Lets talk immigration!

[ThePieSwindler]

So, it seems the most common opinion on immigration is that we need to greatly increase security on the borders. Some of the reasons offered include national secutiry, national soveriegnty, crime, economic reasons, welfare reasons, etc. My grasp on Paul's view is that the border needs to be secured, but that government, and not the immigrants, are the real culprit. My biggest beef with immigration was that it increased dependance upon the system - health care, schools, etc. However, I then began to question if my belief in free markets and free trade meshed with a view of restricted borders, including H1-B visa quotas. While it might further burden the system, it is a knock on the system rather than a knock on open borders. Plus, the "system dependance" claim is really only a qualitative judgement that I have yet to see real evidence for.

I now lean much more heavily toward near unrestricted immigration, labor markets, and borders. I do think health checks are ok, and there are some other reasons to at least have some border security, but it should not be so restrictive and should essentially allow anyone through who wants to come, so long as some basic requirements are met (requirements that one would need to travel anywhere). From a realistic standpoint of where we actually stand, I think that H1-B quotas should be scrapped,and anyone who wishes to work in the US may do so. Businesses should not be punished for hiring someone who doesnt have the governments "permission" to work. Essentially, at the border, it would be very easy, just like from US to canada or back again. Afterward, there would be no "monitoring" or "papers" needed. As for "illegals" already in the country, im not sure how i feel about a path to citizenship, and really don't care either way. Again, with a belief in free trade, free flow of capital, free markets, one must believe in free labor markets as well. It certainly doesn't mean anarchy, and there should be border security and checkpoits, but if restrictive immigration policy and labor laws didn't exist in the first place, most "illegals" would not have to try to sneak across the border. Even then, i'm not sure it really bothers me that much anymore.


What are everyone elses thoughts - especially those who believe in free market capitalism and free trade?

 

[nate895]

The system dependence is there. The border states spend billions to keep up with illegals. I am all in favor of free trade, but an unrestricted flow (or lightly restricted) of immigrants who refuse to learn the language or to assimilate will only destroy our culture, and we need to maintain European culture as it looks like the Europeans themselves aren't.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

The system dependence is there. The border states spend billions to keep up with illegals. I am all in favor of free trade, but an unrestricted flow (or lightly restricted) of immigrants who refuse to learn the language or to assimilate will only destroy our culture, and we need to maintain European culture as it looks like the Europeans themselves aren't.

Free trade usually speaks of the market for goods and services having unrestricted, global scope. Labor markets are another form of market, and they in many ways work the same except for prices, which lag/are sticky in the short run. Why should there not also be "free trade" in this market as well? As for the dependance arguement, yes, it makes qualitative sense, but saying that its there and referencing state spending increases as a reason isnt really evidence that its actually "hurting" the economy overall. There are tradeoffs, so even if there is a detrimental increased state spending on, say, education, theres also an increase in the labor force, and even an increase in the skilled labor force. This increase would be no different than an increase from, say, a sharp growth in population. The only difference would be "American citizen" vs "non-citizen", and even then the only arguement i see is a tax one (that citizens pay taxes, illegal immigrants do not, although legal immigrants do. This would then be an arguement for changin the tax code - maybe to a consumption tax - rather than one against immigrants. Again, immigrants are the scapegoat, not the problem).

I'm not going to argue with you for the cultural reasons, since people have different opinions and views. You are culturally conservative, I respect that, and though I don't agree, itd be a pointless arguement. Though I will say, i fail to see how the US is a european culture. American culture is quite a bit different than European culture - we probably have about as many similarities with _some_ aspects of Mexican/Latin American culture as we do with some countries in Europe. I also fail to see how Mexican culture would somehow destroy, rather than complement, current American culture, or why there should not exist a free market for ideas and beliefs. Interestingly enough, many european countries have very restrictive immigration policies, and in many cases stagnating economies as well, because birth rates are declining.

