An Immigration Perspective

[AENeuman]

Here’s a quote from a 1902 San Francisco tourism book I just picked up:

"The Chinese question was for many years one of the live issues in California politics. So large an invasion of the little brown men was occasioned by the discovery of gold that their presence soon grew to be a menace to white labor. Thrifty, industrialist, imitative, bringing nothing with them and carrying away all they made, it was soon evident that the tide of immigration must be checked.

To permit an unrestricted immigration of these people would be to court disaster. They huddle together without families, nourished on rice and tea. The readiness with which they learn our arts, coupled with their mode of life, makes competition with them an impossibility.

Despite all this, the Chinese are in many ways useful and perhaps essential factors in the development of California. In fruit picking and packing industry they are more reliable, more mobile and in every way more dependable than white labor.

The solution of the Chinese problem is to be found in a conservative and unimpassioned handling of the question on all sides. Neither the wide open door nor the total exclusion will ultimately prevail, in all probability."

This debate (and its unoriginality) seems to be more of a critique on human nature than anything else

[Franklinnoble]

Nice perspective, but it doesn't actually offer a solution.

[SackAttack]

I think what he's saying is it never does. We bitch about it, but ultimately accept it because of some perceived economic benefit at the marketplace.

Cheaper strawberries = teh win.

[Franklinnoble]

Yeah, but boatloads of Chinamen arriving via turn-of-the-century steamers is nothing compared to the sheer number of Mexicans jumping the border every day. While some of the issues are the same, I think the scale is a lot larger these days.

Then again, there wasn't any subsidised medicine or bilingual curriculum in the schools in those days - so the Chinese immigrants weren't sucking our precious entitlements, because they simply weren't there for them back then.

[AENeuman]

Yeah, but boatloads of Chinamen arriving via turn-of-the-century steamers is nothing compared to the sheer number of Mexicans jumping the border every day. While some of the issues are the same, I think the scale is a lot larger these days.

Then again, there wasn't any subsidised medicine or bilingual curriculum in the schools in those days - so the Chinese immigrants weren't sucking our precious entitlements, because they simply weren't there for them back then.

In order for this debate to be relevant the issues surrounding it has to seem urgent, like losing your precious entitlements. In this case I doubt entitlements are going to be lost due to "Mexicans jumping", but it makes for good political fodder

[Warhammer]

My feeling on this is what ever we decide our immigration laws should be, we must abide by them and enforce them.

If we decide to have an open border policy, fine by me, but we need to be prepared to live with the consequences of this.

If we decide we are only going to let in 2 millions Mexicans per year, fine by me, but we need to be fully prepared to send the other people that come across the border illegally back. In my opinion you take them to the middle of the desert and drop them off there.

In either case, you need to be ready for two things:
1) Someone is going to be unhappy because we are letting x foreigners in on our soil
2) We are not doing enough to secure our borders

[SackAttack]

Yeah, but boatloads of Chinamen arriving via turn-of-the-century steamers is nothing compared to the sheer number of Mexicans jumping the border every day. While some of the issues are the same, I think the scale is a lot larger these days.

Then again, there wasn't any subsidised medicine or bilingual curriculum in the schools in those days - so the Chinese immigrants weren't sucking our precious entitlements, because they simply weren't there for them back then.

1) The majority of America's illegal immigration comes via the Canadian border, not the Mexican border. Of the illegal immigration that comes across the Mexican border, most of it is from folks making their way north from nations south of Mexico. Yes, there are a large number of Mexican illegal immigrants, but to focus on "Mexicans jumping the border" is to ignore the scope and seriousness of the problem.

2) Subsidized medicine is either a problem for everybody or a problem for nobody. People are going to get sick and/or hurt and use medical services, and I'm not sure it really matters whether it's the illegals or the citizens who use them. If we could magically wish away all of our illegal immigrants, the jobs they do would presumably be done by American citizens - who don't have any particular immunity to illness or injury simply by virtue of being American.

Nor is it likely that the difference between what an American would make picking lettuce (John McCain's $25/hour offer notwithstanding) and what an illegal immigrant would make would cover the cost of health care.

3) I don't agree with bilingual education, but I think it's really the least of our worries on the immigration topic.

[flere-imsaho]

My feeling on this is what ever we decide our immigration laws should be,

But we have. This is already plenty of legislation on this. But...

we must abide by them and enforce them.

But we haven't.... Fact is, there are significant sectors of the American economy that rely on low-paid workers, be those workers here or abroad. Fact is, there isn't a lot of desire amongst naturalized Americans to take these jobs.

So, either the government enforces labor regulations already on the books and in so doing a) throws a lot of illegal immigrants out of jobs and b) raises operating costs for certain sectors of the economy (agriculture, for instance) or it doesn't, and continues to live with its hypocrisy.

