Guest Post! The Power Of Words: “Illegal Immigrant”
| September 5th, 2007[This is a guest post, reprinted with Carmen's permission from the blog All About Race. Thanks, Carmen.]
In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court ruled that people of African ancestry were not, and could never become, citizens of the United States of America. The Dred Scott decision asserted that blacks were property. And because no state or federal government could take a citizen’s property away from him, this decision meant that any slave who managed to escape to a “free state” would be hunted down and returned to bondage and his or her “owner.” This decision enraged many of the most vocal abolitionists and politicians in the North and was an important precursor of Abraham Lincoln’s election to President.
But still, even among those who philosophically opposed slavery, I imagine dinner conversations sounding something like this:
“That Dred Scott decision is appalling.”
“Yes, it’s simply awful.”
“But, you know, those Negroes who just up and run away? I mean, they are breaking the law.”
“Yes, and our country cannot tolerate law breakers.”
“Just to think, what if everybody just went about doing whatever they wanted to do?”
“The whole Union would collapse into chaos.”
“Absolutely!”
The issue of immigration in America is cause for this kind of conversation now. Many well meaning and good natured people are not critically examining what it means that the media uniformly and incessantly blares the term “illegal immigrant” as if the people who risk physical harm to get to America to work, are only that. The media would have you believe that these are not the same people America has welcomed to come to build and clean our houses, harvest, prepare and serve our food, and raise our children.
In the South, the American Civil War was termed “the War of Northern Aggression.” During the 1960’s, those who made the trip south to support Southern grassroots movements in their protests for an end to Jim Crow and racial terrorism, were called “agitators.” Now, it is all so clear. But, as the events of America’s Civil Rights movement unfolded, many decent people, with hearts in the “right” place, felt “Negroes are pushing too hard, for too much. These things take time.”
I support strong and secure borders, period. And with that, I believe that if we as a nation welcome people to come and clean our houses, harvest, prepare and serve our food, and raise our children, then I believe we must provide a path for those people to become full citizens of the United States sharing all of the rights and responsibilities that citizenship entails.
There was a time in America when it was illegal to gather and discuss independence from England. There was a time in America when it was illegal for an American of African descent to vote or own property or drink from certain water fountains. There was a time in America when it was illegal for Americans of Japanese descent to live in their homes. Instead, Japanese Americans were legally evicted from their homes and moved to internment camps.
So, I have a question for you. When you say “illegal immigrant,” other than relating a fact of American citizenship status, what are you saying? What do you want me to know about the people you describe in this way?
September 5th, 2007 at 6:53 am
A tangentially related article. You know that claim that if there were no undocumented immigrants to work the fields unemployed Americans would just take over the jobs? Well…(from the linked article) “‘The bottom line,’ Mr. Levy said, ‘is that most unemployed workers are not available to replace fired, unauthorized immigrant workers,’ in part because very few of the unemployed are in farm work.” Apparently not.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Do you think that you should be able to move to, say, Mexico, or Switzerland, and just take up citizenship, or work, and ignore the border guards on the way in, and refuse to leave because you have a “right” to be there because you felt like moving to that other country?
In other words, do you think everyone has an inherent right to live anywhere on the planet they please, ignoring any laws that might keep you out of any particular country?
This comment was written by Disgusted Beyond Belief.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 7:16 am
DBB, I think Amp covered that under the second bolded section above.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Do you think that you should be able to move to, say, Mexico, or Switzerland, and just take up citizenship, or work, and ignore the border guards on the way in, and refuse to leave because you have a “right” to be there because you felt like moving to that other country?
Why not? Why should people live in one place or another because of an accident of birth? (Actually, I do have an answer to the question “why not”, but I’m curious to see what yours is.)
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 7:54 am
In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court ruled that people of African ancestry were not, and could never become, citizens of the United States of America.
…
The issue of immigration in America is cause for this kind of conversation now.
