Immigration Fatalism

The post is a couple of days old, but Tim Lee goes into some detail here spelling out the common-but-odd view that stepped-up immigration enforcement somehow "can't work." Now, if you take "working" to mean that zero people will be residing illegally amidst a large, demographically diverse country of 300 million then, sure, it's probably not feasible to do that.

At the same time, as Tim says the reason people immigrate here illegally is that there's a lot to be gained by immigrating illegally to the United States. And the reason people employ illegal immigrants is that there's a lot to be gained by employing illegal immigrants. But by the same token, if we take measures to increase enforcement the measures don't need to be 100 percent effective to raise the cost (or decrease the benefit) of immigrating illegally and thereby reduce illegal immigration at the margin.

Now, I don't really think we have too many immigrants in the United States (though I'd prefer to see a higher ratio of legal to illegal immigrants) so I like the conclusion that enforcement is futile, but there's no real reason to think it is.

Comments

With people accepting such massive costs to immigrate here for such small benefits, it's hard for me to see what kinds of new laws would change their decisions substantially.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | July 9, 2007 12:57 PM

Actually, preferring legal to illegal immigration (as I do also) is a good reason to support increased enforcement. If illegal immigration is discouraged, there will be more pressure to increase legal immigration levels. The current situation allows for gross exploitation of illegals, which would be much harder to do with both increased enforcement and a higher legal-to-illegal ratio (exploiting legals is much riskier).

Posted by beckya57 | July 9, 2007 12:57 PM

I agree that enforcement can be effective. Cost-effective? Not so much....

Posted by Spike | July 9, 2007 1:00 PM

What's the worst that could happen to you? You get sent back to the crappy life you left behind anyway. You can certainly enforce the laws, but deterrence is a pipe dream.

Posted by Steve | July 9, 2007 1:11 PM

Neil, a $100,000 fine per immigrant against any employer found to be employing an illegal immigrant. From there, it only really takes employing the kind of people we should already be employing to make sure OSHA and other standards are being enforced. We currently don't do that at all, because we've had too many pro-business politicians in power and they've decided that they'd rather lie and pretend to be enforcing the law than trying to convince people that these laws aren't needed.

Basically, that's the argument you usually hear from these people: That the powerful will always get there way and theres nothing we can do about it. Not surprisingly, this is a claim usually made by powerful people who don't want to be forced to obey the law. In reality, the same arguments could be made for any crime. A law against murder won't actually stop murder, so why enforce it? Same with rape, theft, assault and every other crime.

Posted by soullite | July 9, 2007 1:15 PM

The only borders of similar size and ruggedness to the US/Mexico border that have been closed off effectively with force have been the North Korean borders and the southern border of the USSR. These, of course, are both totalitarian countries with massive armies compared to population that had to devote massive amounts of manpower and resources to control those borders. We can secure our borders, but to do it would require an enormous economic and military commitment. The kind of thing you would raise taxes about, if raising taxes was the sort of thing this country did anymore.

Neil, a $100,000 fine per immigrant against any employer found to be employing an illegal immigrant

This is the sort of thing that could work. To stop supply, you have to cut off demand. But, as has been noted, this required real pressure on corporate interests, which is something that this country has a real problem doing. I don't suggest it's impossible, but I do think that we need to be honest about the current makeup of the Republican party. The same party that is stridently anti-immigrant in its base is stridently pro-business in its power structure. Again, that doesn't mean it can't happen, but it does suggest there will be a lot of difficulty.

I know that in the blogosphere criticizing globalism is tantamount to heresy, but there are consequences to globalism. One of those consequences is greatly increased difficulty in controlling borders. I see tremendous good in stopping the flow of illegal immigrants-- it's not a victory for anyone for a poor worker to make $1.00 an hour picking strawberries-- but I think Matt is underestimating the challenge inherent in really closing off the borders. As much as some have exaggerated that challenge, the fact is that they have a rather important piece of evidence on their side: enforcement is not and has not worked.

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 1:26 PM

soullite: Okay, so let's explore this idea in depth.

The government raids an employer (who does this, anyhow? CIS?) and finds that they have employed Joe Blow, who is determined by the government to be an undocumented worker (how do they determine this in a scaleable way, anyhow? Do they need to put Joe Blow in front of a judge to plead his case? In any event, suppose they succeed in proving that Joe Blow is an undocumented). They go to fine the employer. Employer says, "Hey, now, we asked Joe for his credentials when he was hired. He provided us with credentials. What do you want from us?"

What do you want from them? What level of dilligence is due for employers to avoid this fine that you propose? Is there a happy medium between "it becomes prohibitive for us to work out residency status and so we just don't hire anyone with an accent" and "there's a meaningless formality which gets us free to hire illegals again?" It's not clear to me that such a medium exists -- can you explain why you think it does?

