Night of the Living Immigration Reform

Comprehensive immigration reform looks to be dead. I don't buy the theory that this was liberals' best chance for a sensible bill. The polling -- unless you adopt the Mickey Kaus method of relying exclusively on Rasmussen -- doesn't support the notion that there's overwhelming public opposition to reform.

The objective social conditions militating in favor of reform -- namely, a status quo that nobody's happy with, and that everyone is increasingly less happy with every year -- aren't going to vanish. Meanwhile the odds favor political circumstances growing more favorable to reform, both in terms of more Democrats in congress (and the White House), but also in terms of remaining Republicans growing skeptical that fealty to the base is the best path back to power.

Comments

Looking back on the battle in retrospect, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Reid and the Dem leadership always intended to kill the bill, and intended to do it in a manner that would cause the maximal political damage to the Congressional GOP and administration in the process.

Well played, Harry.

Posted by Petey | June 8, 2007 8:33 AM

The polling -- unless you adopt the Mickey Kaus method of relying exclusively on Rasmussen -- doesn't support the notion that there's overwhelming public opposition to reform.

You can only find the public in favor of this bill (or anything like it) if you use weasel words like "opposition to reform."

The public doesn't trust the politicians to actually enforce the enforcement provisions. For example, where's that 700-mile wall congress passed last year and Bush signed into law? Two miles of it have been built, it was fine-printed out of existence by the lawyerocracy that rules our democracy from within.

How powerful is the lawyerocracy? 698 miles unbuilt, 2 miles built.

Posted by Zagnut | June 8, 2007 8:34 AM

I can't say about "always," but I do agree with Petey that Reid managed to kill the bill very quickly and effectively by calling for a quick cloture vote and also saying he'd pull the bill if it lost cloture.

Seems to me that all the excitable anti-immigrationists who hang around on this website should start talking about drafting Harry Reid for the Presidency!

Posted by RKU | June 8, 2007 8:47 AM

all the excitable anti-immigrationists

shd be "anti-illegal immigrationists," let's use honest language as much as possible, especially with those with whom we have intellectual disagreements.

Posted by Zagnut | June 8, 2007 8:58 AM

"Reid managed to kill the bill very quickly and effectively by calling for a quick cloture vote and also saying he'd pull the bill if it lost cloture."

Reid's invisible fingerprints go far beyond just that.

Note how Reid kept referring to the bill as "the President's bill" in the debate yesterday. Once the Congressional GOP had been suckered in, he did everything possible to tie the bill to the GOP while still being able to say he was in favor of a bipartisan solution.

And, of course, the key killer action wasn't the quick cloture vote, but the Dorgan amendment instead. And from an article in The Politico, it was Reid that was behind the effort:

Another reason: A majority of the Democratic caucus, including Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the rest of the Democratic leadership, wanted to see the Dorgan amendment approved.

...

Democrats convened a caucus meeting this morning to discuss strategy. As Reid emerged from the meeting, the majority leader tapped Dorgan on the back, smiled and said, “excellent.”

When asked what Reid was referring to, Dorgan shrugged.

Posted by Petey | June 8, 2007 8:58 AM

No, public opinion is flowing in the restrictionists' favor: last year, a worse bill passed a majority Republican Senate 62-36. This year, an improved amnesty bill lost 45-50 in a Democratic Senate, an 18 vote swing.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 8, 2007 9:01 AM

It is possible that a better bill (for the left) could be passed in 2009 under a more Democratic Senate and White House. In that case, though, the Democrats would unquestionably have ownership of the bill. They could not push ownership onto a Republican President. Is Matthew so confident that he wants the Democrats to own the next bill? I am not so sure I would.

Posted by Al | June 8, 2007 9:12 AM

"It is possible that a better bill (for the left) could be passed in 2009 under a more Democratic Senate and White House. In that case, though, the Democrats would unquestionably have ownership of the bill. They could not push ownership onto a Republican President. Is Matthew so confident that he wants the Democrats to own the next bill? I am not so sure I would."

Indeed.

While I was mildly happy to see the bill go down on policy grounds, the best argument for wanting to see the bill succeed is that it would help take the issue off the table for the coming unified Democratic control of the federal government.

Posted by Petey | June 8, 2007 9:15 AM

public opinion is flowing in the restrictionists' favor

Right, which is why it was such a joy to watch Ted Kennedy, Ken Salazar, Jon Kyl, and the rest of our Constitution-minded, nation-of-laws-not-men leadership trying to be positive about the nonexistent future of this bill last night on C-Span.

