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?

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 10:00 PM

Freddie escribe:

"When did the Hispanic race announce their intention to dominate the country? Did I miss a press release somewhere?"

Well, Hispanics are now 13% of the population. Will be 25% by 2040 if nothing changes. Do you not think La Raza wants that # to increase with no ceiling? Why wouldn't they? And would they not want to pass legislation favoring their own group once it becomes demographically possible? Passing legislation favorable to Hispanics is the entire raison d'etre of the organization...

Is it you or me that's being newborn-baby naive? I hope it's me, but I suspect otherwise.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 10:04 PM

Z-nuts I like your style, but I'm curious what you meant when mentioned earlier that Poland has succesfully dealt with massive illegal immigration? I mean last time I checked the Teutonic Knights walked all over their borders (and rightly so!). So what gives man?

Posted by Numbnuts | May 19, 2007 10:16 PM

"Z-nuts I like your style"

FINALLY a little freakin' validation for Z-man. It's lonely at the top, Numbnuts!

"but I'm curious what you meant when mentioned earlier that Poland has succesfully dealt with massive illegal immigration? I mean last time I checked the Teutonic Knights walked all over their borders (and rightly so!). So what gives man?"

Well yeah, Poland has been a punching bag for most of its history. That's what happens when your ass has few natural barriers to invasion and you're surrounded by huge, badass tribes like Germany, Russia, and Sweden.

But I mean in modern times, when transportation is at the point where large #s of people from across the globe can flood your country in a matter of days and months. Poland is still 99% Polish, and it's because of strict illegal immigration laws.

Policy can change history; despite what Jasper said upthread, demographic changes aren't inevitable.

What happened to all my sparring partners? I'm only on my fourth Coors light and I haven't even hit the 420 yet. Y'all is WEAK!

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 10:21 PM

Clagnut: Google Earth. Free download. In case you can't find the United States on the globe, there's a handy search box.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 19, 2007 10:22 PM

Psuedo,

I have Google Earth. I mentioned the gullies. Quit being cryptic and spell it out for my white ass: why can't we build a wall across the vast majority of the US-Mexico border?

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 10:24 PM

What worries me about situations like this, or the inevitable Steve Sailer appearance, is that the average person tooling around on the Internet may not know that these arguments are universally discredited in actual sociological scholarship-- that is, peer-reviewed papers and books published by credentialed people who work at universities that are meticulously analyzed and carefully debated.

Because Zagnut and Sailer write things that are articulately worded and supported with pseudo-scientific data (or cherry-picked legitimate data), and what they argue against is politically correct (and everyone loves to go against the PC grain), people may think that theres some substance there, that they're speaking unpopular truths. But this kind of research and analysis is done in universities around the world, and the overwhelming scholarly consensus does not support this kind of race theory.

Posted by Freddie | May 19, 2007 10:31 PM

With great self-restraint, Zagnut, I've refrained from specifically asking Matt to ban you, precisely because of the sentiments indicated by the moniker. If I wanted you to be banned, you'd know I wanted you to be banned.

That doesn't mean I have to do you the undeserved favor of civilly engaging with you. I won't publicly debate the "question" "what if some races really are smarter than others?" with you, anymore than I'd debate "what if the Jews made up the Holocaust?" for more than about two seconds. Nor would I let you stand in front of me and debate with you whether my mother was an ugly, cheap, prostitute as if it was a serious argument worthy of serious consideration. It can be an insult and treated as such, but it's not a civil question, and it never can be. You're making abusive argument, and you deserve abuse. I don't enjoy giving it, though, so rather than stalk you, I'm just closing this commment thread and not coming back.

Posted by glasnost | May 19, 2007 10:38 PM

Z-Nuts if I'm ever out in Cali I'll shotgun a coors with ya (tap the motherfucking non-union labor is what I say)

Dude I knew it was those strong immigration laws that kept those filthy kikes out. Though why they had to hate on those high-skilled Teutons is beyond me.

Anyway to all the rest of you haters, I know Z-nuts thinks too highly of your intelligence and thought you all had already see Los Protocolos de Los Viejos de Azatlan but you better check it out before it's too late.

Posted by Numbnuts | May 19, 2007 10:42 PM

Glasnost,

But whether your mother, or my mother, is an "ugly, cheap prostitute" is an empirical question. If she is, she is; if she is not, she is not. Same with race differences. Ugly facts do not stop being true just because they are ugly.