Obviously, you can spend more money to deport more people, but I don't see a lot of reason to believe that you can ever make that make sense economically. If Joe the undocumented worker depresses my wages by $X, and deporting him costs me $Y in taxes, then you have to have a real hard-on for getting rid of foreigners to want to deport him if $Y > $X, and that's even granting a lot of anti-immigration arguments.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | July 9, 2007 1:28 PM

One of the most obvious, yet sadly underappreciated, political truths is that a vast amount of territory often exists between Perfection and The status quo.

This ties in nicely with Wolfe's critique of Kirk. One does not need to believe in "the perfectibility of man" to believe that planning and coordination can improve outcomes in public services. In this case, a simple understanding of capitalism should suffice. If you make it less profitable for businesses to hire illegals, they'll hire fewer. Simple as that.

Of course, as others have pointed out, the real question is whether improvements can be achieved cost-effectively.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 9, 2007 1:32 PM

Matt,

According to Friday's WSJ ("Why Filling Summer Jobs is getting harder and harder", June Kronholz, July 6), employers are so desperate for lifeguards in D.C. and crab cannery workers in Maryland that they need H-2B visas to bring in seasonal workers from Eastern Europe and Mexico, respectively, to do those jobs. What are the African American teenage unemployment rates in D.C. and Maryland? Would it be so bad if these employers raised their wages a little and hired some African American teens instead?

Steve:

"What's the worst that could happen to you?"

The worst that can happen to an illegal immigrant today is to die of exposure/thirst while trying to cross over one of the hundreds-of-miles-long, unfenced, deserts along our southern border. Whatever number of unskilled Mexican immigrants we deem is appropriate to allow into America, wouldn't it be more humane to get control of the border first?

Posted by Fred | July 9, 2007 1:38 PM

Of course, as others have pointed out, the real question is whether improvements can be achieved cost-effectively.

Also, I'd be a lot more exercised about the topic if the discussion could stay focused on the economic costs, the costs to unskilled American workers, the immorality of the system towards the immigrants themselves, etc. I mean, look at the comments section of this blog. Inevitably illegal immigration posts become discussions about the deficiencies of Mexicans-- their alleged predispositions towards stupidity and criminality, their cultural takeover of the southwest, their desires for a Reconquista, the damage that ethnic and racial diversity does to our "national character".... Those things suck whatever economic and legal pragmatism there is right out of the discussion.

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 1:40 PM

As if on cue, Fred provides an economic and a moral argument of the kind I'm looking for.

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 1:43 PM

The problem here is that you're applying an absolutist definition to 'futile' while rejecting an absolutist definition for enforcement 'working'. So, yeah, you're right--enforcement may not be inherently 'futile' if by 'futile' you mean there is zero possibility of having any impact whatsoever. It is, however, 'futile' in the sense that even massive expenditures will likely have only marginal impact.

Posted by Tom Hilton | July 9, 2007 1:46 PM

The worst that can happen to an illegal immigrant today is to die of exposure/thirst while trying to cross over one of the hundreds-of-miles-long, unfenced, deserts along our southern border. Whatever number of unskilled Mexican immigrants we deem is appropriate to allow into America, wouldn't it be more humane to get control of the border first?

So if we make it harder for them to enter the country, they'll undergo less hardship trying to circumvent our security? Please. We built an ocean between ourselves and Cuba and people still keep trying to get here on those tiny, dangerous rafts.

There are plenty of good arguments you can make against illegal immigration, but please, don't insult my intelligence by claiming you want to build a big fence out of concern for the health and welfare of the poor Mexicans trying to cross the border. You guys wore out this style of argumentation long ago when you tried to claim we invaded Iraq for the sake of the Iraqi people. Enough.

Posted by Steve | July 9, 2007 1:57 PM

soullite and Sullivan:

I think if that idea is going to be implemented, you'd have to limit it to employers who are paying their undocumented workers below the minimum wage or some other clear and reasonable benchmark. You should probably also exclude employers who are employing undocumented relatives, family members, etc., but that's a separate issue.

Posted by JP | July 9, 2007 2:18 PM

soullite apparently thinks poor Mexicans who crawl across the desert to get here and take shit jobs are "the powerful."

Posted by too many steves | July 9, 2007 2:28 PM

Many (most?) illegal immigrants pay somebody (a "coyote") to get them across the border. One young guy I know ("Juan") paid $3000.

Significant border-enforcement measures would raise that cost by some amount---let's say to $5000.

This would, without question, affect the amount of illegal immigration.

Juan's decision to come to the US was not easy. He's young (under 18), and he really misses his mom. His brother is here, but he treats him really badly and does not help him at all. He borrowed the $3000 and was able to pay it off within a year of being in the U.S. But he desparately wishes he could visit home and see his family. There's a reasonable chance he never will. He goes to high school and works all the time when he's not in school, so he hardly has any friends or social life. It's sad. If he had stayed at home, he would be poorer, but he'd be with his family and friends.