The only chance they had was to slip it through this small window, call it bipartisan, and hope the public didn't ask too many questions. Before the Internet Era, it would've worked.

PS--someone buy Mickey Kaus a beer. What an American hero he's been on this issue over the past month.

Posted by Zagnut | June 8, 2007 9:18 AM

"No, public opinion is flowing in the restrictionists' favor: last year, a worse bill passed a majority Republican Senate 62-36. This year, an improved amnesty bill lost 45-50 in a Democratic Senate, an 18 vote swing."

Man, Sailer. If that's an example how you think logic works, you're an idiot in addition to being a generally slimy fellow.

Posted by Petey | June 8, 2007 9:21 AM

the coming unified Democratic control of the federal government.

Time for a third party! I'm sick of choosing between Tweedledum and Charybdis.

Posted by Zagnut | June 8, 2007 9:23 AM

If that's an example how you think logic works

Humor us mouth-breathers, Petey -- what's wrong with Sailer's logic in this post?

Signed, Slimy McZagnut

Posted by Zagnut | June 8, 2007 9:25 AM

The public doesn't trust the politicians to actually enforce the enforcement provisions. For example, where's that 700-mile wall congress passed last year and Bush signed into law?

It has very little to do with being lax on enforcement. We still have nothing but a hole in the ground in Lower Manhattan and it's been almost 6 years. Your precious fence is not our #1 national priority.

This year, an improved amnesty bill lost 45-50 in a Democratic Senate, an 18 vote swing.

Not only is your logic dumb, your math skills are more than a little questionable.

Posted by Steve | June 8, 2007 9:29 AM

"Humor us mouth-breathers, Petey -- what's wrong with Sailer's logic in this post?"

Senate votes are an extremely bad proxy for measuring "public support".

"Signed, Slimy McZagnut"

I don't think Sailer is slimy for opposing the current immigration bill. I think he's slimy for being an all-purpose racist.

Posted by Petey | June 8, 2007 9:29 AM

Anti-immigrationist is the correct label for many of them. Illegal immigration wouldn't be an issue if the amount of legal immigration allowed was expanded to supply enough slots (various different types of slots, really) for all the worthwhile noncriminals who wanted to come to America. That would dry up all demand for illegal immigration except by the criminals, most likely reducing it to a trickle (and nobody would care about ridiculously harsh enforcement anymore, since all the innocents would be allowed to legally immigrate).

They don't want that. They want to keep a lot of people out, and they want to severely limit the stay of those who do come in, and they don't want to give them citizenship (at least, not without a lot of time, money, and hassle). Most of them just don't like immigration.

I shed no tears over this bill dying. If this was really Reid using the bill to maximum political advantage before letting it die, props to him.

Posted by Crag | June 8, 2007 9:41 AM

Zagnut yesterday:

I used "pro-amnesty" and "anti-amnesty" for clarity's sake.

Zagnut today:

shd be "anti-illegal immigrationists," let's use honest language as much as possible, especially with those with whom we have intellectual disagreements.

People like this demonstrate the true futility of arguing on the Internet.

Posted by Steve | June 8, 2007 9:51 AM

Disingenuous clipping, Steve -- I had other posts that explained my choice of "pro-amnesty" and "anti-amnesty" in the context of replying to LaFollette's post.

Besides, calling supporters of this bill "pro-amnesty" is, in my opinion, the most honest quick description of their position. The penalties, which could have been fine-printed and massaged later anyway, were not great enough IMO to remove the "amnesty" tag.

Calling people who are against this bill "anti-immigrationists" is deliberately misleading, however, especially since "anti-illegal immigrationists" is available and more precise.

And arguing on the Internet isn't futile, it's fun -- which is why we all do it.

Posted by Zagnut | June 8, 2007 9:57 AM

Crag writes:

Anti-immigrationist is the correct label for many of them...Most of them just don't like immigration

1)Desiring low immigration to the U.S. while we absorb our high current levels of foreign-born is a reasonable and moral opinion. 2) I don't think "most" people against this bill "just don't like immigration." A lot of the antis, after all, are legal immigrants themselves, who resent the idea of rewarding those who didn't go through legal channels.