 

[familydog]

The system dependence is there. The border states spend billions to keep up with illegals. I am all in favor of free trade, but an unrestricted flow (or lightly restricted) of immigrants who refuse to learn the language or to assimilate will only destroy our culture, and we need to maintain European culture as it looks like the Europeans themselves aren't.

I think you're on to something there. Multiculturalism destroys nations. This is what we are turning to. Assimilation is the key.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

I think you're on to something there. Multiculturalism destroys nations. This is what we are turning to. Assimilation is the key.

?? How does multiple cultures coexisting peacefully destroy a nation?? If by "assimilation" you mean that the cultures begin to blend, then you're right - but just as much is taken from the "lesser" culture as is taken from the "dominant" culture to change a society. This is quite a powerful statement to make considering you have little to back it up with.

Whats interesting is that people that espouse multiculturalism are usually thought of as hippie liberals - yet i see it as even more vital as a characteristic of advanced capitalism - increasing division of labor, larger, more vibrant workforce, and ultimately an improvement to long run growth and society as a whole, as well as freedom of movement, labor, and capital. Much of American culture is 'borrowed' from various other cultures that shared ideas and began to naturally mesh over time. If by multiculturalism you mean cultural clash, then maybe, but if you simply mean different cultures 'refusing' to fully submit to a dominant one, then i think you're simply being a xenophone.

 

[familydog]

?? How does multiple cultures coexisting peacefully destroy a nation?? If by "assimilation" you mean that the cultures begin to blend, then you're right - but just as much is taken from the "lesser" culture as is taken from the "dominant" culture to change a society. This is quite a powerful statement to make considering you have little to back it up with.

Whats interesting is that people that espouse multiculturalism are usually thought of as hippie liberals - yet i see it as even more vital as a characteristic of advanced capitalism - increasing division of labor, larger, more vibrant workforce, and ultimately an improvement to long run growth and society as a whole, as well as freedom of movement, labor, and capital. Much of American culture is 'borrowed' from various other cultures that shared ideas and began to naturally mesh over time. If by multiculturalism you mean cultural clash, then maybe, but if you simply mean different cultures 'refusing' to fully submit to a dominant one, then i think you're simply being a xenophone.

So I am a xenophobe? That's a pretty powerful statement considering you don't even know me.

 

[Kalifornia]

TLDR.

Immigration is easy. Set an annual limit somewhere below 1% of our current population, the best qualified (read the least likely to go on welfare) get in. Anyone who is here illegally gets deported the first time, and a year in prison the second time. An employer who knowingly hires illegals does a year in in federal 'pound me in the ass' prison per employee. He also gets fined the cost of his prison time, as well as the prison time of his employees who were here illegally.

Once you do that. Whether you build a 2000 mile wall with motions sensors and flamethrowers is really a function of how concerned you are about terrorists walking across the desert to get to Milwaukee or not.

 

[pdavis]

TLDR.

Immigration is easy. Set an annual limit somewhere below 1% of our current population, the best qualified (read the least likely to go on welfare) get in. Anyone who is here illegally gets deported the first time, and a year in prison the second time. An employer who knowingly hires illegals does a year in in federal 'pound me in the ass' prison per employee. He also gets fined the cost of his prison time, as well as the prison time of his employees who were here illegally.

Once you do that. Whether you build a 2000 mile wall with motions sensors and flamethrowers is really a function of how concerned you are about terrorists walking across the desert to get to Milwaukee or not.

After reading your post, I noticed your username. It fits you perfectly.

 

[angelatc]

What are everyone elses thoughts - especially those who believe in free market capitalism and free trade?

I believe that until there's an end to the welfare system that the borders should remain closed. After that we can talk about it more, but I am not committing to anything.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think we should let people cross over, but quit subsidizing it.

 

[banjojambo9]

Aztlan Rising-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajkAP_M4ZAM -I have experienced the reconquista

 

[nate895]

TLDR.