Freddie,

I don't mean any offense, but this statement:

"these arguments are universally discredited in actual sociological scholarship-- that is, peer-reviewed papers and books published by credentialed people who work at universities that are meticulously analyzed and carefully debated."

...is as true as your statement upthread that "I dispute your characterizing New England as mostly white."

I follow the science closely, including the banned science (the best kind! -- how many banned books have you read? I have read dozens!), and it points strongly in the direction of "human biodiversity". And it causes me a lot of worry. For, as Harvard shrink extraordinaire Steven Pinker puts it:

http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_3.html#pinker

"The year 2005 saw several public appearances of what will I predict will become the dangerous idea of the next decade: that groups of people may differ genetically in their average talents and temperaments... the prospect of genetic tests of group differences in psychological traits is both more likely and more incendiary, and is one that the current intellectual community is ill-equipped to deal with."

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 10:48 PM

I didn't get the "filthy kikes" comment, Numbnuts, but I'll assume it was "South Park" irony I'm too drunk and unhip to grok.

And I'm in DC, not Cali!

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 10:52 PM

Jeez, I try to make a couple of reasonable points and when I come back the thread has turned into a carnival of crypto-racism. What a waste, and an excellent reason to support the immigration bill.

Also, what glasnost said.

Posted by Tom | May 19, 2007 10:58 PM

"Jeez, I try to make a couple of reasonable points and when I come back the thread has turned into a carnival of crypto-racism. What a waste, and an excellent reason to support the immigration bill."

Not a Thomas of the doubting kind, are you?

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 11:04 PM

“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.”

You're a racist and a nativist. I'm anglo and I live near illegal "Mexican" neighbors. By the way, you are an asshole. Also, I'd prefer it if the US was minority anglo. I've lived in areas of New Mexico where I was the only anglo for miles and I liked it. Illegal immigration doesn't bother me in the least.

Hey, maybe you'll accuse me of being a "race-traitor". Fuckwit.

Why isn't Zagnut banned?

Posted by Keith M Ellis | May 19, 2007 11:39 PM

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.

Zagnut: most people don't work 168 hours per week 52 weeks per year. A million new border agents deployed on the Mexican border would yield at best 300,000 agents posted at any one time. Moreover, any military force (and if you're serious about stopping illegal immigration via enforcement-only you're essentially talking about militarizing the border) needs a large contingent of support and logistics staff. Our own military requires (I'm guesstimating) five or six support personnel for every combat troop -- so we're talking about a further, large-scale dilution of personnel. Additionally, any massive increase in border security will necessarily see some of the increased resources flowing to the Canadian border -- the frontier that is the much larger of the two. Indeed, any genuinely serious effort at enforcement will require massive resources to hunt down the substantial portion of illegal immigrants who enter the country legally -- usually at airports -- and overstay their visas.

I stand by my contention that securing our borders solely via an enforcement-only strategy while completely eschewing market-based solutions is the stuff of fantasy. There's neither the money, nor the political will, to adopt Soviet-style border and immigration control methods. I'm glad of that.

Posted by Jasper | May 19, 2007 11:45 PM

Keith,

That's interesting. What areas of New Mexico did you live in? I've never been, though I have been to every state it borders.

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 11:47 PM

Jasper dice:

"There's neither the money, nor the political will, to adopt Soviet-style border and immigration control methods."

Well hold on Jasper mi amigo. There's a huge difference between the Soviet Iron Curtain and the wall we're going to build (note my own attempt at an air of inevitability!). I won't even point out what it is b/c it's so obvious...OK I will! The Soviet wall kept people *in* (=incarceration, immoral), while our wall will keep people out (completely different, similar to the lock on your front door).

"A million new border agents deployed on the Mexican border would yield at best 300,000 agents posted at any one time."

OK, Jasper, we'll put them at 30-foot intervals on the border stedda 10-foot intervals. And I'm sure a single U.S. Border Patrol agent needs "five or six" support staff.

"I stand by my contention that securing our borders solely via an enforcement-only strategy while completely eschewing market-based solutions is the stuff of fantasy."

Well old boy, let's give it a whirl and see! We both want the U.S. Border Patrol to keep illegals out, don't we?

Don't we?!

Posted by Zagnut | May 19, 2007 11:53 PM

What an ugly thread. Building a wall would be even uglier.

However, this new immigration act solves nothing. Just like SLIAG in '86 it extends an opportunity to those who have set down roots, but it does not stop the flow of undocumented workers into this country.