If the cost had been $5000 instead of $3000, he may not have come.

Some would still come if the cost were $10,000. But clearly, raising the cost would lower the amount of illegal immigration.

Posted by JWR | July 9, 2007 2:41 PM

Neil, a $100,000 fine per immigrant against any employer found to be employing an illegal immigrant.

It's always easy to propose draconian fines. In practice, though, it leads to less enforcement rather than more. The Feds are not going to put your neighborhood grocery store out of business by imposing a $100,000 fine, and most people wouldn't want them to.

What you're envisioning is a system where the fines never have to be imposed because every employer, in fear of being put out of business, suddenly shapes up and never employs another illegal immigrant. But it doesn't work that way. In reality, once it becomes clear that the authorities aren't actually willing to impose these absurd fines (except maybe once or twice during an election year, as with our current system), everything will go on as before.

Posted by Steve | July 9, 2007 2:46 PM

Juan's decision to come to the US was not easy. He's young (under 18), and he really misses his mom. His brother is here, but he treats him really badly and does not help him at all. He borrowed the $3000 and was able to pay it off within a year of being in the U.S. But he desparately wishes he could visit home and see his family. There's a reasonable chance he never will. He goes to high school and works all the time when he's not in school, so he hardly has any friends or social life. It's sad. If he had stayed at home, he would be poorer, but he'd be with his family and friends.

Yeah, that sounds like the kind of person we desperately need to kick out of our country.

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 2:49 PM

There's no such thing as perfect enforcement; otherwise, no one would be speeding on the highway. That doesn't mean you throw up your hands and get rid of all the cops. (Unless you're an anarcho-syndicalist, I guess.) Reasonable fines against employers would be an excellent deterrent -- if you give them a system against which they can check on the validity of the driver's license/SSN/green card that is presented to them. Such a pilot program now exists. Expanding it would not cost that much -- most of us don't change jobs that often. The credit card companies verify millions of transactions a day and have software to pull out the anamolous ones (like when my stolen credit card numbers were being used in Brooklyn the same time I was using them in DC). And Yglesias, just how many more immigrants (legal or not) do you want? This country's population has more than doubled just in my lifetime -- do you want to live in a country of 350 million? 400 million? 500 million? We should limit immigration to little more than ZPG (just enough to even out some of the demographics, with too few young people per old). Water, soil, wildlife -- all under pressure now. Cost of living rising as 'buildable' land gets scarcer. More people, more cars spewing fumes, etc. Let's not wreck what's left of our lifestyle by achieving European densities (or worse).

Posted by Traven | July 9, 2007 3:07 PM

What level of dilligence is due for employers to avoid this fine that you propose?

Well, the S.O.P. is for big corporate employers to use employment agencies, which buffers their liability. 'What, our vegetable packers are all here illegally? Foobar Employment Solutions didn't tell us that! We're shocked, shocked!'

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 9, 2007 3:14 PM

Traven makes the best and most important argument against immigration. Of course if you use it you are immediately accused of being a covert nativist, racist etc. Is it permissible in the lefty worldview to favor the interests of current residents of your own country over the interests of others?

Posted by applecor | July 9, 2007 3:36 PM

"The only borders of similar size and ruggedness to the US/Mexico border that have been closed off effectively with force have been the North Korean borders and the southern border of the USSR."

The most similar border to America-Mexico may be Finland-Russia, which is about 800 miles long, and the per capita GDP ratio is about 2.7 to 1. The Finns, who have a democratic welfare state with an outstanding educational system, have very few illegal (or, for that matter, legal) immigrants, the lowest of the wealthy countries of Europe. Why? The border is strongly guarded, and, y Finnish readers tell me, you need a government ID card to get a job or an apartment.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 9, 2007 3:39 PM

JP, re: the idea of fining people only if they paid under minimum wage or otherwise clearly signalled that they were hiring undocumented workes.

Fair enough, though I'd regard that as more of an effort to improve the working conditions of undocumented workers than an effort to cut down on illegal immigration. It could certainly have a marginal effect on immigration. I wonder if anyone has statistics on the number of undocumented workers who actually work below minimum wage? My suspicion is that it's a fairly small percentage of the total.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | July 9, 2007 3:42 PM

Please remember your feelings as you read the following sentence: "Barack Obama supports shoplifting."

OK, he doesn't, but didn't you feel a tiny bit of abhorrence when you read that? Now, imagine if those who supported IllegalImmigration were considered on par with those who supported shoplifting. The problem would solve itself, as those supporters were marginalized. No more newspapers could print stories or editorials promoting the practice, and no more politicians could do things like try to make their cities "sanctuaries" and all the other things they do. Not much more additional enforcement would be needed, and the BorderFence wouldn't be needed either.

