said in 1965 and 1986 -- there will be no flood. Well, there were floods, and the new flood will be in the *scores or hundreds of millions* if it's not checked, because 5 billion of the world's 6.7 billion people live in a country with a lower per capita GNP than Mexico.

Be sure you really, truly don't like this country the way it is, and don't just find it entertaining and self-satisfying to publicly say so. Passing this bill would be the end of the U.S. as a first-world country, and the beginning of the U.S. as a racially and economically splintered mega-Brazil. You don't want that, and neither do Brazilians -- after Mexicans, Brazilians are the next highest number caugght sneaking over the Rio Grande.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 8:07 PM

I hope everyone who is in favor of strict enforcement would be ready to pay a lot more for almost everything they consume. And the impact on the economy of skyrocketing prices of consumer goods. Better get yout blueberries now!

The fact that a wall wouldn't be 100% effective doesn't mean the wall wouldn't be 90% effective and therefore shouldn't be built.

Except that 40%-50% of the people who are here illegally entered legally and just overstayed their visas. No border security, whether a wall or otherwise, helps when the security is legally obligated to let them through.

If California isn't going to the dogs, why are whites moving out at a net rate of 100,000 per year?

You know if you accuse anti-immigration advocates of being racist, you'll get hung from the rafters. But the fact is that this thread is filled with the sort of weird turns of phrase and warnings of ill-defined dangers that make me very uncomfortable. I mean, "cultural chaos"? What does that even mean? People have to live next to people who don't share a common ethnic background, who have somewhat different customs and language... who cares? You keep warning about racial tension or racial splintering. What, precisely, are you advocating? Are people of different races just supposed to permanently avoid each other? Or is races living together okay as long as white people remain the majority?

Posted by Freddie | May 19, 2007 8:16 PM

WTF writes:

"They are terrified of this going through because comprehensive immigration reform is not only better for business, it is the practical solution and will guarantee electoral dividends for those who support it."

I am terrified of the bill passing, but not because it would be "better for business". That makes no sense. I am terrified of it passing for a simple reason: I don't wish to see the United States become a third-world country. I appreciate your welcome to that future, but it's not the future I intend to leave for my kids and grandkids.

"And it is going through - the U.S. is not going to remove millions of people - the only question is how much the fine or penalty will be for those who want immigration status to get it."

Nice try at an air of inevitability, but this bill is not likely to go through. We don't have to remove millions of people, just 1) build a wall to keep the new millions out, and 2) enforce our already existing laws against hiring illegals. Then most of the illegals will go back to the countries they hold citizenship in.

Was interesting to watch the news shows the past few days. Tucker Carlson, Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck etc. were basically saying things only Mickey Kaus could previously get away with. The giant has been wakened.

Faster, please.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 8:16 PM

jamming our prisons, putting drunk drivers and MS-13 on our streets.

Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than the general US population.

I know what our Republican businessmen friends get out of it, and I know what our Democratic ethnic activist friends get out of it, but what does the average American get out of it that he doesn't repay many times over in the costs outlined above? Please enlighten. Mass illegal immigration is a bad deal for the American middle class, period.

Simply untrue. The cheap cost of illegal immigrant labor accounts for a huge reduction in the cost of domestically produced consumer products, agriculture pmost of all.

Posted by Freddie | May 19, 2007 8:25 PM

Wow, Zag, Tancredo and Buchanan are talking about immigration and are approaching the wisdom of known faux-Democrat-concern-troll Kaus? You restrictionists really got some momentum!

You don't want America to be a third world country... and you are of course channeling your hero, Tancredo, who said Miami is like a third world country. Why did he say that? Not becuase Miami doesn't have a vibrant economy - because it does - but because there's a lot of brown people in Miami. Go do something useful with your anger Zag, because there's nothing you can do about the demographic future. Your grandchildren will be a lot darker than you! And they're going to be able to speak Spanish!

Posted by WelcometotheFuture | May 19, 2007 8:27 PM

Freddie wrote:

"Except that 40%-50% of the people who are here illegally entered legally and just overstayed their visas."