Immigration is easy. Set an annual limit somewhere below 1% of our current population, the best qualified (read the least likely to go on welfare) get in. Anyone who is here illegally gets deported the first time, and a year in prison the second time. An employer who knowingly hires illegals does a year in in federal 'pound me in the ass' prison per employee. He also gets fined the cost of his prison time, as well as the prison time of his employees who were here illegally.

Once you do that. Whether you build a 2000 mile wall with motions sensors and flamethrowers is really a function of how concerned you are about terrorists walking across the desert to get to Milwaukee or not.

You receive the Speaker of Common Sense Award.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

So I am a xenophobe? That's a pretty powerful statement considering you don't even know me.

That was a bit strong, but so was your general statement on multiculturalism. I can only go by what people say, and your statement was pretty much the definition of xenophobia - though notice, i only said it after a conditional statement.Iits not like i made sweeping generalizations about anything other than exactly what you said. Sorry if i offended you, and if im wrong, forgive me.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

I think we should let people cross over, but quit subsidizing it.

Which is essentally my 2 paragraphs summed up in one sentence - attack the system, not the symptom

 

[Zippyjuan]

What is the reason most people are against immigration? Is it the possiblity of terrorists getting in? The 9/11 hijackers entered the country legally. Is it because they take jobs? Unemployment levels are pretty low based on historical averages meaning that there is not much surplus of workers in the country at this time.
http://www.thinkinboutstuff.com/images/Unemployment Rates.jpg
Are they a drain on society in this country? Unless they are paid in cash (which legal residents can do too) they have fake Social Security cards and money is being taken out of their paychecks for that and other payroll taxes and going into the government coffers- programs they will never collect from. The Social Security Administration took a look at the "incorrect or invalid" Social Security numbers and calculated that 2002 alone that amounted to $56 billion -and most of that likely came from illegal aliens. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html They are also paying medicare and income and other taxes including state income taxes.

Starting in the late 1980's, the Social Security Administration received a flood of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect - sometimes simply fictitious - Social Security numbers. It stashed them in what it calls the "earnings suspense file" in the hope that someday it would figure out whom they belonged to.

The file has been mushrooming ever since: $189 billion worth of wages ended up recorded in the suspense file over the 1990's, two and a half times the amount of the 1980's.

In the current decade, the file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

In 2002 alone, the last year with figures released by the Social Security Administration, nine million W-2's with incorrect Social Security numbers landed in the suspense file, accounting for $56 billion in earnings, or about 1.5 percent of total reported wages.

Social Security officials do not know what fraction of the suspense file corresponds to the earnings of illegal immigrants. But they suspect that the portion is significant.

"Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes," said Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, using the agency's term for illegal immigration.

If we want to help the future problems with Social Security, we should have MORE illegal imigration to help finance it. They pay in, but won't be able to collect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/opinion/02wed3.html

Editorial
Published: April 2, 2008

How Immigrants Saved Social Security

Immigration is good for the financial health of Social Security because more workers mean more tax revenue. Illegal immigration, it turns out, is even better than legal immigration. In the fine print of the 2008 annual report on Social Security, released last week, the program’s trustees noted that growing numbers of “other than legal” workers are expected to bolster the program over the coming decades.

One reason is that many undocumented workers pay taxes during their work lives but don’t collect benefits later. Another is that undocumented workers are entering the United States at ever younger ages and are expected to have more children while they’re here than if they arrived at later ages. The result is a substantial increase in the number of working-age people paying taxes, but a relatively smaller increase in the number of retirees who receive benefits — a double boon to Social Security’s bottom line.

We’re not talking chump change. According to the report, the taxes paid by other-than-legal immigrants will close 15 percent of the system’s projected long-term deficit. That’s equivalent to raising the payroll tax by 0.3 percentage points, starting today.