So, how do we get to the point where supporting IllegalImmigration is considered radioactive? We discredit those supporters using, among others, the procedure outlined at my name's link.

P.S. I've heard the name, but I have no idea who the Green Lantern is so that might be explained for those who aren't up on their comic books.

Posted by How we can get there from here | July 9, 2007 3:44 PM

Traven makes the best and most important argument against immigration. Of course if you use it you are immediately accused of being a covert nativist, racist etc. Is it permissible in the lefty worldview to favor the interests of current residents of your own country over the interests of others

Except that what Traven is talking about is overcrowding. And this country is not even close to overcrowded.

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 4:00 PM

It looks like Matthew has made his point. The common theme of these comments is 'oh that won't work' coupled with a tortured list of conventional wisdom truthiness to make their points.

Any regime of enforcement is only as good as those enforcing it. When the GOP runs things OSHA, FEMA, and other organizations designed to protect us are badly run and are generally more ineffective than under Democratic administrations. Of course, no one on this board is saying that we should get rid of these groups, but anyone who suggests any sort of immigration enforcement gets shouted down by the naysayers who obviously think that we already in the world of a permanent GOP majority and therefore any new ideas have no merit if they don't tow the line of the GOP base.

Draconian fines against businesses could work if properly enforced and while a few neighborhood institutions might fall for non-compliance at least there is the chance that a legal immigrant or, heaven-forbid, an actual citizen might get a job at the business that replaces it! I just don't understand why people think it is all right for someone to profit off the labor of someone who has no rights.

The only reason to support increased border enforcement is that it could create a lot of new jobs for border police. I believe federal law enforcement is union work and I am all for increasing the ranks of union workers. If it helps puts some 'coyotes' out of business all the better.

Posted by Ricky | July 9, 2007 4:03 PM

It's interesting to me how many people see no problem with taking as a given that the lives and welfare of US citizens are more important than the lives and welfare of non-citizens. I mean, really, what's the ethical relevance of the location of your birth? What defense could be made of this kind of discrimination that couldn't be made of open racial discrimination? (Hint: "The U.S. government is responsible to U.S. citizens", or "they're our tax dollars", etc, aren't answers. All that's required for our argument-borrowing racist is consistency: only let whites vote, etc.) Not, of course, that there's a genuine competition.

On Matt's original point, the best argument for the futility - or even counterproductive effect - of enforcement is the steady increase in enforcement spending over the last two decades with no apparent decrease in the number of undocumented immigrants. The only observed effect has been a switch from seasonal migration - as in agricultural laborers who would go home after harvest - to permanent immigration. In Matt's economic terms, the elasticity of the demand for regular migration back and forth between Mexico and the U.S. relative to spending on border enforcement is much higher than the elasticity of the demand for one-time entry in the U.S., so at least in the present range of spending, increased spending actually succeeds in ensuring that people stay.

Posted by Kalkin | July 9, 2007 4:05 PM

Is it permissible in the lefty worldview to favor the interests of current residents of your own country over the interests of others?

Of course it is, but I happen to think my country has benefited tremendously from immigration over the years. I'm not pro-immigration because I want to help the immigrants at my own expense; I think we all benefit.

I'm skeptical of the arguments that the current wave of immigration harms current American citizens because they are the exact same arguments that have been deployed consistently for the last 100+ years, and they've always been wrong in the past.

Posted by Steve | July 9, 2007 4:06 PM

I respectfully disagree. Sure, the country is not overcrowded if you simply compare the people-to-square-miles ratio to Europe. However once you take into account the amount of land in the US that is off-limits due to harsh climate, pollution, lack of available water or other necessities, government ownership, etc. and the fact that our vaunted "life-style" is a lot more resource-intensive than that of other industrialized nations, the picture is quite different. The places where people actually want to live are already more than full.

Posted by applecor | July 9, 2007 4:09 PM

And yes, the US has benefited from immigration on a net basis but at some point the harm begins to outweigh the benefits. I say we've already reached that point. YMMV.

Posted by applecor | July 9, 2007 4:14 PM

anyone who suggests any sort of immigration enforcement gets shouted down by the naysayers who obviously think that we already in the world of a permanent GOP majority and therefore any new ideas have no merit if they don't tow the line of the GOP base.

Not to be too argumentative, but I really don't think that statement is defensible after re-reading the comments here. You really think people are just flat saying enforcement is impossible? Who?

. I mean, really, what's the ethical relevance of the location of your birth? What defense could be made of this kind of discrimination that couldn't be made of open racial discrimination?

I agree. But this kind of internationalism is seen as being an extremist position.

I respectfully disagree. Sure, the country is not overcrowded if you simply compare the people-to-square-miles ratio to Europe. However once you take into account the amount of land in the US that is off-limits due to harsh climate, pollution, lack of available water or other necessities, government ownership, etc. and the fact that our vaunted "life-style" is a lot more resource-intensive than that of other industrialized nations, the picture is quite different. The places where people actually want to live are already more than full.