Right, so the other 50-60% come over the border. So If you've got a wall that will stop 90% of the people who try, and discourages a high % of people who would've made the trip without a wall, you've solved 50% of the immigration problem.

Enforcing workplace laws will reduce the visa overstay amount by a large %.

"I mean, "cultural chaos"? What does that even mean?...You keep warning about racial tension or racial splintering. What, precisely, are you advocating?"

Predicting but not wanting != advocating.

As for actual advocating, try this one on for size: California is now 1/3 Hispanic. Do you not agree that 1) La Raza very much wants that to be >50%, and that 2) if it becomes 50%+, they will enact anti-white, pro-Hispanic legislation? If you doubt that, ask white citizens of Zimbabwe, South Africa, Bolivia, or Venezuela if their governments didn't pass anti-white legislation just as soon as it became possible. Sure all those countries' majorities have grievances against the white minority -- but so do the Mexicans of California. Why wouldn't they pass similar legislation?

Dominate or be dominated -- that is the eternal law of human groups. Sad but true.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 8:29 PM

Dominate or be dominated -- that is the eternal law of human groups. Sad but true.

So that we're clear, and everything is in the open-- you're saying that white people should be in a dominant position in the United States?

Posted by Freddie | May 19, 2007 8:33 PM

The Future escribe:

"Tancredo, who said Miami is like a third world country. Why did he say that? Not becuase Miami doesn't have a vibrant economy - because it does -but because there's a lot of brown people in Miami."

No, he said that because according to Wikipedia:

"Based on the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports Program, Miami ranks as the second most dangerous metropolitan area in the United States, based on the number of murders, rapes, robberies, aggravated assaults, burglaries and motor vehicle thefts that have occurred in the metropolitan area."

When Miami was 90% white in 1960, it was the 3rd *safest* city in the country.

This is what awaits the rest of the country if this bill passes, which is why it's being crushed underfoot.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 8:38 PM

No, he said that because according to Wikipedia:

"Based on the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports Program, Miami ranks as the second most dangerous metropolitan area in the United States, based on the number of murders, rapes, robberies, aggravated assaults, burglaries and motor vehicle thefts that have occurred in the metropolitan area."

Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than the general US population. Read all about it.

Posted by Freddie | May 19, 2007 8:45 PM

Freddie escribe:

"So that we're clear, and everything is in the open-- you're saying that white people should be in a dominant position in the United States?"

What's the other option, Fredo? Miamization? I'm being serious. I look at the parts of the U.S. that are black (Detroit, D.C., Baltimore, pre-Katrina New Orleans, etc) and Hispanic (L.A., Miami, South Texas) and they are almost all third world and not improving. I look at the white parts (suburbs everywhere, Seattle, New England, etc) and they are mostly first world.

Skipping over some nuances (East Asians fit in like Swedes to white society, etc.) but you catch my drift. What have I said that is wrong? I'm really looking for a counterargument, and not just the weak tea of "you're a racist!!!"

So if I'll go on record as wishing the U.S. to retain its white majority permanently, would you go on record as wishing the U.S.'s white majority to become a minority? Then we could honestly debate who's right.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 8:47 PM

To begin with, I dispute your characterizing New England as mostly white. New England has much higher racial diversity than the country at large (I can dig out a link, if you'd like.)

I'm glad that you've been honest, because it does make it an easier conversation to have. I will go on record as saying that I don't have a vested interest in either preserving a white majority in the U.S. or in ending that majority. I do have to say that I don't believe that the problems of certain populations living in certain areas of the country are the product of the racial background of those populations.

See, this is where I think things come down to a conflict of definition. You say it's weak tea if I were to call you a racist. But I do believe that if you feel that one racial group has an intrinsic superiority to another racial group, then yes, that is racist. It's the same thing with Steve Sailer. He seems to get him annoyed if you call him racist. But he is perfectly open in thinking that black people are inherently less intelligent than white people. Isn't that racist by definition? Same thing here. I don't like using perjoratives, but if you think that white people should remain a dominant majority in the United States--that it's imperative to the health of our country--I don't know what to call that but racist.