Straw man. Slavery is appalling and immoral and illegal in and of itself. Slaves were not “illegal immigrants”. Illegal aliens are not slaves. They are not brought into the United States unwillingly and with the use of force. They are not forced to labor against their will. They are not kept in the United States against their will. This is an entirely false analogy.
Many well meaning and good natured people are not critically examining what it means that the media uniformly and incessantly blares the term “illegal immigrant”
And many others have. The conclusion that they have reached is that the MSM uniformly uses the term “illegal immigrant” as a blanket term to cover all people who have snuck across our borders in order to promote a particular political agenda. That agenda being to try to influence the American public to see these people as “immigrants” instead of criminals and to favor granting U.S. citizenship as a reward to a group of people who have shown that they will put their own self interests above the law.
“Illegal immigrant” is not a term that demonizes illegal aliens. It’s a term that favors them. It’s a term that tries to protect them from facing the consequences of their actions.
as if the people who risk physical harm to get to America to work, are only that. The media would have you believe that these are not the same people America has welcomed to come to build and clean our houses, harvest, prepare and serve our food, and raise our children.
Welcomed them? I haven’t welcomed them. Who has welcomed them? The employers who use them to undercut the wages they’d have to pay American citizens to work an honest job welcome them. The rest of us don’t. We’d much rather see Americans harvesting crops and preparing and serving our food in restaurants. But most Americans are like me. They don’t prepare and serve my food at home. They don’t clean my house. They don’t raise my children. And it’s my guess that the number of people whose houses they clean and whose children they raise are a very small proportion of the American public; those who are wealthy enough to afford it. Favoring the interests of the wealthy class who can afford to hire servants and stay in hotels and eat out a lot over those of the average American is certainly a new position for this blog.
When you say “illegal immigrant,” other than relating a fact of American citizenship status, what are you saying? What do you want me to know about the people you describe in this way?
I’m saying that I’m ignorant of the fact that a great many of these people are not immigrants; they don’t come here to become citizens and integrate into American culture, they are only here to make money and go home when the season is over. I’m saying that I don’t realize that at least 1/3 of all illegal aliens are unemployed. I’m saying that I either have or am ignorant of the political agenda that is advanced by using a term that describes a subset of the people that this debate is all about, instead of using the term that describes all of them and the term that is actually used in the U.S. Code.
[rant]
I too favor secure borders. But I also reject rewarding criminal behavior with American citizenship. For one thing, it’s an outrage. For another thing, it will simply encourage more criminal behavior - you get what you pay for. One way to secure the borders is to use physical and technological barriers, increase the number of personnel monitoring them, and give them greater power to act. But the other way is to increase (not decrease) the penalties for breaking the laws.
New laws are not needed for this; what’s needed is the will to enforce existing laws. Ironically, the most effective way to do this is be to go after American citizens; the ones that are employing illegal aliens. This could be the CEO of the company that owns the meat packing plant in Iowa filled with illegal aliens (and that is now filled with American citizens after ICE raided the place; it turns out that Americans DO want those jobs). This could be the guy who lives next door to me. I say “could be” because I don’t know the citizenship status of the crew that mows his lawn and cleans the leaves off his yard (in part by blowing them onto mine, but that’s a separate issue …). Throw some CEO’s ass in jail and you’ll see the illegal alien problem dwindle quickly. We won’t have to deport them; they’ll leave, because they won’t be able to get jobs.
We tried solving this problem in 1986 by passing a set of laws that included amnesty and enforcement provisions. The amnesty provisions were gleefully taken advantage of. The enforcement provisions were suppressed by the wealthy interests that profited by doing so. Now we see people such as Sen. Ted Kennedy, who promised that amnesty would never be proposed again, propose amnesty. But this year the American public let their legislators know that they remember this, and that they absolutely do not trust them to do anything different if they get their hands on the laws again. The laws don’t need reforming; they need to be enforced.
[ rant ]
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Myca, I don’t see how Amp addressed DBB’s comment. Could you explain?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 8:10 am
I support strong and secure borders, period. And with that, I believe that if we as a nation welcome people to come and clean our houses, harvest, prepare and serve our food, and raise our children, then I believe we must provide a path for those people to become full citizens of the United States sharing all of the rights and responsibilities that citizenship entails.