Posted by Zagnut | June 8, 2007 10:04 AM

"I don't think "most" people against this bill "just don't like immigration."

I don't think you're being intellectually honest here.

I think the bulk of the enthusiastic opponents of the bill are indeed motivated by a generalized opposition to immigration.

Posted by Petey | June 8, 2007 10:11 AM

I think the bulk of the enthusiastic opponents of the bill are indeed motivated by a generalized opposition to immigration.

Well, you're saying "of the enthusiastic opponents" and I'm just saying opponents. 50%

I think what Americans don't want is not simply "immigration," but more accurately "too much immigration too fast" and "illegal immigration." Just calling people who hold such views "anti-immigration" is facile, and I think deliberately so.

Posted by Zagnut | June 8, 2007 10:26 AM

Sorry, sentence above should have read:

50%> of the American public didn't support this bill, and I don't think it summarizes that many people's opinions fairly by saying they "just don't like immigration."

Posted by Zagnut | June 8, 2007 10:30 AM

1)Desiring low immigration to the U.S. while we absorb our high current levels of foreign-born is a resonable and moral opinion.

Yes, it is. But just as I would be called anti-gun if I supported "low manufacture and sale of guns while we absorb our high current levels of guns" I would rightly be called anti-gun, that view is rightly called anti-immigration. There are degrees of it, and by calling them anti-immigration I'm certainly not claiming that they're against all immigration. It just means that in general, they think that immigration right now isn't a good thing to have beyond a very limited quantity.

(Also, I doubt that many of the people pushing for limited immigration would actually support expanding it later. There will always be some reason to keep immigration low).

2) I don't think "most" people against this bill "just don't like immigration." A lot of the antis, after all, are legal immigrants themselves, who resent the idea of rewarding those who didn't go through legal channels.

That's not the impression I've received. Yes, some opponents of the bill are probably just concerned about the message it would send to forgive all the illegal immigrants. But I've seen very few concrete proposals from the conservative opponents of this bill to ever raise immigration again after the restrictions they propose. If it's mentioned at all, its left nebulous, "sometime in the future", "when the country is ready". This leads me to the simple conclusion that they don't particularly like immigration and the disrupting effects it can have, and would be fine with it being mostly restricted for quite some time.

Overall, the big thing I see is that all the previous anti-immigrant hysterias have ultimately proven to be not just ill-advised by laughable. Every new group was despised, called un-American, called lazy or job-stealing, labeled a threat to the fabric of society, from the Irish to the German to the Italians to the Poles to the Chinese. All of them were absorbed by America just fine, and I'm fairly sure that most would find it laughable to suggest that America would have been better off if we had kept them out. I see no reason why this current wave won't follow the same pattern. America changes, people denounce and resist the change, in a few generations it's just a fact.

And from what I've seen of the polling for this, you get huge swings by changing the question. Polling groups get the results they want to get.

Posted by Crag | June 8, 2007 10:32 AM

Argh. I meant 50%

I'm posting too much on this thread and hereby retire myself from it. Steve and Petey, no gratuitous shots, you know I can always lift the ban bitchez!!

Posted by Zagnut | June 8, 2007 10:33 AM

"Well, you're saying "of the enthusiastic opponents" and I'm just saying opponents."

Fair enough.

"Just calling people who hold such views "anti-immigration" is facile, and I think deliberately so."

Well, given that I was pleased to see the bill go down on policy grounds, and given that I have some level of generalized immigration concern on labor grounds, I'm not sure why I'd be "deliberately" trying to somehow smear opponents of the bill.

Posted by Petey | June 8, 2007 10:37 AM

Wow, for once I find myself in agreement with Al.

We should have given him this one bill, shattered the unity of the Republicans for the next election, and fixed it in 2009.

Posted by Zephyrus | June 8, 2007 11:19 AM

Petey:

"I think the bulk of the enthusiastic opponents of the bill are indeed motivated by a generalized opposition to immigration."

Do you have any facts to back that assertion up? Many of us are in favor of increased skilled immigration.

Posted by Fred | June 8, 2007 12:17 PM

"The objective social conditions militating in favor of reform -- namely, a status quo that nobody's happy with, and that everyone is increasingly less happy with every year -- aren't going to vanish."

Social conditions...didn't that use to mean something like the economic well-being of the working class and labor markets? ARe you afraid to broach the conversation about why the business lobbies are spending so much for this bill? Is it to reconcile "social conditions?"