Posted by Freddie | May 19, 2007 8:58 PM

Freddie escribe:

"Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than the general US population"

This is the kind of bogus study pro-illegal proponents have to rely on. I mean, come on, do you really think illegals (and their children) commit fewer crimes than native-born whites? Do your parents urge you away from the high crime rates of the white suburbs to live in the crime-free illegal alien communities? Give me a break. You have any idea what % of illegal alien crime goes unreported because it's inlficted on other illegals?

Hispanics commit crimes at about three times the white rate. See Ed Rubinstein below.

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/061215_nd_table.htm#t1

Again, if this is the best argument you've got, why shouldn't I want the US to retain its white majority?

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 9:02 PM

This is the kind of bogus study pro-illegal proponents have to rely on.

I'm afraid I'm going to haveto continue to privilege a study by a Harvard sociologist over your "common sense" and conjecture.

Posted by Freddie | May 19, 2007 9:05 PM

Yeah, I think we re swimming on no go territory right now.

The comments I read the past few days from people I don't often see in this blog makes me wonder whether there's an organized nativist campaign in order to set up the mood.

In any case, I am certain that anti-legislation opponents are more riled up over this, but I wonder whether the furor disguises their minority status.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | May 19, 2007 9:14 PM

"To begin with, I dispute your characterizing New England as mostly white."

Amazing point to need a link to, but:

per the 2000 census:

CT 84.9% white
MA 86.7%
ME 96.9%
RI 88.9%
VT 96.1%
NH 96.1%

That's much whiter than the country as a whole, which is 66% white according to the big news story from a couple of days ago.

And if you look state by state, the blacker and browner a state is (brown = Hispanic in this context), the lower its mean SAT, the higher the crime rate, the lower the per capita income, etc. It's so stark -- I'm happy to cite stats to you all night if you'd like. Believe me, I was surprised a couple of years ago when I saw how cleanly these stats mapped onto race (or don't believe me, check it out yourself). Just the Miami thing is so stark -- from 90% white to about 10% in 47 years, and from 3rd safest city to second most dangerous in that same time period. Coincidence? Come on.

Fredo:

"See, this is where I think things come down to a conflict of definition. You say it's weak tea if I were to call you a racist. But I do believe that if you feel that one racial group has an intrinsic superiority to another racial group, then yes, that is racist."

But what if it's true? I didn't create the friggin' world, but what if some racial groups of people *are* more intelligent on average than others, and that we can't change this, and this largely accounts for their differences in scholastic and economic and civilizational achievement? Then what do we do? You seem to reject that possibility out of hand, but humor me: if it's true, then what other rational position is there on immigration besides restrictionism? It seems to be a choice between restrictionism and Miamization.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 9:16 PM

Zagnut, you're offensive. You're a bigot. And you're not grounded in reality.

I don't wish to see the United States become a third-world country.

Congradulations. Neither do we. This country's been open to immigration for several hundred years. Immigration has explicitly fueled our rise to the top of the economic global pyrmaid. Japan has close to zero immigration, and it has the oldest population in the world. It is in dire, drastic demographic trouble, and it just went through the biggest economic crash suffered by any first-world economy since the Great Depression. This is not a coincidence. Your propositions are national suicide.

These "we can't do it!" arguments are so transparently weak.

They get a lot less weaker when you take the time to actually study the historical success of global border control. The record for controlling immigration across land borders is a drastic failure. The only countries who have succeeded were totalitarian nations such as North Korea and the Soviet Union. This is not a random correlation.

There are legitimate arguments for increased border control, mostly related to national security, but your whiff of the apocalypse hides, and not very well, what appears to be transparent racism. You don't get to laugh that away by calling it a weak argument. If you would like to claim you're not a racist, and you haven't, you should demonstrate how and why you are not. Until then, you're not welcome here.