You've got one party in control of both the Executive and Legislative branches at the moment. Seems like an ideal time for that party to make a definitive decision on this issue. Now, with whom will they side?

[Raiders Army]

Here’s a quote from a 1902 San Francisco tourism book I just picked up:

"The Chinese question was for many years one of the live issues in California politics. So large an invasion of the little brown men was occasioned by the discovery of gold that their presence soon grew to be a menace to white labor. Thrifty, industrialist, imitative, bringing nothing with them and carrying away all they made, it was soon evident that the tide of immigration must be checked.

To permit an unrestricted immigration of these people would be to court disaster. They huddle together without families, nourished on rice and tea. The readiness with which they learn our arts, coupled with their mode of life, makes competition with them an impossibility.

Despite all this, the Chinese are in many ways useful and perhaps essential factors in the development of California. In fruit picking and packing industry they are more reliable, more mobile and in every way more dependable than white labor.

The solution of the Chinese problem is to be found in a conservative and unimpassioned handling of the question on all sides. Neither the wide open door nor the total exclusion will ultimately prevail, in all probability."

This debate (and its unoriginality) seems to be more of a critique on human nature than anything else
So what happened since then? The Chinese got lazy and were supplanted by the Mexicans? :D

[albionmoonlight]

Yeah, but boatloads of Chinamen arriving via turn-of-the-century steamers is nothing compared to the sheer number of Mexicans jumping the border every day. While some of the issues are the same, I think the scale is a lot larger these days.

Then again, there wasn't any subsidised medicine or bilingual curriculum in the schools in those days - so the Chinese immigrants weren't sucking our precious entitlements, because they simply weren't there for them back then.

I'm not saying that I really have anything other than a not informed enough opinion about the "immigration issue." But I do think that, as a factual matter, most experts seem to agree that illegal immigrants contribute more to the government as a group than they take. Social Security taxes paid by illegals (who present a fake SS card to get a job, but have no hope of ever receiving SS benefits) alone amount to $7 billion annually in revenue. Estimates of Medicare taxes are ~$1.5 billion annually.

None of which is to say what we should do with immigration. But we should at least start the discussion by acknowledging that, under the current state of affairs, illegal immigrants in the United States put more money into the public purse than they remove.

[BrianD]

But we haven't.... Fact is, there are significant sectors of the American economy that rely on low-paid workers, be those workers here or abroad. Fact is, there isn't a lot of desire amongst naturalized Americans to take these jobs.


And how much of this lack of desire is due to the fact that they can get by on welfare and make about as much money by not working? Maybe it is time to reduce some of the benefits and encourage people to take some of these jobs.

[Warhammer]

But we have. This is already plenty of legislation on this. But...



But we haven't.... Fact is, there are significant sectors of the American economy that rely on low-paid workers, be those workers here or abroad. Fact is, there isn't a lot of desire amongst naturalized Americans to take these jobs.

So, either the government enforces labor regulations already on the books and in so doing a) throws a lot of illegal immigrants out of jobs and b) raises operating costs for certain sectors of the economy (agriculture, for instance) or it doesn't, and continues to live with its hypocrisy.

You've got one party in control of both the Executive and Legislative branches at the moment. Seems like an ideal time for that party to make a definitive decision on this issue. Now, with whom will they side?

Exactly why I have a growing dislike for the Republican leadership.

The problem is that the legislature doesn't want to jeopardize their positions, which means playing to the masses (imagined or not). This is one of the reasons why I believe the Senate should not be directly elected. Otherwise, they would be the branch of the legislature spearheading the debate, in a reasonable manner. Instead, we have a bunch of Senators that are spouting off a lot of mumbo-jumbo about this stuff on both sides, trying to pander to each side of the debate rather than doing what is right for the country.

As far as raising the costs of agriculture and the like. I'm not sure if I buy that argument. Much of it depends on the crop in question. In areas where we are the dominant grower, yes, the price of the crop would go up, but in areas where we are a minor player (rice, for example) any price increases in bringing in the crop will probably not be seen by consumers. Additionally, many crops are already havested using very little labor, so much of the argument is a bunch of crap. Necessity breeds ingenuity, and I think we could develop farm equipment that will harvest items much cheaper than paying immigrant labor.

[CraigSca]

I never understood this. You get a fake SS to get a job. Isn't there some kind of internal mainframe somewhere in the government that shows so-and-so has either a fake number or a number being used by someone else?

[st.cronin]

I never understood this. You get a fake SS to get a job. Isn't there some kind of internal mainframe somewhere in the government that shows so-and-so has either a fake number or a number being used by someone else?

Yes, there is. Fake SS #s throw up red flags - the problem is that there is no mechanism to investigate, or what mechanism there is is essentially unmanned.