No matter how much you ignore, the option of enforcing current laws is still in the minds of the little people.

"Meanwhile the odds favor political circumstances growing more favorable to reform, both in terms of more Democrats in congress (and the White House), but also in terms of remaining Republicans growing skeptical that fealty to the base is the best path back to power."

Yeah, sure, those newly elected democrats all lined up with Bush and Reid. Not.

I have an idea for a new party name, "Rich, White Former Marxists For Overclass Unity With Reublicans On Wages." We can identify them with "The Nation" in hand, Karl Rove immigration talking points in their mouths, and a right-wing-like obsession on keeping nanny prices "flexible."

Posted by Karl | June 8, 2007 8:35 PM

Karl --

Brilliantly put.

Posted by Colin | June 8, 2007 9:43 PM

Matthew, passage of this bill would be the status quo.

Mass illegal immigration is fueled by periodic amnesties paired with hollow vows for improved enforcement. This bill would have, and still may, put the status quo back onto its steroid regimen, ensuring that in 10-15 years we'll be back in an immigration situation "that everyone is increasingly less happy with every year."

Posted by Chris | June 8, 2007 10:24 PM

I see no reason why this current wave won't follow the same pattern.

Well, there are several possible reasons:

1) Homogeneity. In none of those waves of immigration to the U.S. did the citizens of a single nation or speakers of a single non-English language constitute the vast majority of immigrants. Multiple disparate groups have less natural resistance to assimilation than one homogeneous group, because homogeneity reduces the need for contact with outsiders.

2) Proximity. Never before have immigrants to the United States been able to regularly visit their home country on short trips. Currently, the difficulties of crossing a guarded the border form a substitute for the width of an ocean in the age before aviation; legal(ized) immigrants will have no such difficulty. Frequent contact with the homeland can renew ties, reducing assimilation.

3) Education. Historically, educators in the U.S. were fanatic about teaching students English, teaching only in English. Often prohibited students from having conversations with each other in languages other than English, and expressions of home culture identity were suppressed. Tell me, how likely do you think it is that America will enforce such forcible-assimilation policies?

4) History & Ideology. Never before have immigrants to the U.S. been able to rationally view the land they are living in as rightfully part of their home country, and the English-speaking denizens as imperialistic colonizers with no right to impose their norms on the society as a whole. In short, there is a fertile ideological ground on which Mexican immigrants can justify resistance to assimilation.

Certainly, it might all work out, and these immigrants will fit in just like previous ones. But there are reasons to believe it might not.

Posted by Lunatic | June 8, 2007 10:51 PM

If this issue is such a winner, why does it require such strenuous push polling and legislative cram-downs? The vast majority of us yokels are willing to discuss amnesty when we get enforcement first, but Lucy has yanked the enforcement football away too many times for us to be fooled again.

Posted by wayne s | June 9, 2007 9:23 AM

Zagnut said:
"A lot of the antis, after all, are legal immigrants themselves, who resent the idea of rewarding those who didn't go through legal channels."

I can testify to that, I'm married to one. She played by the rules and the opinion is others should too. Many legal immigrants I talk to really don't like the legislation.

Posted by Aaron | June 9, 2007 11:31 AM

I just came across this site via Mickey Kaus. Why do so few supporters of a liberal immigration policy consider the environmental implications of adding millions of additional citizens to our country? Our country recently passed 300 million and is growing faster than any other industrial nation. This growth is attributable to immigration. There are liberals who would passionately oppose drilling in ANWR but who support legislation which would have an infinitely more harmful impact. Why is this? And another point. Why "comprehensive" ? Because supporters of amnesty know that our citizens want enforcement more than anything and they have determined that they must (at least for appearances) tie the two together. Really shameful.

Posted by wan | June 9, 2007 11:48 AM

I agree with the earlier commenter: this bill was the very definition of the status quo. Moving immigrants from their current quasi-legal status to probationary-legal status is hardly a change.

People want change, M.I., but that change can only mean a significantly decreased number of illegals crossing the border every year. Everything else (legalization, deportation, guest-worker programs, 'keeping families together) is a side dish to the main course. A real compromise would involve both sides doing something they'd rather not do rather than both sides agreeing to shaft the working poor.

Posted by Sickday | June 9, 2007 4:30 PM

Once the Congressional GOP had been suckered in, he did everything possible to tie the bill to the GOP while still being able to say he was in favor of a bipartisan solution.