"Based on the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports Program, Miami ranks as the second most dangerous metropolitan area in the United States, based on the number of murders, rapes, robberies, aggravated assaults, burglaries and motor vehicle thefts that have occurred in the metropolitan area."

Con-gradu-f*cking-lations. You found an anecdotal example of a racially diverse city that is also dangerous. New York City's level of dangerousness has dropped like a stone over the last two decades, while its proportion of white people has continued to decrease. There goes your theory in five seconds. Get a new one. Don't rush.

Posted by glasnost | May 19, 2007 9:18 PM

"Yeah, I think we re swimming on no go territory right now."

See Nick, that's what frustrating for me. Once you get to the stage we're at in this debate, one side cuts it off with the word "racist," or just ends it some other way with a comment like yours.

I'm not an asshole, Nick, and I'm not part of any organized "nativist campaign". But if there is a convincing argument against the line of thought I'm expressing on immigration restriction and its racial component, you're not giving it to me. "Stop talking about that" isn't supposed to convince me, but rather to cow me. I need a real argument. Got one? I sincerely want to hear it. The entire argument seems to rest on the "racism" accusation, and that's not enough to keep me from wanting my country not to become Miami and L.A.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 9:21 PM

Look. Here's a dictum from where to start.

"Correlation does not equal causation."

People don't stop arguing with you because you re winning them over, that's for sure.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | May 19, 2007 9:26 PM

But if there is a convincing argument against the line of thought I'm expressing on immigration restriction and its racial component, you're not giving it to me.

Try leaving out the racial component: As a thought experiment, would you be upset by 12 to 20 million non-white immigrants who brought enough wealth into the country with them such that they raised the average for the whole population? If not, then why bother with the racial angle? If yes, then I don't get it.

Posted by RSA | May 19, 2007 9:31 PM

Glasnost,

That Japan is screwed because it doesn't allow immigration is one of the shibboleths of the pro-illegal immigration crowd, but how is Japan screwed? I visited a couple of years ago and found an orderly, law-abiding, socially harmonic society. In place of 3rd-world immigration they have robots and other technological innovation. It ain't perfect, but they have avoided all the social chaos you find in, say Southern California. It's fantastically impressive.

There are lots of non-island countries that have controlled illegal immigration very well: Poland, Denmark, Italy and Germany for example. Again, "we can't do it" is not a convincing argument. Of course we can control illegal immigration, and we should, and I believe we will.

As for the city example: it's you with New York that has found the outlier, not me with Miami! Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

You can't deny the trend there.

Again, if it's true, what then?

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 9:34 PM

Nick,

Correlation doesn't equal causation, but it means you have to find some other factor to explain the correlation.

RSA wrote:

"As a thought experiment, would you be upset by 12 to 20 million non-white immigrants who brought enough wealth into the country with them such that they raised the average for the whole population?"

It depends. If they came with the intention of assimiliating into larger American society, then no problem. If they came with the intent of becoming a "market-dominant minority," to use Amy Chua's phrase from "World on Fire," then of course not, it would be crazy.

But why would anyone want the worst of both worlds: tens of millions of low-skilled, economically and scholastically underperforming people of a difference race coming to their country? Then you'd have economic problems *and* racial tension. See California in 2007.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 9:38 PM

But what if it's true? I didn't create the friggin' world, but what if some racial groups of people *are* more intelligent on average than others, and that we can't change this, and this largely accounts for their differences in scholastic and economic and civilizational achievement?

Anytime now, you'll pull out your handy chart of the relative size of skulls for Negroes vs. Caucasians, and consider the matter settled.

I don't even know where to begin with this cauldron of bu**shit, but I'd start with the fact that for large swathes of world history, the residents of Europe were the most backwards race on the planet. I'd continue on to point out that the areas of heavy immigration into our country have coincided with the hottest economic regions, whereas the areas of least immigration have been the most economically depressed - see this map and then go look up economic performance of the country by region over the past 10 years. We'll wait.