The only surefire solution to the problem is to absolutely enforce employment laws. This requires a reasonable SSN verification system, not a particularly difficult task. And the very real chance that the person responsible for hiring an undocumented worker will spend time in jail would sufficiently motivate the system to solve the problem.

A rat-out system is really not needed. A system that delivers significant penalties to even a modest number of employers will suffice.

But it is difficult to see this solution being enacted given the political situation. Too many politicians on either side of the aisle like the situation the way it is.

One last thing: I agree that a case can be made that the economic net effect of 10 million undocumented workers is positive. However it is really obvious to me that the negatives of illegal immigration disproportionately fall on the lower socio-economic rungs of our society. To cite a very trite example, there is no downside to illegal immigration for Paris Hilton. There is a very significant downside to a union carpenter in Texas. (Yes, I actually know one. They are an endangered species.) The current pay scale for master carpenters in Austin is actually lower than in 1985.

Posted by Nat | May 20, 2007 12:12 AM

Senor Yglesias escribo:

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

Wrong, if we had absolute control over our borders + a policy of assimilation (as opposed to La Raza-style ethnic radicalization, an absolutely insane policy for a country to have for its immigrants) I'd be in favor of as many immigrants as we could handle, 2 mil + per year.

You gotta widen the herd to strengthen the herd, but you can't widen the herd + not fix the broken fence.

Posted by Zagnut | May 20, 2007 12:27 AM

A note to readers: the sequence above shows it is best not to comment when you're drunk. Or a bigoted, geographically-challenged asshole. Nice work, Claggers.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 20, 2007 1:34 AM

iMil gracias, pseudo! Quiero beber contigo a proxima vez estas en D.C. Tu pareces como un hombre muy simpatico.

Tu amigo y pendejito por siempre,
El Zagnut

p.s. Si quieres explicarme porque no pudemos hacer un muro a la frontera, estoy escuchendo. Por favor...?

Posted by Zagnut | May 20, 2007 1:46 AM

Freddie:

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

Yes, and their children commit crimes at three times the level of white Americans. Illegals are usually too afraid of being deported, and past the prime age for being criminals; their children are neither.

The only ones who benefit from low-skilled immigration to the U.S. are the low-skilled immigrants, their family members, and the owners of businesses that prefer to rely on low-wage labor rather than automate, pay higher salaries, or re-locate to lower wage countries.

Importing millions more poor, uneducated, Mexican immigrants (4th grade dropouts, on average) would be a disaster for this country. These immigrants will have children who will fail in school and commit crimes and far higher rates than non-Hispanic, non-black Americans. They will consume more in social spending resources than they ever pay in taxes. They will make America poorer.

Posted by Fred | May 20, 2007 2:19 AM

The best thing that could happen to the US would be millions of poor, uneducated immigrants that will find jobs and happiness in the US and displace smug, racist, nativist, stupid assholes who ingore the fact that it was millions of poor, uneducated immigrants who built this great nation.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | May 20, 2007 2:23 AM

Going back to something mentioned earlier: if you're into building a wall at the border, why not use land mines? You clearly mark the border, and if anyone crosses there, it's Darwin Award time. What's the downside?

Though I'm more into employer-centered enforcement, myself. I think it would be a lot more cost-effetive.

Posted by AlanC9 | May 20, 2007 8:43 AM

Question:

The giant wave of early 20th Century immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe weren't exactly the economic elites of their respective nations. A lot of them were semi-literate peasants or lumpenproletarians. And yet, despite a degree of social upheaval that accompanied their assimilation, they turned out pretty well. What's so different about the current wave of immigrants that make them uniquely unassimilatible?

Posted by Feathers McGraw | May 20, 2007 10:11 AM

Zagnut: You are a fool. Every assumption you made was wrong about me. Went to public school (along with ALL of my supposedly "fake diversity" friends). My friends are not "all white." (I like how you thought my evangelical friend and Peruvian friend were white, by the way.) So, thanks to your completely wrong assumptions, I think it's safe to say the rest of your thought processes are completely idiotic, as well.

Posted by Media Glutton | May 20, 2007 10:43 AM

Freddie: sorry, dude, but the proportion of illegal immigrants who overstay their visas is more like 25%. And let's not forget that they've gotten at least one vetting by a consular officer, including a sweep through the database of baddies. And a good number of them are people who will eventually be eligible for a family-based immigrant visa, but don't want to wait for their number to come up, e.g., spouses and children of green-card holders.