Sounds nice in theory; and Reid himself has a history of being more rational than most Democrats on the matter. But if it were actually true you'd have to ask why, then, of the 45 votes for cloture, only 7 were Republican. The Democrats obviously want this bill more than the GOP. It angers more conservative voters than GOP voters, and it mints far more new Democrats in the long-term, as well.

Your precious fence is not our #1 national priority.

Well, gee, with $4 trillion in government, you'd think we can have more than one priority now, don't you?

Senate votes are an extremely bad proxy for measuring "public support".

True. But one wonders, with all of the alleged polls showing the alleged support of the public, why does it matter to so many pro-amnesty senators that they pass the bill now, as far away from the next elections as possible? And why have so many of last year's amnesty supporters - Landrieu, Baucus, Rockefeller, Pryor, et al (Democrats from conservative states) - suddenly decided to oppose an amnesty?

In Rockefeller's case I think it's especially funny, given that it was his granddaddy who imported thousands of Eastern European immigrants to break strikes at his mines.

I don't think Sailer is slimy for opposing the current immigration bill. I think he's slimy for being an all-purpose racist.

It's funny and odd and telling that so many liberals claim to believe in evolution but not biology.

I would be called anti-gun if I supported "low manufacture and sale of guns while we absorb our high current levels of guns" I would rightly be called anti-gun, that view is rightly called anti-immigration

Guns don't vote. Guns don't drive. Guns don't use scarce water resources. Guns don't lower wages for American workers. Guns don't send their children to public schools or shut down hospitals because of unpaid bills. And while guns may occasionally wind up in schools, or be used to put people in emergency rooms, the economic effects aren't nearly the same. And given all the deaths caused by illegal immigrants, I wonder why you can't use the same logic to oppose illegals that you use to oppose gun ownership.

This leads me to the simple conclusion that they don't particularly like immigration and the disrupting effects it can have, and would be fine with it being mostly restricted for quite some time.

We're importing 2 million people a year - year after year after year after year after year. We're doing it like there's no tomorrow. We're doing it at a rate that will take our population to 600 million by 2100 - 700 million if the increases in immigration happen. I don't have to explain why I'd prefer that my grandchildren not have to live in a miserably overcrowded country. It's not "racist" or "nativist" to be against that.

I'm fairly sure that most would find it laughable to suggest that America would have been better off if we had kept them out. I see no reason why this current wave won't follow the same pattern.

Since you can't go back and replay an alternate version of history, how can you, by any stretch of the imagination, claim that? How can you logically claim that they didn't effect society on ways that the pre-immigrant population wouldn't have liked?

Please tell me how you came to this conclusion. Scientists and historians everywhere would like to know.

America changes, people denounce and resist the change, in a few generations it's just a fact.

Well, gee: I thought representative democracy was about the idea that people have the right to shape that change.

Social conditions...didn't that use to mean something like the economic well-being of the working class and labor markets? ARe you afraid to broach the conversation about why the business lobbies are spending so much for this bill? Is it to reconcile "social conditions?" - Karl

Ah, yes, Karl, that's the key, ain't it? The lobbies that are spending literally hundreds of millions advocating open borders are all well-known charitable endeavors, aren't they? The Chamber of Commerce, the Cato Institutte, Americans for Tax Deform, the National Retsaurant Association, etc. They're all about the charity and the love.

It boggles the mind that left-wingers can rant against big business and social inequality, on the one hand, and then buy wholly into their open borders, screw the workers propaganda machine.

This bill would have, and still may, put the status quo back onto its steroid regimen, ensuring that in 10-15 years we'll be back in an immigration situation "that everyone is increasingly less happy with every year."

The argument against enforcement is that we can't offend hispanics, who comprise 7% of the voting population. If we can't enforce when they're that small a percentage of voters, how will we do so when they're 15 or 20 or 25%?

There are liberals who would passionately oppose drilling in ANWR but who support legislation which would have an infinitely more harmful impact. Why is this? - wan

Because, Sweety, you don't understand that more than anything else, liberals today are obsessed with race, and with the terrible, horrible fact that we evil Americans are richer than people from other parts of the world. Best to do anything possible to rectify that.

Mass illegal immigration is fueled by periodic amnesties paired with hollow vows for improved enforcement.