We have such a path. It’s called “applying for a visa and coming here through the legal path like most of the other 300 million of us”.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 8:36 am
I don’t get what you’re saying here. (I also don’t get what on earth physical risk has to do with it, or why you’d mention it in this context. I can only assume it’s a sympathy plea, but it seems like a red herring in this sentence)
Obviously an illegal immigrant isn’t “only” an illegal immigrant; they’re also a man/woman/child, each with their own individual status. But if the discussion is about illegal immigration and if we need to distinguish between illegal immigrants and other people, then their immigration status is often the most relevant descriptor.
This is perfectly normal. All prolifers are individuals, too, but I refer only to their prolife status when discussing them, as a group, in an abortion debate. Don’t you?
So you’re giving a choice: Either stop “welcoming” them to work, or start allowing them to become citizens. Either kick them out, or open all the closed doors.
That’s an interesting proposition. How would you feel if we as a country elected the “well, let’s not welcome them; let’s kick them out instead” option?
Also, it seems apparent to me that the “strength and security” of a border is a different thing from the decision process for who goes through it. We can have a very strong border but make a decision to admit everyone with a Mexican passport and nobody with a Swiss passport; the strength and security are measured by how well we meet the goals we have set for admission.
However, you seem to be using “strong and secure borders” to mean a certain type of due process, quid pro quo, or other aspect of the DECISION. Do you think your use matches common usage, especially in the immigration debate? Or are you trying to “reclaim” the phrase for the pro-illegal-immigrant camp?
I’m saying that they are someone who, for whatever reason, decided to violate the law and come into the U.S. without permission. What else would you expect someone would want you to know?
It’s really not about American citizenship status. The vast majority of the planet are citizens of somewhere other than the U.S.; only a tiny fraction of those are also illegal immigrants into the U.S. (there are other countries into which people immigrate illegally, of course.)
It’s about citizenship status combined with where they are (in the U.S.) and how they got there (illegally).
Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with immigration. Immigration is a good thing. We need citizens; we (in some industries) need workers and taxpayers; etc etc.
But my guarded support for immigration is contingent on the U.S. getting to choose who immigrates. Assuming that not everyone will get in, that means there is some selection process.
It might be economic; it might be intelligence, or education, or physical health; it might be work skills, or languages; or connection to the U.S., or avowed interest in assimilation; or agreement to serve in the U.S. armed forces… But given any group of meaningful size, there will ALWAYS be the “top picks” and the “bottom picks.”
I’m all for letting the top picks in, whoever they may be. And I”m all for keeping the bottom feeders out, whoever they may be. Illegal immigration destroys our ability to choose the top picks, and substitutes luck, willingness to get caught, funds to pay a coyote, etc. That’s not a good thing. That’s not what we should be doing.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 8:52 am
I strongly challenge the idea that the only viable alternatives are to either kick illegal aliens out or offer them citizenship. Here’s another:
If an illegal alien has a criminal record outside of immgration and employment violations that includes anything other than the equivalent of a parking ticket, deport them.
If an illegal alien has been unemployed or on welfare for ‘x’ amount of time, deport them.
If an illegal alien has a good employment record and has no criminal record outside of immigration and employment violations, grant them permanent resident status. They get to stay in the U.S., obtain a legal Social Security number and work, own property, operate a business, etc., etc. They do NOT get to vote. They do not get to serve on juries. They are NOT citizens, and can be deported if they engage in crime, etc. Their children DO become citizens if born on U.S. soil.
American citizenship must never be the reward of criminal acts.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 9:02 am
RonF,
American citizenship must never be the reward of criminal acts.
Of course, the criminal act to which you are referring is entering or staying in the US. A horrible, horrible crime.
But why not stop making coming to or staying in the US illegal? Why not allow anybody who passes a criminal background check to legally live and work in the US? Why not allow any of those who pass the background check and don’t get a criminal record (over some defined period of time) once they’re here to become citizens?