Also, you wrote: "The cheap cost of illegal immigrant labor accounts for a huge reduction in the cost of domestically produced consumer products, agriculture pmost of all." EXACTLY -- that's what business gets from illegal immigration: cheap labor, to whom they pay no benefits, and whom they can exploit mercilessly. Is this a good thing? Is it "progressive" for us rich white folks to support an underclass of semi-slaves so our fucking blueberries and Big Macs don't cost as much? And what happens when you legalize illegal immigrants and don't follow up with serious enforcement against employers? They no longer hire the (newly) legal -- they find a new crop of illegals to exploit.

One thing I do agree with: the mass immigration of Mexicans has probably peaked, because Mexico's demographics have changed and the birthrate fallen significantly.

Posted by Traven | May 20, 2007 12:00 PM

Oh, one other thing. The incidence of criminal activity by illegal immigrants is NOT lower than the average. That's true of LEGAL immigrants, at least one-third of whom have an education level higher than the national average.

Posted by Traven | May 20, 2007 12:03 PM

The best thing that could happen to the US would be millions of poor, uneducated immigrants that will find jobs and happiness in the US and displace smug, racist, nativist, stupid assholes.

19th century: Whites "replace" Indians.

21th century: Hispanics "replace" whites?

Posted by turning the tables | May 20, 2007 12:10 PM

Feathers McGraw asks intelligently:

"The giant wave of early 20th Century immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe weren't exactly the economic elites of their respective nations...And yet, despite a degree of social upheaval that accompanied their assimilation, they turned out pretty well. What's so different about the current wave of immigrants that make them uniquely unassimilable?"

It's a key question in this debate. Will the current wave of Hispanic immigrants assimilate just as the wave of, say, Irish and Italians did a century-plus ago? Sure, the argument goes, there were ethnic gangs ("Gangs of New York," "The Godfather") but eventually the Irish and Italians did assimilate. Why won't Mexican immigrants do the same?

My answer: they might assimilate. It's possible. The Southwest (and the country as a whole) might absorb them, with difficulty as the Irish and Italians had, but eventually successfully.

On the other hand, they might *not* assimilate. There are important differences between this wave and previous waves, for example: 1)Irish and Italians etc. didn't have irredentist claims to large pieces of American territory, but Mexicans do (a majority in Mexico believe the seven states of the U.S. southwest to belong rightfully to Mexico). 2) The Irish, Italians etc. immigrated in an era when an unskilled worker could support a family off his wages, because most labor was unskilled. This is not the case now, technology demands education. The Mexican-American record on education isn't impressive, even in the 3rd and 4th generations they lag far behind whites scholastically. 3) The Irish, Italians etc. immigrated at a time when assimilation and the melting pot were national ideals, whereas now the regnant doctrine is multiculturalism, which actively discourages assimilation (indeed, the opposite -- it stokes ethnic resentment, in the Hispanic case, irredentist, anti-white sentiment). 4) Sit down for this, you won't like it, but there are probably mean IQ differences between Europeans and Native Americans. According to one of my favorite banned books, Lynn and Vanhanen's "IQ and the Wealth of Nations," the average IQ of Italy is 102, while the average IQ of Mexico is 87 (Guatemala is 79). I said "probably" above, but, like it or not, IQ differences between groups show up robustly and consistently. Which is why white American couples, even liberal ones, tend to adopt East Asian babies instead of, say, African ones.

So will Hispanics assimilate? Maybe -- maybe the IQ stuff is all BS, and the irredentism is just some fringe ethnic bluster, and Mexican-Americans will assimilate over time. But maybe not -- maybe we're importing a permanent economic and racial underclass. After all, most countries in Latin America have a small white elite lording over a larger mestizo and Indian population. When they can -- as in Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Peru, Mexico -- the masses turn to strands of socialism that most Americans would find threatening, especially since most of it is tinged with an understandable anti-white sentiment.

So why take the chance? We could be doing irreperable harm to the United States. Why not get control of our borders and give the melting pot time to assimilate, if we all agree that assimilation is the ultimate goal? After all, a 41-year period of low immigration (1924-65) was the clincher for the assimilation of Italians and other groups. We've now had 40 years of very high immigration levels, and we need another low period to give the melting pot time to work.