Indeed. They isn't just one, but literally dozens of such amnesties in the US and Europe that prove just that. The effects of 1986 aren't just do to random chance - they're an established pattern now. In science you might even call it a Law.

Posted by Racist Nativist Xenophobic Bigot | June 10, 2007 4:27 PM

And why have so many of last year's amnesty supporters - Landrieu, Baucus, Rockefeller, Pryor, et al (Democrats from conservative states) - suddenly decided to oppose an amnesty?

Because, of course, as I meant to point out: they're up for re-election next year.

Posted by Racist Nativist Xenophobic Bigot | June 10, 2007 4:31 PM

There is very little doubt that massive low skilled immigration, much of it illegal (although some of legal family reunification immigration) has a depressing effect upon the wages of low and even lower middle skilled and educated / IQ Americans. There is also little doubt that highly skilled and educated and IQ immigration is a net boon for most Americans, although it is true that a few in the same fields may face so wage pressure. However the overall American economy, our international competitiveness and our tax base is certainly helped by these sorts of immigrants. We should tilt our system to let more of them in.

The net impact of illegal immigrants, and particularly illegal Mexican and Central American immigrants (who are generally not the overstaying their student or tourist or temporary tech work visa kind) is a net cost in tax dollars. Further there are also externalities such as more congestion, pressure on housing costs, and environmental impacts. Virtually all the population increase of the US comes from immigration and the higher birth rates of recent immigrants, for example.

The effect of not effectively limiting the migration of poor and low skilled Mexicans and Central Americans transiting through Mexico is to keep the real wages of the poor and even the middle class, from rising and helps them to actually fall, especially for the young, after housing costs.

Further there are social costs beyond the economic ones. Not all groups are the same culturally. Illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America are rarely drawn from those countries middle classes, much less upper classes, as are many illegals who stay illegally after their university student visas have expired. There are also cultural differences, in part due to the heavily Indio backgrounds of many. Whatever the mix of reasons, the fact is that the crime and incarceration rate both, more or less the same across a broad rage of felonies, among Latinos in America is three times that of the “non Hispanic white” average. (The same crime rate among Asians, who are mostly East Asians in the US, is considerably LOWER than the “non Hispanic white” average, so recent immigrant status doesn’t explain it all.)

Further it is widely recognized that the second and third generation is often far more prone to joining gangs and committing crimes than are those born abroad. Similarly distressing social statistics exist for high school drop out rates in the second and third and later generations, which are even higher among Latinos than among blacks and much higher than among non-Hispanic whites, and rates of unwed pregnancies, which are about fifty percent higher than the white average. If all these things showed sharp improvement in the second and third generation it would be less troubling, but they don’t.

Now don’t get me wrong. This isn’t the pattern for all Hispanic migrants to America. It most certainly hasn’t been for Cubans by and large for example. Yes it’s true than most of them came from a very different social strata in the old country, however low they had to start over again in America. That sort of immigrant has a long history of great success in America, at least for their children. However in this modern post industrial age, do we really need to let in massive numbers of the poor, ill educated, and yes usually less intelligent?

And yes, finally there is the problem of social swamping in many areas, particularly since as many above have noted, aggressive cultural assimilation campaigns that were nearly universal down through American history until a few decades ago have given way to multicultural acceptance of other cultures as probably in many ways morally (if not technologically) superior to the American one. There is nothing wrong with most Americans wanting to limit foreign influences to enriching and yes sometimes challenging flavoring, rather than wholesale rapid transformation.

People of left persuasions can posit all they like about how all this is due to the horrid failures of America’s safety nets and outreach programs for Latin Americans. Be that as it may, do we really need to keep importing such massive social challenges?

So yeah, it’s time for a mostly timeout, a real cutback. After all, the heavily immigration restrictionist period between 1924 and 1965 (with an additional ten years or so added on before the loosened rules started have big real effects – the 1973 oil shock muddies things) was the period of vast expansion of the American middle class and it’s share of the national income.

Posted by dougjn | June 10, 2007 5:45 PM

There is very little doubt that massive low skilled immigration, much of it illegal (although some of it legal family reunification immigration) has a depressing effect upon the wages of low and even lower middle skilled and educated / IQ Americans. There is also little doubt that highly skilled and educated and IQ immigration is a net boon for most Americans, although it is true that a few in the same fields may face some wage pressure. However the overall American economy, our international competitiveness and our tax base is certainly helped by these later sorts of immigrants. In contrast, mostly upper class and to a lesser extent upper middle class homeowners, consumers and business owners are the ones helped by mass low skilled mostly illegal immigration. We should tilt our system to let more of highly skilled and IQ in and less of the lower skilled and illegal, first of all for overall economic benefit and also for economic equity reasons.