Why are you not suggesting making it legal for all who pass a criminal background check to live and work in the US? That would allow anybody who fits your criteria to become a US citizen resulting in a net gain (hoorah!) for the US?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Why not allow anybody who passes a criminal background check to legally live and work in the US?
Because the number of people who would immigrate would be larger than the number of new citizens we wish to accept.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 9:23 am
I’ve probably told this story before, but my grandmother was an illegal alien. She got a quota visa from France in 1939. (Like a lot of other Jews, she’d fled to France after the Nazis took over her country.) But at the time, the U.S. barred immigrants who had had T.B., which included her. She would probably have been killed unless she got out of France, so she lied and claimed never to have had T.B. She deliberately broke the law and perjured herself, and she could have been arrested, stripped of her citizenship and deported. Like other illegal European immigrants, she was amnestied sometime in the ’50s, and she was a peaceful and law-abiding citizen until she the day she died. I had a friend in high school whose father was very fond of holding up my grandmother as an example of a “good immigrant” who could be contrasted with those more-recent “bad immigrants” from Asia and Latin America. Little did he know that she was once one of those nasty “illegals.”
I think that the kind of moral absolutes that Robert and RonF deal in are luxuries of the very, very privileged. I’m pretty sure that they’d break the law, too, if their children were hungry and if they couldn’t see how breaking the law was going to hurt anyone. It’s just that they can’t imagine ever being in that kind of situation. They can condemn “looters” in New Orleans, because they have SUVs and know they’ll never be stuck in a flooded city with no food or clean water. They can laugh at Mexican women who die from back alley abortions, because they know they’ll never be poor and pregnant in a country where abortion is illegal. People who sanctify “the law” are generally people who feel confident that the law will always favor their interests.
I think that’s unlikely to happen, because too many powerful people benefit from illegal immigration. But I also think it would be really difficult to get rid of all illegal immigrants without resorting to measures that would violate the rights and civil liberties of a lot of legal immigrants and American citizens. If you prosecute landlords who rent to illegal immigrants, illegal immigrants will just get fraudulent documents. And if landlords aren’t confident that they can detect fraudulent documents, then they’re just going to discriminate against anyone with an accent. It’s illegal, but funnily enough legal residents of the U.S. also sometimes violate the law when their interests are at stake. I don’t think it’s possible to kick out all illegal immigrants without violating fundamental American principles of justice and equality that I hope we all agree are vital to preserve.
And since there is no way to get rid of illegal immigrants, I think we’re better off giving them a path to citizenship. It’s not healthy for a society to have large numbers of permanently disenfranchised people. It violates the entire social contract theory on which the modern state is premised. People are more likely to follow laws if they have a say in making them. They’re more likely to respect a society if they feel that they’re permitted to participate in it fully. Unless there’s a realistic way to get rid of illegal immigrants, it just seems a lot more sensible, from a strictly pragmatic standpoint, to allow them to participate fully in American society, rather than to render them permanent outsiders.
This comment was written by Sally.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 9:28 am
I’m an American citizen. My residency permit to live in the Netherlands expired 5 days ago. Which means I’m not allowed to apply for a student visa to study in england next year (except by returning to the US, which I don’t have time before before the term starts). Which means that I’ll be entering England very shortly on a tourist visa, even though I intend to study.
Which means that of I, a music student, play a gig while studying at my British University, I’m taking away an opportunity from a British citizen and am undermining their economy.
Wow, clearly all sorts of bad things should happen to me. The Dutch or the British should deport me ASAP. Maybe after putting me in jail.
Cuz I didn’t just get caught in a snafu partly stemming from semesters in different countries starting at different times. No, I am an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT and a threat to humanity.
Y’all should try living abroad for a while.
This comment was written by Les.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 9:46 am
I still can’t get exactly what some people are suggesting.
Is the goal open borders, for everyone? i.e. should we let every single person who wants to come to the U.S. and who wants to become a citizen, do so, no matter what? Because as soon as the answer is no–even just a little bit “no,” we’re going to have a class of people who we don’t want to be here, but who will do their best to get here.