Posted by Zagnut | May 20, 2007 12:43 PM

Going back to something mentioned earlier: if you're into building a wall at the border, why not use land mines?...What's the downside?

Um, a lot of dead people, some of whom will include the occasional hapless American hiker or rancher. But, hey, what's a few dead folks in the pursuit of a less brown USA.

What's so different about the current wave of immigrants that make them uniquely unassimilatible?

Nothing. My guess is they're more assimilatable given the global spread of English, and the existence of today's high voltage electronic media (which inundate people with exposure to American culture much more quickly and intensively than in 1900).

The only ones who benefit from low-skilled immigration to the U.S. are the low-skilled immigrants, their family members, and the owners of businesses that prefer to rely on low-wage labor rather than automate, pay higher salaries, or re-locate to lower wage countries.

Actually, the benefits of immigration -- even of the low-skilled variety -- are universal. Everybody benefits from the lower prices and economic stimulus we gain from such people. The costs of this immigration are paid by a narrower segment of the population, namely the bottom quintile in income, and study after study have shown this "cost" to be extremely modest. If you oppose immigration because you want to halt demographic change, your quixotic mission at least has some basis in reality (immigration surely does drive demographic change). But if you want to slash immigration in order to help poor people, you really are jousting at windmills. Far more effective than cutting immigration would be universal health insurance, better schools, or simply a booming economy.

One thing I do agree with: the mass immigration of Mexicans has probably peaked, because Mexico's demographics have changed and the birthrate fallen significantly.

Excellent point. Birthrates are tumbling all over the developing world, and the growth of the planet's human population is slowing dramatically. I've seen projections pointing to a shrinking population for Mexico starting about the year 2025. Indeed, although the raw numbers look huge to the uneducated eye, America's own net rate of immigration -- and that includes the inflow of illegals -- is barely a third of what it was circa 1900. And this, of course, is set against the backdrop of a country whose birthrate is a fraction of what it was a century ago. The big picture story here is that the rate of population growth in the Untied States -- even given the boost created by immigration -- continues its long decline. I think that's largely beneficial, but I don't think it's necessary to ratchet it down even further by a "crackdown" on a phenomenon that has helped make the United States the richest and most powerful nation on earth.

Posted by Jasper | May 20, 2007 1:24 PM

A lot of them were semi-literate peasants or lumpenproletarians. And yet, despite a degree of social upheaval that accompanied their assimilation, they turned out pretty well.

Some of their grandkids or great-grandkids, on the other hand, are now Know-Nothing assholes themselves. Let's call it 'the Tancredo moment': when you've assimilated into a nativist bigot.

if you're into building a wall at the border, why not use land mines? You clearly mark the border, and if anyone crosses there, it's Darwin Award time. What's the downside?

Ah, another geography 'F'. If you're going to express confidence in batshit schemes, why not a moat filled with sharks with frickin' laser beams? Why not just explode small nukes every 50 miles along the border and evacuate everyone living there?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 20, 2007 1:35 PM

Jasper writes:

"My guess is [Hispanic immigrants] more assimilatable given the global spread of English, and the existence of today's high voltage electronic media (which inundate people with exposure to American culture much more quickly and intensively than in 1900)."

Technology can work both ways on this. Yes the Hispanic kids watch a lot of English-language TV -- but they can also, say, attend pro-amnistia marches organized by text-messaging campaigns, retain the home country's culture through websites, satellite TV, etc.

"The costs of this immigration are paid by a narrower segment of the population, namely the bottom quintile in income, and study after study have shown this "cost" to be extremely modest."

Illegal immigration costs every American taxpayer, because a typical illegal alien family does not earn anywhere near enough to pay for the public benefits they consume. Yes there are competing studies that show different things, but the ones not funded by Hispanic organizations or others sympathetic to La Causa back up what common sense dictates: a family of, say five people who earn, say, $35,000 a year do not pay anywhere near enough in taxes to cover what they consume in education, medical treatment, use of police, roads, etc. And the benefit we get from educating illegals and their children is low, too.

"Indeed, although the raw numbers look huge to the uneducated eye, America's own net rate of immigration -- and that includes the inflow of illegals -- is barely a third of what it was circa 1900."

Wrong, the foreign-born pop of the US in 1900 was about 11 million from a total pop of about 76 million. The current foreign-born pop is about 39 million now from a total pop of 300 million, so we are close to the historically highest levels of 1900. In fact, due to the illegal population, whose numbers we don't know, we are possibly at or over those levels.