[albionmoonlight]

I never understood this. You get a fake SS to get a job. Isn't there some kind of internal mainframe somewhere in the government that shows so-and-so has either a fake number or a number being used by someone else?

Take this with two large grains of salt, because I saw it on a very "pro-immigrant" website, but some people think that the government does this on purpose. When a record of a new employment is sent to the SS office and it has a number that is not on record, the government puts it aside into a pile "for further review"--the theory being that there must be a typo and it will be corrected eventually. Then, nothing is ever done with that pile.

Of course, the government knows full well what it is doing--but it simply chooses to view these applications as "typos" rather than "fraud" because they want to keep getting the money.

Again--I stress that this was simply the theory of some guy with an agenda on the internet--but there it is for whatever it is worth.

[Warhammer]

I'm not saying that I really have anything other than a not informed enough opinion about the "immigration issue." But I do think that, as a factual matter, most experts seem to agree that illegal immigrants contribute more to the government as a group than they take. Social Security taxes paid by illegals (who present a fake SS card to get a job, but have no hope of ever receiving SS benefits) alone amount to $7 billion annually in revenue. Estimates of Medicare taxes are ~$1.5 billion annually.

None of which is to say what we should do with immigration. But we should at least start the discussion by acknowledging that, under the current state of affairs, illegal immigrants in the United States put more money into the public purse than they remove.

I don't think there is an adequate way to measure the amount of money they get from government services. All that we are going on here is hearsay, and I'm not sure that I am willing to accept what the experts say.

[flere-imsaho]

And how much of this lack of desire is due to the fact that they can get by on welfare and make about as much money by not working? Maybe it is time to reduce some of the benefits and encourage people to take some of these jobs.

By "low-paid", I mean "below minimum wage". And minimum wage isn't really a living wage for most Americans. So, if your solution is to force Americans to take below-minimum wage jobs, and likely work 3, 4 or 5 of them at once to make enough money to live then, hey, good for you.

[albionmoonlight]

I don't think there is an adequate way to measure the amount of money they get from government services. All that we are going on here is hearsay, and I'm not sure that I am willing to accept what the experts say.

In this, as in most complex areas to which I have not dedicated days of research, I tend to rely on the experts simply because I do not have the time or the resourses to really form my own opinion. All I can do is try to find a wide variety of sources and understand the different agenda each source has when evaluating their conclusions.

I do, agree, though, that this is an area in which the numbers can be spun easily enough by either side. How much does it "cost" taxpayers every time someone uses a public road. How much does it cost the taxpayers to provide me with 3 minutes of police and fire protection as I sit at home and type this response. How much do I contribute to that by paying sales, income, social security, unemployment, Medicare, sales, use (and whatever else I am forgetting) tax?

Every second of life that you are living under a government, you are--on some hard to quantify level--using the resouces of that government. And there really is only an estimate to how much tax we all pay when you add them all up.

[Warhammer]

And how much of this lack of desire is due to the fact that they can get by on welfare and make about as much money by not working? Maybe it is time to reduce some of the benefits and encourage people to take some of these jobs.

This is something that really concerns me. I have seen a number of temps come to work here and at other places I have worked that refuse to perform any strenuous physical tasks. We're talking moving <50 lbs. items throughout the day. Nothing terrible, but nothing exactly fun. You'll be fairly tired at the end of the day. Yet, I have seen plenty of people leave at lunch and not come back because, "I don't need to do this for money." Which just strikes me as odd.

What do these people do for money? Obviously they must be living somehow, but what are they doing? Are they on welfare? They obviously don't have another job or else they wouldn't be looking. Are they running drugs? I don't know the answer.

The older I get, the more I see this country inching towards a welfare state, and I don't like it. Every election seems to be about what the government is going to give me. I will get a tax break, I will get higher SS benefits, I will get a lockbox, I will get a tax hike, I will get more dollars spent on roads in my county, etc. The one thing I really want, I never get, and that is the government trying to get their hands on my money! Well that and forcing doctors to display a list of fees and charges for services (so I could make a choice to opt out of medical coverage and pay from my pocket).

[BrianD]

By "low-paid", I mean "below minimum wage". And minimum wage isn't really a living wage for most Americans. So, if your solution is to force Americans to take below-minimum wage jobs, and likely work 3, 4 or 5 of them at once to make enough money to live then, hey, good for you.

I'm not advocating forcing Americans to take jobs below minimum wage. Dropping welfare benefits to encourage Americans to take these jobs only works if you also address the illegal immigration policies and force the companies to pay legal wages for the positions. Cutting welfare isn't a solution to the immigration problem, but it could be part of the whole package.

It just seems disingenuous to claim that Americans aren't willing to take these jobs when Government inaction of current immigration laws allow companies to fill the jobs at illegal wage levels. Now we have Americans leeching off of the system because they don't want to work for such low wages, and we have illegals leeching off of the system by collecting benefits (free healthcare, etc).