I can see debating where the line should be; who should get in, and who should not. But the rhetoric from the pro-illegal-immigration folks sometimes seems to suggest that there should be completely open borders. In other words, no line at all.
Which is it? Are the pro-illegal-immigrant people debating the size of current assignments to the class of “illegal immigrants”, or are they debating the existence of the class? Those are two entirely different conversations to be having.
Oh, and Les: Certainly you’re not assuming that anyone who doesn’t share your position lacks your personal expert knowledge? That would be silly. I’ve lived abroad and worked, for example–using a legal work visa–when I worked in Europe. I’ve also lived abroad (as a tourist) a variety of places and declined work because I didn’t have a visa. It’s not that hard, really.
Should you be deported? I’ll leave that to you. You’re rich enough to go to school in Europe; I don’t feel much sympathy if you try to make a few bucks playing in London without permission.
And I don’t believe your “nobody gets hurt” claim. There is not room for an infinite number of musicians in any band, and if you assume there’s always room for you (and that you’d never, ever, exclude someone who has more of a right to be there) that’s just your self interest talking. It’s a bit like taking one of eight handicapped spaces, and assuming that no more than seven people will need them while you’re in the store.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Because the number of people who would immigrate would be larger than the number of new citizens we wish to accept.
1) Yes, but in the context of RonF’s preferred program (which is what I was addressing), the only difference is whether or not people would be citizens. RonF’s entire problem is that they broke the law (the law prohibiting them from being here) and therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to become citizens.
2) Yes, but is that really true? I hear a lot of “Americans aren’t having enough babies” from the same group that is against unlimited immigration. I don’t hear a lot of “we need to up the number of immigrants” from that group. Therefore, I suspect that there is a strong component of racism in the anti-immigration contingent.
If that’s really a concern (and the number of illegal immigrants is over that unspecified number), why aren’t we enforcing the existing laws? I suspect that there are a number of reasons. Those reasons would include the desire of businesses to be able to pay sub-minimum wages without fear of prosecution as well as the fact that we haven’t reached that vague “too many people” threshold. If that second guess, in particular, is true, then I think that your statement isn’t the real reason.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 9:59 am
The post itself isn’t by me; it’s by Carmen, of “All About Race.” (This comment is by me.)
I don’t have time to really contribute to this discussion right now, but I can’t resist responding to bad statistics. Ron wrote:
Following the link, I don’t find any figure given for unemployment, so Ron must have calculated unemployment from the other statistics available at that link The problem is, I don’t think Ron knows the correct way to calculate unemployment.
According to the .pdf file Ron links to, “The number of unauthorized migrants living in the United States has continued to increase steadily for several years, reaching an estimated 11.1 million based on the March 2005. … About 7.2 million unauthorized migrants were employed in March 2005, accounting for about 4.9% of the civilian labor force….”
Since 7.2 is 65% of 11.1, my guess is that this (or something very much like this this) is how Ron is getting his “1/3″ figure.
So what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong is, the figure of 11.1 million includes 1.8 million children, as well as many other people who aren’t in the labor force (such as stay-at-home mothers who are supported by their husbands and aren’t looking for work), and so shouldn’t be included in any calculation of unemployment.
Correctly calculated, the unemployment rate among immigrants is less than 5% — currently, immigrants are actually less likely than the rest of us to be unemployed. That figure includes both unauthorized and authorized immigrants, but there’s no reason to believe that unauthorized immigrants — who generally come to the US to work — are more likely to be unemployed than other immigrants.
By the way, let’s calculate the total US employment rate the same way I’m pretty sure Ron calculated his “1/3″ unemployment figure: Total US population is 303 million, while the total number of employed Americans is 146 million. So although “at least 1/3 of all illegal aliens are unemployed,” according to Ron’s definition, by the same definition 52% of all Americans are “unemployed. ”
So even if we calculate unemployment the way Ron did, unauthorized immigrants are significantly more likely to be working than the rest of the population.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Which is it? Are the pro-illegal-immigrant people debating the size of current assignments to the class of “illegal immigrants”, or are they debating the existence of the class? Those are two entirely different conversations to be having.