Maybe it's time for a period of low immigration to assimilate and acculturate the people already here.

Posted by Zagnut | May 20, 2007 2:00 PM

Pseudonymous, still waiting for you to tell me why we physically can't build a wall across most of the 2,000-mile border...I asked you nice in two languages!

Posted by Zagnut | May 20, 2007 2:09 PM

Come back when you've passed remedial geography, Claggers.

Could it be physically done? Oh, I suppose so, as long as you have a budget of billions, no environmental scruples or regard for the movements of Native Americans in border regions, and a pathological fixation on swarthy types sufficient to create a modern Great Wall of China or mine a few thousand square miles.

So, go ahead. Get down to Arizona and start fucking building it, rather than thinking your imagination will do the job.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 20, 2007 3:01 PM

Illegal immigration costs every American taxpayer, because a typical illegal alien family does not earn anywhere near enough to pay for the public benefits they consume.

Weak analysis. Just counting the pluses and minuses of the public till makes no sense. If, say, Pedro Sanchez consumes $8,000 worth of government benefits and pays only $4,000 in taxes he is indeed a net drain on public finances. But if his economic activity adds $18,000 in value to GDP, we still come out ahead. Accepting eighty-year old immigrants doesn't make much economic sense. Accepting immigrants of working age, however, makes all the sense in the world.

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

Wrong, the foreign-born pop of the US in 1900 was about 11 million from a total pop of about 76 million. The current foreign-born pop is about 39 million now from a total pop of 300 million, so we are close to the historically highest levels of 1900.

Zagnut: You're misquoting me. In 2006 the US likely received (if illegals are counted) something like 1.5 million immigrants out of a population of 300 million, yielding an immigration rate of of .5 %. In 1900 the United States received about 1 million immigrants with a population of 74 million. That's an immigration rate of about 1.4% -- or a rate very nearly three times that of our current era. While it is true that the foreign born population of the United States has increased substantially in recent years as a percentage of the population, this is because America's natural population growth is slowing down. It is certainly not the result of a sharply higher rate of immigration than that earlier era; as I have just shown, our immigration rate today is much lower than during the Ellis Island era.

I would argue that the slowdown in natural population growth helps, not hinders, the ability of the United States to absorb immigration, because it tamps down overall population growth. Indeed, it this slowdown in the country's natural rate of increase (and the slowdown in the natural growth of the labor force) that makes a steady supply of immigrants all the more desirable, and needed. Were American families as large now as they were in 1900, I might well join the ranks of the restrictionists. They're not, and I haven't.

Posted by Jasper | May 20, 2007 3:35 PM

From watching my house get built in Phoenix, I'd say there are 2 glaring loopholes: document forgery and subcontracting. I don't think the Senate deal addresses either.

Even if law enforcement, in its deliberately lackluster and understaffed condition, cuts through the multiple layers of plausible deniability, so what. One corporation out of thousands pays a tolerable fine and suffers a brief disruption of business as usual.

What's needed isn't so much immigration reform, but sweeping corporate reform that restores individual accountability to corporate agents. Corporate officers should be licensed like doctors, pharmacists, nurses, lawyers, architects, teachers and so many other professionals are.

The CEO, COO, CFO, etc. of corporations should have to graduate from an accredited university and hold a government license. They should have to complete continuing education. They should answer to a government-appointed Board and be subject to individual fines, suspensions and revocation of their license. The threat of losing one's means of livlihood is a much better motivator than the fear that your company might pay a fine that costs less than it would to obey the law.

This would make corporate executives as honest as doctors and teachers. Far from perfect, to be sure, but still a huge improvement.

Posted by Jalmari | May 20, 2007 4:06 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 backer 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 6:48 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 8:33 PM

Re: Mexicans are NOT Western.

They speak Spanish (a decidedly Western European langhuage unless you are among those who thinks Europe ends at the Pyrenees) and the majority of Roman Catholic, the West's ancestral religion, with some Pentacostal Protestants, a uniquely American religious contribution to Christianity.

Re: Remember, for most of Western Civilization, ancestry has been the determining factor.

For much of history most people would have suggested culture mattered more than ancestry: the very concept of "Christendom" depended on identity by religion, not genes. And by your definition we must also expel the Hungarians, Finns, and Basques from Euroepan civilization since they are descended from different tribes than most other Europeans.