That is not to suggest that illegal immigration is a legitimate fix to Social Security’s problems. It is another reminder, however, of the nation’s complex relationship with undocumented workers. Would the people who want to deport all undocumented workers be willing to make up the difference and pay the taxes that the undocumented are currently paying?

It is also a reminder of Social Security’s dynamism. As society and the economy evolve, so does the system, responding not only to changes in immigration and fertility, but also in wage growth and other variables. As such, it is adaptable to the 21st century, if only the political will can be found to champion the necessary changes. Those include modest tax increases and moderate benefit cuts that could be phased in over decades — provided the country gets started soon

Something to think about.

 

[angelatc]

I don't want to steal from third world workers to make my retirement plans work, but thanks anyway.

I'd rather have my wages rise properly so I can pay my own darned way.

I am against illegal immigration because it is illegal. Also because it dilutes the labor pool, forcing wages down, which practically eliminates the incentives to improve efficiency and invest in technology.

The over-abundance of the fast food restaurants is called "saturation" and it woudn't be possible if they were forced, by a tight labor market, to pay decent wages and benefits.

Their taxes don't cover the costs of the services they use.

I can go on....

 

[familydog]

That was a bit strong, but so was your general statement on multiculturalism. I can only go by what people say, and your statement was pretty much the definition of xenophobia - though notice, i only said it after a conditional statement.Iits not like i made sweeping generalizations about anything other than exactly what you said. Sorry if i offended you, and if im wrong, forgive me.

I said nothing that sounds like xenophobia. You're stretching my words if you got that I'm afraid of people who are different than me from what I said.

I have no problem with immigration. What I do have a problem with is illegal immigration and this new attitude of Americans. Although I think its a lie we were founded by them and we are a nation of them, immigrants have played a big role in our history there is no denying that. And I have no problem with pluralism. My problem is again multiculturalism which has became the way of the present. How, many colleges don't force their students to take Western Civilization courses anymore because Western Civilization is associated with evil things. How, it has become acceptable for these new wave of thinkers to deny that our concepts of liberty and equality came from a bunch of white Europeans. And how our Anglo-Protestant heritage is being denied. That's not to say everyone should be Protestant, or the government should be religious, or that Proestantism is the only way to go (believe me, it's not), but to deny our heritage? Why? If we deny our heritage, we deny what our nation was built on. If we deny what our nation was built on, we don't have a nation anymore.
How, we don't force people to assimilate. Our standards for being an American citizen have dropped so much that all you have to do to be an American is live here, obey the law, and pay taxes. You don't even have to believe that our form of government (a constitutional republic) is the right way to live. If you want to live in a communist state, fine go to China. Multiculturalism leads to identity politics and now all of a sudden I'm not not an American. I'm a lesbian, I'm Haitian-American, I'm a Catholic...oh yeah I guess I'm an American too. I'm no longer fighting for rights as an American I'm fighting for gay rights and women's rights, and for Catholic rights rather than the individual rights that this country was built on.

The point of this rant is that I have no problem if you a are different. But this new attitude of ours with regards to immigration and mulitculturalism is harmful to us as a nation. I blame this increase in illegal immigration as a major contributor to all of this.

 

[angelatc]

?? How does multiple cultures coexisting peacefully destroy a nation??
.

I keep telling you guys that you should subscribe to American Conservative. Buchanan wrote a fantastic piece about this. It isn't on-line though.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The problem isn't Mexicans, it's the people in their government that perpetuate their poverty. All the poor nations of the world suffer from bad government policy, I don't believe for a second that Mexico is incapable of becoming prosperous, provided that the government gets the hell out of the economy.

 

[nate895]

The problem isn't Mexicans, it's the people in their government that perpetuate their poverty. All the poor nations of the world suffer from bad government policy, I don't believe for a second that Mexico is incapable of becoming prosperous, provided that the government gets the hell out of the economy.

Especially considering California is prosperous and it is almost just like Mexico.