Meanwhile, before you begin making arguments about the inherent lawfuless of white people, you should watch the movie "Gangs of New York", and read the history books it's based on. You might also read about something called Bosnia, or the modern-day life in Russia (wait, are Slavs not "real" white people either?). Or, you could read about something called the "Wild West".

As I read your argument, it's something a lot like, "Hispanics are criminals by nature. And stupider than white people." F*ck you. End of discussion.
I'm going to call my representative and senator on Monday an urge him to pass this bill. You motivated me. And I think your arguments should be front-paged on liberal blogs. Right now, they're wishy-washy on this bill, but the reaction of people like you is enough of a reason to vote for it.

Posted by glasnost | May 19, 2007 9:42 PM

It depends. If they came with the intention of assimiliating into larger American society, then no problem. If they came with the intent of becoming a "market-dominant minority," to use Amy Chua's phrase from "World on Fire," then of course not, it would be crazy.

When did the Hispanic race announce their intention to dominate the country? Did I miss a press release somewhere? Where's the beef? You keep saying that no one is providing argumentation against you, but you supply no evidence for many of your claims, particularly this one that we've all got to watch out for the illegal alien army that's going to spread a new culture across our country.

Posted by Freddie | May 19, 2007 9:44 PM

So If you've got a wall...

There are even examples along our southern border where fences have been built (e.g., San Diego) and illegal crossings have dropped. So why not put a fence along the whole southern border?

Clagnut the bigot and Little Fred really have no excuse these days, given the existence of Google Earth. But if they want to volunteer for a few shifts down at Big Bend or Cabeza Prieta, they're welcome.

(Here's a hint: if you think the San Diego-Tijuana fence can be extrapolated across the entire border, you should register for remedial geography class. Then volunteer for those shifts when you're no longer embarrassingly ignorant.)

The only question is which formerly-victimised immigrants were your great-grandparents: Irish? Italians? Poles?

[Steve Sailer's groupies really do stink the place out, don't they?]

As for the 'enforce what's on the books' crowd, it's worth remembering that if you ask two USCIS employees to explain a law or regulation, you'll get three answers, and that some legislative efforts (especially in election season) are designed primarily to appeal to non-citizens who neither know nor care what's on the books, but like the idea of hatin' on some brown folks. Combine that with a perennially underfunded and under-resourced department (or, these days, departments) and what you get is... well, what you've got.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 19, 2007 9:55 PM

Glasnost,

First of all I'd like to say how much I enjoy (sincerely) the irony of calling yourself "glasnost" ("openness") and then telling me I'm "not welcome here" and "F*ck You. End of discussion." That is pretty sweet, no joke.

Now, to your map: you seem to be saying that the four border states have "Mexican" as their largest ethnic group (not counting "white" as an ethnic group, oddly), and you are attributing their economic prowess to their Mexican citizens.

This is false. For example, let's look at the largest state in the country, California, and the credit you're giving for the state's economic prowess to its 1/3 Mexican population.

But look at this piece:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/01/study-25-million-mexican-americans.html

Which points out that California's economic might is not from having 10,000,000 Mexicans living there, but having high-tech, skilled native-born whites and well-chosen, non-Mexican immigrants living there.

As Sailer writes:

For example, Graph 5a is "Immigrant Groups Founding Engineering and Technology Companies in California." India is out in front at 20%, followed by Taiwan (13%), and China (10%). This time, Mexico makes the chart, but with only 1%. That's not a lot of return for having 10,000,000 Mexicans in California.

So Nick's comment that "correlation does not equal causation" is quite applicable here. True, Mexicans clean the offices of the whites (and immigrant Indians, Chinese etc) who keep California's economy going, but cleaning the offices of a tech company and starting one are not the same thing.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 9:56 PM

Pseudo NC writes:

"if you think the San Diego-Tijuana fence can be extrapolated across the entire border, you should register for remedial geography class."

Well, tell me then: why can't we build the wall across the entire border? I know there are some gullies and other geographical oddities where both a wall and crossing illegally are problematic, but why not along the other 1,800 miles?