[Warhammer]

Every second of life that you are living under a government, you are--on some hard to quantify level--using the resouces of that government. And there really is only an estimate to how much tax we all pay when you add them all up.

I agreed with most of your post until I got down to here. I actually use very few "government" services. Driving to and from work, check. Borrowing library books, check (my wife does, I don't). Sewer services, check. Garbage collection, I pay a company to collect. Gas, water, and electricity, that comes from the power company. Telephone, that is from good old Cingular. I don't have any school age kids yet, but they may or may not go to public schools, so that gets a half-check. Military protection, check. Post Office services, check, but with the caveat that it must stand on its own and is not supported by my tax dollars.

My point is that aside from libraries, roads, and the military, I am not using any government services. My tax dollars are mainly going to other people in the form of entitlements. Last I looked, some 50 cents of every dollar I pay in taxes goes to someone else. What is up with that? I'm paying the government at least 50% too much because that is something I shouldn't be forced to pay.

Also, the resources of the government do not belong to the government. They belong to you and me. The government is merely there to oversee and coordinate those resources for the greater good. I don't consider entitlements the greater good.

[CraigSca]

Of course 50% of your tax dollars go to someone else. Taxes are nothing but a way to distribute the wealth of society.

[Warhammer]

Of course 50% of your tax dollars go to someone else. Taxes are nothing but a way to distribute the wealth of society.

But that isn't what the government tells you!

[lungs]

Yes, there is. Fake SS #s throw up red flags - the problem is that there is no mechanism to investigate, or what mechanism there is is essentially unmanned.

That's pretty much how it is. Basically their social security numbers come up as suspicious or something like that. And that's the last you hear about it.

[albionmoonlight]

I agreed with most of your post until I got down to here. I actually use very few "government" services. Driving to and from work, check. Borrowing library books, check (my wife does, I don't). Sewer services, check. Garbage collection, I pay a company to collect. Gas, water, and electricity, that comes from the power company. Telephone, that is from good old Cingular. I don't have any school age kids yet, but they may or may not go to public schools, so that gets a half-check. Military protection, check. Post Office services, check, but with the caveat that it must stand on its own and is not supported by my tax dollars.

My point is that aside from libraries, roads, and the military, I am not using any government services. My tax dollars are mainly going to other people in the form of entitlements. Last I looked, some 50 cents of every dollar I pay in taxes goes to someone else. What is up with that? I'm paying the government at least 50% too much because that is something I shouldn't be forced to pay.

Also, the resources of the government do not belong to the government. They belong to you and me. The government is merely there to oversee and coordinate those resources for the greater good. I don't consider entitlements the greater good.

It's a minor quibble at this point, but I think that a lot of what the government does does benefit you. The coke head who was arrested last week and didn't rob your house took undercover cops to catch, and a DA to prosecute, and a judicial system to process, and a prison system to keep. And the prevention work done by the fire department--maintaining and testing fire hydrants, being on call, etc. costs money (and, at the very least, the presence of these police and fire departments costs you less in homeowner's insurance). Subsidies paid to agribusiness keeps the real cost of goods down for you (making your dollar go farther). Etc., etc., etc.

But, as I said, these are all quibbles. In addition, I think that we all benefit from certain social programs--the rising tide lifts all ships and all that--but I don't expect everyone to agree with that.

[Warhammer]

It's a minor quibble at this point, but I think that a lot of what the government does does benefit you. The coke head who was arrested last week and didn't rob your house took undercover cops to catch, and a DA to prosecute, and a judicial system to process, and a prison system to keep. And the prevention work done by the fire department--maintaining and testing fire hydrants, being on call, etc. costs money (and, at the very least, the presence of these police and fire departments costs you less in homeowner's insurance). Subsidies paid to agribusiness keeps the real cost of goods down for you (making your dollar go farther). Etc., etc., etc.

But, as I said, these are all quibbles. In addition, I think that we all benefit from certain social programs--the rising tide lifts all ships and all that--but I don't expect everyone to agree with that.

I'll grant you the fire and police protection. But I still stand by my premise that the amount I pay in taxes pales to what I get out of them.

Also, the agribusiness subsidies are arguably the biggest welfare program in the country. I could go on and on about the "poor" farmer who can barely make ends meet, but yet manages to scrape enough money together to go down to Disney World for 2-3 weeks with everyone in the family down to the grandkids. They can buy a new SUV or pickup truck every year, but they're not sure if they can afford the pump, seed, or fertilizer they need each year to make their living. Sorry, I work with the agribusiness every day and see how these guys that cry woe is me could make do with a fraction of what they get if they were forced to operate efficiently.