The net impact of illegal immigrants, and particularly illegal Mexican and Central American immigrants (who are generally not the overstaying their student or tourist or temporary tech work visa kind) is a net cost in tax dollars. Further there are also externalities such as more congestion, pressure on housing costs, and environmental impacts. Virtually all the population increase of the US comes from immigration and the higher birth rates of recent immigrants, for example. Without the illegals we'd probably be at about steady state, replacement level birth rates.

The effect of not effectively limiting the migration of poor and low skilled Mexicans and Central Americans transiting through Mexico is to keep the real wages of the poor and even the middle class, from rising and helps them to actually fall, especially for the young, after housing costs.

Further there are social costs beyond the economic ones. Not all groups are the same culturally. Illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America are rarely drawn from those countries middle classes, much less upper classes, as are many illegals who stay illegally after their university student visas have expired. There are also cultural differences, in part due to the heavily Indio backgrounds of many. Whatever the mix of reasons, the fact is that the crime and incarceration rate both, more or less the same across a broad rage of felonies, among Latinos in America is three times that of the “non Hispanic white” average. (The same crime rate among Asians, who are mostly East Asians in the US, is considerably LOWER than the “non Hispanic white” average, so recent immigrant status doesn’t explain it all.)

Further it is widely recognized that the second and third generation is often far more prone to joining gangs and committing crimes than are those born abroad. Similarly distressing social statistics exist for high school drop out rates in the second and third and later generations, which are even higher among Latinos than among blacks and much higher than among non-Hispanic whites, and rates of unwed pregnancies, which are about fifty percent higher than the white average. If all these things showed sharp improvement in the second and third generation it would be less troubling, but they don’t.

Now don’t get me wrong. This isn’t the pattern for all Hispanic migrants to America. It most certainly hasn’t been for Cubans by and large for example. Yes it’s true than most of them came from a very different social strata in the old country, however low they had to start over again in America. That sort of immigrant has a long history of great success in America, at least for their children. However in this modern post industrial age, do we really need to let in massive numbers of the poor, ill educated, and yes usually less intelligent?

And yes, finally there is the problem of social swamping in many areas, particularly since as many above have noted, aggressive cultural assimilation campaigns that were nearly universal down through American history until a few decades ago have given way to multicultural acceptance of other cultures as probably in many ways morally (if not technologically) superior to the American one. There is nothing wrong with most Americans wanting to limit foreign influences to enriching and yes sometimes challenging flavoring, rather than wholesale rapid transformation.

People of left persuasions can posit all they like about how all this is due to the horrid failures of America’s safety nets and outreach programs for Latin Americans. Be that as it may, do we really need to keep importing such massive social challenges?

So yeah, it’s time for a mostly timeout, a real cutback. After all, the heavily immigration restrictionist period between 1924 and 1965 (with an additional ten years or so added on before the loosened rules started have big real effects – the 1973 oil shock muddies things) was the period of vast expansion of the American middle class and it’s share of the national income.

Posted by dougjn | June 10, 2007 5:50 PM

Sorry for the duplicate post. Thought cancel had worked. Second one is slightly cleaned up.

Posted by dougjn | June 10, 2007 5:56 PM

I think by far the greatest source of opposition to “amnesty” for illegals already here is that the process will encourage another massive wave of illegals, further encouraged that they’ll have full legal rights in the US before long, followed by yet another amnesty program – as happened after the 1986 “immigration reform law” was passed.

If the border were seen to be truly secured, and illegals who slipped through were seen to be able to get neither jobs nor welfare and were in fact reliably deported, due to changes in the law and it’s enforcement, that would all change for most who currently oppose amnesty in this bill or otherwise.

Posted by dougjn | June 10, 2007 6:06 PM

Now that dougjn's comments have been visible for several hours, why has no one come forward to denounce his bigotry? Are the pro-immigration forces becoming dispirited?

Posted by sammler | June 11, 2007 10:23 AM

There was nothing whatsoever bigoted about my posts.

Suggesting there was is offensive.

Posted by dougjn | June 12, 2007 1:15 PM