Re: About 30% of Mexicans are Amerindian (Asiatic)

If Native Americans are Asiatic then so are most Euroepans (take a look at a book on historical linguistics as to where the Indo-Euroerpans came from and who their likely close linguistic kin are)

Re: About 30% of Mexicans are Amerindian (Asiatic)

In the US "white" people like to brag about having some native ancestry. Many of them also have some African ancestry, though they are less likely to acknowledge that. By the way, did you know that the Queen of England includes such luminaries as Dracula (the historical one, not the vampire) and Genghis Khan and the Prophet Mohammed in her lineage? Most of us, if you go back far enough, have ancestors from parts distant like that. What racists like you do not realize is that human bloodlines have been mixing for millennia, with the result that race is an illusion. Apart from a few truly long-term isolated populations, like the Austrailian Aborigines, there simply are no pure-blooded races in the word. The Europeans are just as "mixed" as Mexico's Meztizos are. We are all "mutts".

Re: But these people are not Western, which is why they have demanded that all "European elements" be removed from their liturgy,

What in the hell are you talking about? Mass in Mexico is usually said in Spanish (a European langauge, remember), and, with allowed local variations (we have some doozies of that sort in this country too) it proceeds according to the Novus Ordo canons laid out at Vatican II. There may well be good reasons to criticize the New Mass, but if so, take it up with Benedict in Rome and quit spreading ridiculous nonsense in public before you make yourself like like an even bigger fool.

Re: why they have banned white authors at many schools,

Um, put down the vodka bottle. You've had enough.

Re: and why in the past few years over 200,000 Hispanics in the U.S. have converted to Islam.

Care to document that? (And please do not cite the KKK's website!)

Re: I have 100% pure European blood running through these veins.

See above. You probably have Berber/Arab/Jewish/Turkic/Uralic/Mongol blood in there too. Pretty much all Europeans do. Maybe even some Basque or Etruscan. And go back far enough and your ancestors were Africans too. All of us trace of genes back to east Africa ultimately.

Posted by Jonf | May 20, 2007 9:32 PM

Wow, racial science lives! Poor Z-nut doesn't realize when Numbnuts is yanking his chain. (His, right?) Really, you should consider that exercising-your-stress-off option. Or get some more sleep.

Although maybe you should keep it coming. It's always illuminating when we examine what percentage of what kind of blood's in people's veins.

Posted by Stella | June 8, 2007 1:10 AM

You account card credit merchant hand variations blind kansas 0 balance card credit transfer usa? ? rock house weak fast bankroll bank secured credit card rabbits pressure up fifth banco freezeout?

Posted by blackjack online | November 18, 2007 1:48 PM

You account card credit merchant hand variations blind kansas 0 balance card credit transfer usa? ? rock house weak fast bankroll bank secured credit card rabbits pressure up fifth banco freezeout?

Posted by blackjack online | November 18, 2007 1:48 PM

Tu realistisches online kasino scalper verbritt aufheben Standplatz Geste slot machine spielen Karten online fluss pasadena online spielbank Richtlinien Dreck Tätigkeit ball Third?

Posted by online betting | November 19, 2007 9:45 AM

Dasistder-die-das poker flash on line dispari seme senta casino online forum introduttivo nascosto tritattuto bassa sequenza verde slotmaschine spielen associazione alto parallelo alzare millione.

Posted by faire online spiele | November 19, 2007 5:38 PM

Dasistder-die-das poker flash on line dispari seme senta casino online forum introduttivo nascosto tritattuto bassa sequenza verde slotmaschine spielen associazione alto parallelo alzare millione.

Posted by faire online spiele | November 19, 2007 5:39 PM

Three motion new ringtones casino rank four fold free phone ringtones verizon blackjack time foul card download free ringtones for verizon wireless phone george rainbow regular starluck tutorial progressive?

Posted by free nokia ringtones 1600 free nokia ringtones 3595 free nokia polyphonic ringtones | November 20, 2007 7:33 AM

In that case credit card processing company cancellation million fifth gross bank where to get prepaid credit card trips horse scalper apple tipping carribean mobile credit card processing full cap spades?

Posted by card credit mbna | December 7, 2007 2:17 PM

In that case credit card processing company cancellation million fifth gross bank where to get prepaid credit card trips horse scalper apple tipping carribean mobile credit card processing full cap spades?

Posted by card credit mbna | December 7, 2007 2:18 PM

Dear advance america loan payday tough underdog fish split budget line cash advance even pair bust rank empirepoker payday loan uk rainbow tap multiplayer.