I really think that those two parts of the same conversation. The goal (or, perhaps, ideal) is to have completely open borders. But that’s never going to be achieved in one step, so it’s important to make clear why the current system is both illogical and unfair. Maybe we’ll never have completely open borders, but the ideal shouldn’t prohibit us from clarifying the discriminatory or illogical or unhealthy aspects of current policy. In fact, the ideal may be useful in attempts at clarifying the problems with immigration policy even if one doesn’t have open borders as their ultimate goal.
Because as soon as the answer is no–even just a little bit “no,” we’re going to have a class of people who we don’t want to be here, but who will do their best to get here.
This actually leads to a very interesting discussion of morals and ethics. For example, should we prohibit non-citizen criminals from entering the country while not deporting citizen criminals and stripping them of citizenship? Why is one less desirable than the other? What crimes should disqualify one from citizenship? Is merely breaking any law in the country of origin reason enough (as RonF seems to suggest)? Even if we in the US find the law broken to be abhorrent? Is it ethical to create an underclass of people by use of selective immigration laws and enforcement?
I’m not sure that this conversation can happen here, but I certainly think it is one worth having.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Are you sure that conversation can’t happen here? Because that is one damn interesting conversation to be having ;) and you seem like an interesting person to have it with.
That said, we’re clearly moving away from the intent (race) of the original post. So to avoid derailing, I have created a link to this post on my blog and anyone who wants to join in is invited to continue the discussion over there.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 10:47 am
The reason that I think that conversation can’t happen here is that it would require heavy moderation. If you want a good discussion of ethics and morals, you need to moderate out those who are adamant about their opinion being absolutely correct. You need to moderate out those who are more interested in winning a debate than having an in depth discussion about moral and ethical codes and the inevitable conflicts between what is ethically good and what realistically can be achieved.
Alas, for all the things that it is, is not heavily moderated.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I’m sick of this “I didn’t invite them” crap.
“I” didn’t want to wage a stupid, wasteful, ill-considered and poorly planned war in the Middle East, but America sure is doing that.
I don’t want to prosecute sex workers. But my town, county and state do that.
I don’t want to rape women, but my culture does that.
I didn’t want to hold millions of people in chattel slavery, kidnap them from their homes, ship them in deadly conditions across an ocean, and force them on pain of death to provide uncompensated agricultural labor to support an economy of cash crops. But America sure did that.
It’s more than a little silly to stand there, like my preschooler, with arms folded and refuse to deal with the consequences of what we did because “I wasn’t for it.”
We did what we did.
We have, tacitly by our policies, allowed employers to use undocumented immigrants as a cheap and easily intimidated workforce for decades. We’ve basically waived enforcement of immigration laws, in my view. Now that people have acted in reliance, uprooting their lives for economic opportunity based on our willingness to ignore enforcement in deference to the labor needs of American companies (whether I was for it or not), we have to deal with the situation as it stands. We have a bunch of people here that crossed the border illegally to work, when it was generally understood that crossing the border illegally was FUCKING TURNSTYLE JUMPING. Now some nativist zealots with either populist/nativist delusions of rising wages or simply a racist bone to pick want to treat border crossing like it was armed robbery.
And they say, when it was turnstyle jumping, “I didn’t welcome them.”
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
The Dred Scott comparison is a very interesting one. In general, I follow your point, but I have to offer that there is indeed a group of people in the country who are here illegally. Now, there are two ways we can deal with them, the humane and the strict-interpretation-of-the-law way. For arguing for the humane, I support you.
This comment was written by david.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Of course, the criminal act to which you are referring is entering or staying in the US. A horrible, horrible crime.
Do not presume to put words in my mouth. That’s the first crime. I don’t know if you are an American citizen or not. If so, shame on you for distorting the facts to fit your narrative. If you are not an American citizen, here’s what the crimes are.