I see what you mean. I don't quite agree-- I think, compared to much of the world, even the areas considered overcrowded in the US aren't that bad. But you're right in general, that our country has very divergent levels of population density. I just don't know how anyone could drive through Wyoming or North Dakota-- or even Illinois-- and think we just don't have room.

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 4:22 PM

There is an automated SSN verification system already in place, but it is against the law for an employer to use as part of the hiring decision.

Somewhere on the web is a white paper on the undocumented worker issues in Iowa meat packing plants and small towns. Well worth reading.

We have the current system by choice. We will still have this system unless there is bona fide enforcement in the work place. Legalizing the current 10-12 million undocumented workers (all of whom arrived post 1990 or so) will have no effect on future arrivals. The undocumented worker will continue to be the low cost/few rights employee.

Posted by Nat | July 9, 2007 4:30 PM

Kalkin's first paragraph could lead us to an interesting political system, which I think has been tried in a few places before. His second paragraph fails to note that our ImmigrationSystem - as practised - is designed to look good while failing at its stated purpose.

Steve trots out the same tired talking point; as with everyone else who uses it he fails to note the tremendous difference between then and now.

If you don't think parts of our country are overcrowded, move anywhere in Central L.A. Perhaps that should be required of those who want to opine on these matters.

Posted by TLB | July 9, 2007 5:33 PM

If you don't think parts of our country are overcrowded, move anywhere in Central L.A.

Yes. And if you don't think our country has any great vistas, move to the Grand Canyon! And if you don't think our country has perfect weather, move to Hawaii! And if you don't think our country has moose, move to Maine!

Central LA might be seen as overcrowded. That is one tiny fraction of the land in our country. As a general statement it is simply not accurate to claim that our country is overcrowded. Not by any reasonable standard. Now, perhaps the thing to do would be to provide incentives for immigrants to move to areas like North Dakota, Wyoming, or Montana. But then, we would probably have to recognize some illegals in an official capacity, and that would be an amnesty! Horrors.

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 5:39 PM

Even Central LA isn't that densely populated by European standards. The population density's highest in NYC. But TLB didn't pick NYC; he picked LA, because LA has (as he would say) TooMany BrownPeople.

Posted by ajay | July 9, 2007 5:53 PM

Steve trots out the same tired talking point; as with everyone else who uses it he fails to note the tremendous difference between then and now.

Right. And in every immigration debate in our history, your side has argued that there's a tremendous difference between then and now.

Year after year, decade after decade, the same arguments get made that immigration is ruining our country, and those arguments have always been wrong. I'm simply disinclined to believe that the same old arguments have suddenly become valid after all these years.

The last people to make a valid point about the negative effects of immigration were the Indians. Everyone since then has been proven wrong by history.

Posted by Steve | July 9, 2007 6:00 PM

Steve,

Do you write for "Lil' Bush"? That tasteless Comedy Central cartoon is sometimes funny (e.g., when Lil' Bush pays an illegal alien to do his chores), but often displays the sort of obtuseness you do here (e.g., when that illegal alien tells Lil' Bush he was a chemical engineer back in Mexico).

You act as if Mexican immigrants are an unknown quantity, as if they haven't lived in America for generations. They have, and we know how their descendants turn out: not as bad as blacks in terms of income, crime, and education stats, but far below the non-black, non-Mexican American majority.

Why would you want to expand a permanent ethnic underclass? So you can elect your own American Chavez someday?

Posted by Harry | July 9, 2007 6:25 PM

Also, I'd be a lot more exercised about the topic if the discussion could stay focused on the economic costs, the costs to unskilled American workers, the immorality of the system towards the immigrants themselves, etc. I mean, look at the comments section of this blog. Inevitably illegal immigration posts become discussions about the deficiencies of Mexicans-- their alleged predispositions towards stupidity and criminality, their cultural takeover of the southwest, their desires for a Reconquista, the damage that ethnic and racial diversity does to our "national character".... Those things suck whatever economic and legal pragmatism there is right out of the discussion.

A few hours later...

You act as if Mexican immigrants are an unknown quantity, as if they haven't lived in America for generations. They have, and we know how their descendants turn out: not as bad as blacks in terms of income, crime, and education stats, but far below the non-black, non-Mexican American majority.

Why would you want to expand a permanent ethnic underclass?

Le sigh.

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 6:34 PM

Re: Employer says, "Hey, now, we asked Joe for his credentials when he was hired. He provided us with credentials. What do you want from us?"

Ever work at an establishment that sells or serves alcohol? Guess what-- fake IDs are no excuse. Businesses and their employees who serve/sell to minors are routinely fined for the offense even if the underage patron had very credible ID. I don't see why we couldn't do the same with employers in general in hiring matters.