Posted by info loan payday till loan till payday | December 17, 2007 2:39 PM

Dear advance america loan payday tough underdog fish split budget line cash advance even pair bust rank empirepoker payday loan uk rainbow tap multiplayer.

Posted by info loan payday till loan till payday | December 17, 2007 2:39 PM

If casino en ligne francais baccarat ante beard fold symbols cover la r�gle du poker nickel hopper variance out best card credit debt help split prize mechanic!

Posted by international online casino | December 29, 2007 7:36 AM

If casino en ligne francais baccarat ante beard fold symbols cover la r�gle du poker nickel hopper variance out best card credit debt help split prize mechanic!

Posted by international online casino | December 29, 2007 7:37 AM

Todvia ismarket.com ringtones samsung site empirepoker overplay handicapper Ausschuß geradewerden cell phone ringtones wallpaper Trio gulash toke fels Dreck download free bollywood ringtones handicapper Spalte roulette.

Posted by 24 fox ringtones | January 1, 2008 7:33 AM

Todvia ismarket.com ringtones samsung site empirepoker overplay handicapper Ausschuß geradewerden cell phone ringtones wallpaper Trio gulash toke fels Dreck download free bollywood ringtones handicapper Spalte roulette.

Posted by 24 fox ringtones | January 1, 2008 7:33 AM

Some des r�gles poker texas holdem table seven cripple sagem klingelt�ne live tilt spice k�nnykk� soitto��net ceedy four war outs holdem!

Posted by advance cash overnight | January 25, 2008 3:48 PM

Some des r�gles poker texas holdem table seven cripple sagem klingelt�ne live tilt spice k�nnykk� soitto��net ceedy four war outs holdem!

Posted by advance cash overnight | January 25, 2008 3:49 PM

As polyphone klingelt�ne samsung muck prize nuts gesture horses handylogos klingelt�ne deck cover flat fold pay day cash advance payday loan rank double counting house vigorish split.

Posted by advance cash day loan pay | January 30, 2008 2:27 PM

You free wallpaper for phone for verizon wireless joint pat stiff seconds cheating fold free polyphonic ringtone for verizon phone kansas glimmer pat lowball fishhooks klingelt�ne kostenlos down hand outs keno picture?

Posted by file midi piano | February 1, 2008 1:07 PM

You free wallpaper for phone for verizon wireless joint pat stiff seconds cheating fold free polyphonic ringtone for verizon phone kansas glimmer pat lowball fishhooks klingelt�ne kostenlos down hand outs keno picture?

Posted by file midi piano | February 1, 2008 1:07 PM

Before free polyphonic ringtone for verizon phone number insurance base fill cellcables.com free mp3 polyphonic ringtone voice.html shuffling deck foul hold klingelt�ne f�r siemens gambling card ball management discard.

Posted by free motorola polyphonic ringtone v66 | February 1, 2008 1:46 PM

Before free polyphonic ringtone for verizon phone number insurance base fill cellcables.com free mp3 polyphonic ringtone voice.html shuffling deck foul hold klingelt�ne f�r siemens gambling card ball management discard.

Posted by free motorola polyphonic ringtone v66 | February 1, 2008 1:47 PM

Consolidate sale da poker on line complete rundown live tournaments poker da tavolo gratis championship rolled seconds earn reels bingo stri poker gratis showdown raise advantage pair?

Posted by descargar juego de poker en espa�ol | February 2, 2008 4:55 AM

Now free gospel music ringtones royale stakes rundown free polyphonic ringtones for siemens martingale tilt pot pairs parlay equity sonneries et images airfares jolly shuffling diamonds.

Posted by ringtones maker motorola cell phone | February 2, 2008 1:51 PM

Now free gospel music ringtones royale stakes rundown free polyphonic ringtones for siemens martingale tilt pot pairs parlay equity sonneries et images airfares jolly shuffling diamonds.

Posted by ringtones maker motorola cell phone | February 2, 2008 1:52 PM

As mentioned free online texas holdem game double implied free airfares mac online poker bet advantage stack trio amount flat free credit card machine hedge rock keno fold?

Posted by card credit debt reduction services | March 8, 2008 10:59 AM

As mentioned free online texas holdem game double implied free airfares mac online poker bet advantage stack trio amount flat free credit card machine hedge rock keno fold?

Posted by card credit debt reduction services | March 8, 2008 11:00 AM