1) Entering the United States without permission, or
1a) Entering the United States with permission and then violating the terms under which you were admitted.
This consumes extra tax money that has to be allocated to enforce the laws that are meant to prevent this. Every taxpayer is a victim of this crime. It also victimizes the people who followed the legal process to enter the United States.
Then:
If you do not obtain employment and are not being supported by someone else:
2) Obtaining public assistance that you are not entitled to via fraudulent means, cheating the taxpayer and reducing the amount of money available to people who actually are eligible for it.
2a) Committing whatever crimes are necessary to support yourself outside of either public assistance or honest employment.
If you do obtain employment
2) Obtaining a false Social Security number. When the illegal alien’s income is reported under that number, the real holder is prosecuted by the Internal Revenue Service for not reporting income, threatened with jail time and huge fines. Their credit rating is destroyed. The onus is on the victim to prove that they didn’t earn the money and store it where the IRS can’t see it, it’s not up to the IRS to prove that it was the victim and not someone else who actually had the income. The IRS is legendary for it’s lack of compassion and understanding. This causes huge problems and consumes a lot of time and money on the part of the victim of this crime that there is no way to recover.
3) Obtaining a false Drivers License (even if you don’t drive, it’s pretty much a universal ID in the United States, you have to show it to cash a check and for other reasons), and then committing fraud each and every time you use it.
4) Obtaining employment through fraudulent means (you have to be a citizen or a legal resident with the proper visa to legally hold a job), cheating the person who was legally eligible to apply for and hold that job.
Even if the illegal alien is employed, unless they have a high-enough income job that their taxes are more than the cost of the governmental programs they use (which is a lot less likely for illegal aliens than for citizens), there’s their and their dependents use of various public resources (governmental aid, health care, education) that they are not legally entitled to and that reduces the availability of those resources for citizens and legal residents.
Every day that an illegal alien wakes up, they’ve committed crimes before they go to bed.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Amp, I’ll grant your point regarding my use of the word “unemployed”. While it is technically correct, I agree that it was a poor choice as it could be confused with the word as it is used in the context of governmental unemployment figures. Consider my meaning to be “not employed” or “not working”.
As far as the proportions of people not working in the American public goes, that’s different. They are citizens. They have a right to be here. The obligations they have to the rest of the country and that the country has to them is much different than the obligations that the country has to people that snuck in here illegally.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I think this is a good idea. I’m all for open borders: anybody who wants to come can come and anybody who wants to leave can leave, but you cannot have open borders and a massive welfare state of the type that progressives are proposing. If you have open borders and a welfare state you are inviting in millions of people who will be a net drain on the system ( because many will be low-skilled and lack advanced education) and eventually bankrupt the welfare state.
As far as the idiom “illegal immigrant” goes, when I say that I mean exactly that–immigrants who come here illegally.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I think that the kind of moral absolutes that Robert and RonF deal in are luxuries of the very, very privileged.
How convenient of you to make presumptions about who I am, how I got that way and what “privilege” I have.
I’m pretty sure that they’d break the law, too, if their children were hungry and if they couldn’t see how breaking the law was going to hurt anyone.
Maybe so. But there’s way too much play in the assumptions underlying that statement to apply it to anyone or any particular situation, including the presumptions about what someone can see about how their actions affects someone else. Oh, and you might want to consider the implications of the phrase, “ignorance is no excuse”. One of the differences between adults and children is their understanding that it’s their responsibility to figure out how their actions affect other people.
They can condemn “looters” in New Orleans, because they have SUVs and know they’ll never be stuck in a flooded city with no food or clean water.
How convenient of you to put words in my mouth about the actions of desperate people in New Orleans without, of course, having a single clue about what my actual thinking is on the subject.
They can laugh at Mexican women who die from back alley abortions, because they know they’ll never be poor and pregnant in a country where abortion is illegal.
And here we have you making a monster of me, depicting me laughing at women dying of exsanguination or excruciating infections from perforated uteri.