Re: I mean, really, what's the ethical relevance of the location of your birth?

What's the ethical relevance of who you're related to, for that matter? But I supscet that most of us, if told a close relative had fallen on hard times and was close to homelessness, would be far more willing to pitch in to help him than we would some stranger born on the other side of the continent. That's just human nature and I doubt you will get rid of such partocularism any tiem soon. Deal with the human species you have, not the one you'd like to have.

Re: There is an automated SSN verification system already in place, but it is against the law for an employer to use as part of the hiring decision.

For the excellent reason that there's a surprisingly large number of errors in the SSA's database. You'd actually be better off verifying the SSN from credit agency reports, though that would not work with really young or really poor people who don't have a credit record yet.

Posted by JonF | July 9, 2007 6:43 PM

Now that we have successfully prevented underage drinking in this country, it's only a matter of time before we acheive the same results with respect to illegal immigration.

Posted by blah | July 9, 2007 6:54 PM

The most similar border to America-Mexico may be Finland-Russia, which is about 800 miles long, and the per capita GDP ratio is about 2.7 to 1. The Finns, who have a democratic welfare state with an outstanding educational system, have very few illegal (or, for that matter, legal) immigrants, the lowest of the wealthy countries of Europe. Why? The border is strongly guarded, and, y Finnish readers tell me, you need a government ID card to get a job or an apartment.

Steve: Finland essentially spends all its military budget guarding its border. I'm sure if you had your way so, too, would the United States. I don't doubt for a second America could reduce illegal immigration from Mexico by 90% or better if Washington were devoting the Pentagon's entire $600 billion budget to stopping Mexicans from roofing American houses and harvesting American crops. However, it would make very little sense to spend $600 billion in order to cause an additional, say, several hundred billion worth of economic damage. Which is why even an institution filled with as many demagogues as the United States Congress won't ever make America's southern border resemble the one between Finland and Russia.

Also, I'll assume your economic figures are correct, but a per capita GDP ratio of 2.7 to 1 doesn't imply a wage ratio of 2.7 to 1 (especially when purchasing power parities are taken into consideration). One strongly suspects the price of Russian labor, along with everything else in Russia, has been rising sharply. Which is good news for Helsinki's defense budget.

Posted by WikiPeetie | July 9, 2007 10:09 PM

TLB here!

From the above comments I assume that the U.S. won't be overcrowded until North Dakota has the pop density of NYC.

Regarding the differences between then and now, see my name's link. The differences are indeed significat, starting with the fact that neither Italy, nor Ireland, nor Germany used to own the U.S. southwest.

Good ol' libertarian hack MeganMcArdle tried to answer my points here, and failed miserably: janegalt.net/archives/009851.html

It'd be great to see MattY - or some other "liberal" hack - try to at least answer some of those points, but I don't think we're going to see that since he still hasn't gotten around to the question I've posted here several times regarding the PoliticalInfluence the MexicanGovernment has in the U.S.

Posted by A list of differences | July 9, 2007 10:30 PM

he picked LA, because LA has (as he would say) TooMany BrownPeople.

I think you mean TooManyFuckingLadderPullingPlasticPaddies.

It'd be great to see MattY - or some other "liberal" hack - try to at least answer some of those points

And it'd be great to see Wacko discover the motherfucking space bar, even if that means sacrificing his search optimization terms. You first, blogslut.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 10, 2007 1:33 AM

pseudonymous,

Why do you often appear so bitter and hostile in your comments? Also, what is your immigration status? Are you here on a student visa, a permanent resident, or what?

Cheers.

Posted by Harry | July 10, 2007 2:25 AM

Yes, MY does a good job of qualifying what you say, and those who want a brick wall from San Diego to El Paso and sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads in the Rio Grande or whatever probably should not face any more of a burden to outline specific costs and benefits of their policies than those with other positions on other issues, whether or not you agree with them.

Posted by Wido Incognitus | July 10, 2007 5:24 AM

From the above comments I assume that the U.S. won't be overcrowded until North Dakota has the pop density of NYC.

I love how people can dance around and make meaningless statements like this one in the hopes that people will just sort of start believing we have an overcrowding problem in this country. It simply is not true. Not by any rational criteria. According to the latest census we have about 31 people for every kilometer. That's nothing. We're ranked 172nd in the world. Even New York City, our most densely populated city, is not nearly crowded as many of the world's cities. Cairo, to pick one example, has six thousand more people per square kilometer more than New York. Vast swaths of our country are underpopulated. North Dakota has 3.5 people per kilometer. Wyoming has less than 2! And lest you think I'm cherry picking from our least populous areas, allow me to point out that California, at 217 people per kilometer, is less dense than over 50 countries.

There are many valid reasons to oppose illegal immigration. Overcrowding isn't one of them. Saying our country is overcrowded is just contrary to the facts.

Posted by Freddie | July 10, 2007 7:53 AM

Freddie, do you accept the proposition that there's a limit to how many Americans can be supported in what we currently consider a middle-class lifestyle by the USA's natural resource base? If so, what is that limit, rounded to the nearest 100 million?

Posted by applecor | July 10, 2007 8:21 AM

freddie says: Wyoming has less than 2! And lest you think I'm cherry picking from our least populous areas, allow me to point out that California, at 217 people per kilometer, is less dense than over 50 countries.

First of all, thanks for using the metric system.

Second, I've been all over CA, even bagging about 1/3 of the CountyHighpoints (sidenote: unlike MattY, I wasn't wearing a suit). If I recall - and bear with me since my memory might be a bit spotty - there are spots in the state where very few people live and furthermore very few people will ever live there. I know it's hard to believe, it's true.

Accordingly, I don't believe that discussing the state as a whole is in any way valid. Instead, one must look at the areas where people actually want to live, and where people are this moment living. Such as the coming SantaBarbaraLosAngelesSanDiegoTijuana MegaCity.

Posted by TLB | July 10, 2007 10:28 AM

There is a lot of confusion by people on the comments who think being pro-immigration has to include being pro-illegal immigration. I am pro-immigration and anti-illegal immigration. Its sounds almost like someone in 1850 saying that to be anti-slavery is to be anti-black. Just because being anti-illegal immigration crosses paths with the nativists and racists doesn't mean that we share anything but being anti-illegal immigration.

I don't think illegal immigration is a plus for our economy. While it might be an improvement for some of the workers here illegally, it is a decidedly worse situation than having the protections of legal workers. My main beef with the path of citizenship for current illegal workers is that without substantial and aggressive reform of hiring practices what will stop these now legal workers from being dropped for another round of illegal workers? Even the best case scenario is that most of the now legal workers keep their jobs, but new jobs will inevitably then go to illegal workers. The 1986 amnesty has basically proven that unless we make hiring practices more beneficial towards those hiring legal workers and more punitive for those hiring illegal workers the cycle will just repeat itself with another round of people being used to increase profit.

As an American I am best equipped to help and to try and solve problems within my own country. I don't see how trying to make sure the people employed in this country are all receiving the same treatment under the law is in any way related to the treatment of those from outside our borders. I don't understand why paying someone illegally to work for less than a legal worker without any redress should something bad happen on the job (or turning a blind eye to those doing it) is doing anyone a favor or treating those workers with the respect any human being deserves.

Posted by Ricky | July 10, 2007 11:39 AM

If I recall - and bear with me since my memory might be a bit spotty - there are spots in the state where very few people live and furthermore very few people will ever live there. I know it's hard to believe, it's true.

Ah, yes, I see now. The fatal error I operated under has been revealed. The fact that there are places that are empty of people is in fact an argument that supports the thesis that this country is overcrowded. I bow before your superior rhetorical powers. Checkmate, my friend, checkmate.

Freddie, do you accept the proposition that there's a limit to how many Americans can be supported in what we currently consider a middle-class lifestyle by the USA's natural resource base? If so, what is that limit, rounded to the nearest 100 million?

Sure, I accept that proposition. I also accept the fact that we are absolutely nowhere close to reaching that number. I would again point you in the direction of the major European countries, many of which have both a)significantly more dense populations and b)a higher standard of living than Americans by almost any measure.

Posted by Freddie | July 10, 2007 12:30 PM

There are huge areas of CA where almost no one will live. AlpineCounty for instance, as well as public lands, as well as the farming parts of the CentralValley, as well as the inland northern part of the state, etc. etc. The area AroundEureka is one of my favorites, but it isn't Malibu for a reason. For instance, taking over five hours to get their from SF, when it's even possible to do so due to the fog. And, needless to say, tearing down TheRedwoods to build condos would probably be resisted. People will tend to cluster around other people, and very few if any large cities will be established anywhere in CA where there is not already an uncomfortable level of density.

Posted by TLB | July 10, 2007 1:28 PM

Freddie, you have traded sarcasms with TLB but still have not really answered the point - if people wanted to move to Montana and North Dakota, and it was economically feasible to do so, they would already be doing it - real estate is really cheap there, after all. Forcing people, by legislative fiat or economic pressure, to relocate to areas that are already proven to be undesirable strikes me as a pretty high price to pay for high levels of immigration.

According to this, California and Arizona, two high-immigration areas, have already exceeded their carrying capacity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Overpopulation_by_world_region

Posted by applecor | July 10, 2007 1:40 PM

Okay, but applecor, will you concede that, by the world's standards, the United States does not have an overcrowding problem? I mean the data simply does not support that reading. The numbers I have come from the US Census and are not controversial.

Forcing people, by legislative fiat or economic pressure, to relocate to areas that are already proven to be undesirable strikes me as a pretty high price to pay for high levels of immigration.

But that's just it. I'm not suggesting we force anyone to live anywhere. What I'm saying is that people who choose to live in those areas could also choose to live in much less densely populated areas of the country. If the overpopulation is really so egregious, don't you think that would encourage people to move? The fact that they don't suggests that the overcrowding can't possibly be so bad.

Posted by Freddie | July 10, 2007 1:43 PM

Of course, by the world's standards, the US does not have an overcrowding problem. That is far from saying that as a nation we would not be worse off with more crowding than we have now. We have the right not to create Cairos, I think.

I don't really follow your last paragraph at all. If the price of something goes up and I still buy it, you can always argue that it must not be "too expensive" since I could have chosen not to buy it, but that doesn't mean my choices haven't gotten worse. If people DID start moving to Montana and I said "see, that means the overcrowding WAS bad" would you then say "but see, they had the option to move to Montana, and they did so everything's OK?"

Posted by applecor | July 10, 2007 2:45 PM

I don't really follow your last paragraph at all. If the price of something goes up and I still buy it, you can always argue that it must not be "too expensive" since I could have chosen not to buy it, but that doesn't mean my choices haven't gotten worse. If people DID start moving to Montana and I said "see, that means the overcrowding WAS bad" would you then say "but see, they had the option to move to Montana, and they did so everything's OK?"

What I mean is this. It seems undeniable to me that the numbers don't support the idea that the US is overcrowded. But I'm willing to concede that overcrowding is in some ways a subjective thing. Ok. But if you are so averse to the overcrowding in Central LA or anywhere else, you do have the option to leave. As I've demonstrated, there are plenty of places in the US-- in California!-- that have lower population densities than Central LA.

Now I know that some people will say that they shouldn't have to. But the Constitution certainly doesn't guarantee the right to any particular population density. And it also doesn't recognize an "I was here first" legal argument. If the problem is really the crowding, then that's a problem that could be caused just as easily by legal immigration.

I suspect for some people, the problem isn't the crowding, but who is doing the crowding.

Posted by Freddie | July 10, 2007 3:03 PM

"But the Constitution certainly doesn't guarantee the right to any particular population density."

At this level it's not a legal issue. It's not unconstitutional for the government to restrict immigration or to enforce immigration laws that already exist. Therefore it can.

"If the problem is really the crowding, then that's a problem that could be caused just as easily by legal immigration."

Absolutely! Legal immigration is way too high.

"I suspect for some people, the problem isn't the crowding, but who is doing the crowding."

Sure. Those mean racists still have the right to vote and presumably to have their legislators do their bidding if they are in the majority, since restricting immigration isn't unconstitutional.

By the way, I believe there's research showing that native-born Americans have historically been more hospitable to immigrants during periods of low immigration than during periods of high immigration.

NIMBY arguments are made all the time in the US for many reasons, not just racial or cultural ones. American culture values lack of crowding more than others perhaps. I personally am an urbanism devotee and am usually arguing pro-density when the subject of sprawl comes up, but for good or bad that is not the majority opinion in the USA.

Posted by applecor | July 10, 2007 3:19 PM

Freddie, I will concede that the US is not as densely populated as Europe and that it could, conceivably support more people. Hell, Bangladesh has 150 million crowded into space the size of Oregon. That's not the point. There is some subjectivity to this, admittedly. But take L.A., for example -- absolute paradise 75 years ago, with organge groves and truck farms and space to breathe. Now, just one giant ugly megacity that's nearly 100 miles east to west and north to south. Yes, North Dakota is uncrowded. Have you ever been to North Dakota? If so, you'll understand why. And most of Wyoming is desert -- absolutely barren. More to the point, water is scarce all over the West -- even here in rainy Washington State. The soil in the Great Plains, which once seemed inexhaustible, is getting used up. The cost of housing on our coasts -- where people want to live -- is getting beyond the reach of all but the wealthy and upper-upper middle class. If we hadn't bought our house in Seattle in 1996, we wouldn't be able to afford it today. Every quaint spot in this country has been overrun. Try getting away from it all at Yosemite. And even more to the point -- if I wanted to live a European lifestyle, I'd move to Europe. This is what Europeans don't have: the opportunity to own a single family house; a beach where you can go and not get trampled by others; just about anyplace you can go and not get trampled by others. Yes, we could support more here, but I'm sorry, for me, the country SEEMS too crowded as it is. The prospect of California, a place I grew up in and loved, filled with 60 million people and zillions of miles of more concrete freeways, appalls me. The very likely prospect that the central coast, which has so far survived the onslaught, will get paved over like the rest of the state, is saddening. The prospect that my children will have to live in some crackerbox condo with no backyard for their kids because they won't be able to afford anything else saddens me. OK, you're right -- we can support Bangladesh-style densities if we want. Have fun in that America.

Posted by Traven | July 10, 2007 4:50 PM