People who sanctify “the law” are generally people who feel confident that the law will always favor their interests.
I sanctify the Lord. The laws of men and women have a worth and meaning, but not a holy one.
On the other hand, I pretty much disregard the opinions of people who participate in debates by creating lies about the other participants out of whole cloth so that they can fit them into the patterns of their own biases and stereotypes instead of trying to see their opponents as real people.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
“I” didn’t want to wage a stupid, wasteful, ill-considered and poorly planned war in the Middle East, but America sure is doing that.
I don’t want to prosecute sex workers. But my town, county and state do that.
Fair enough. But both are being done according to the law. The acts of illegal aliens are not.
I don’t want to rape women, but my culture does that.
B.S. Women are raped in all cultures. Cultures don’t rape women, rapists do.
I didn’t want to hold millions of people in chattel slavery, kidnap them from their homes, ship them in deadly conditions across an ocean, and force them on pain of death to provide uncompensated agricultural labor to support an economy of cash crops. But America sure did that.
Yup. And then America stopped doing that. Neither you nor I ever approved of that nor participated in it. I really don’t see how we are responsible for having done it and what the relevance is to this debate.
We have, tacitly by our policies, allowed employers to use undocumented immigrants as a cheap and easily intimidated workforce for decades. We’ve basically waived enforcement of immigration laws, in my view. Now that people have acted in reliance, uprooting their lives for economic opportunity based on our willingness to ignore enforcement
You are welcome to your view. I don’t see that the concept that putting a lack of the necessary resources to enforce the law against a group of people determined to break it justifies the criminals and their acts. It’s illegal to break into my home. If I leave it unlocked, a thief is justified in neither breaking in nor in keeping the goods he steals.
in deference to the labor needs of American companies
Needs? Desires, I can accept. It would seem many employers would rather turn a blind eye to the law and give their employees as little pay and benefits as possible. I well imagine that there are people on this blog who know a lot more about American labor history and law than I do and can talk about how this used to be done to American labor for decades or centuries. Did that justify giving the employers a pass on new laws protecting the labor force? Did it justify enforcing existing law more stringently and for past offenses?
Was it caused by the needs of American companies, or the desires of their owners to maximize profits on the backs of the American public? I say the latter, and I say that this desire does not excuse them or the people who snuck in here to take advantage of it. By calling these acts “needs”, it seems to me that you are minimizing the illegality of the self-serving acts of the U.S.’s wealthiest class. Again, hardly the position I’d expect to see on this blog.
we have to deal with the situation as it stands. We have a bunch of people here that crossed the border illegally to work, when it was generally understood that crossing the border illegally was FUCKING TURNSTYLE JUMPING. Now some nativist zealots with either populist/nativist delusions of rising wages or simply a racist bone to pick want to treat border crossing like it was armed robbery.
Actually, from what I can tell most of the current illegal aliens in the U.S. came here through processes that had and have a huge risk of loss of life and are nowhere near “turnstile jumping”.
I don’t know what nativist zealots or racists want. Nor do I want border crossing treated like it was armed robbery. But what I want is border crossing treated according to existing law; IIRC, the punishment for immigration law violation is a lot less stringent than what you get for armed robbery.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
In fact, the ideal may be useful in attempts at clarifying the problems with immigration policy even if one doesn’t have open borders as their ultimate goal.
I don’t know about that, Jake. If one does not accept “open borders” as an ideal, I’m not so sure that it’s all that useful in clarifying the problems with existing immigration policy.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
P.S., all: I imagine that this is going to go on for some time, but as it happens I’m soon going to be out of town until Sunday afternoon - I’ve got a trip to Philmont, and I’ll be in the backcountry and away from computers. And cell phones. And cars. And modern technology in general.
Sorry. I didn’t have the strength to stay away from this debate, but there’s non-refundable plane tickets and the opportunity to go where there’s more bears and antelope than people for a few days involved. And a chance to see the stars at night.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Yeah, I have enough money to manage the debt of going to school in Europe (the Netherlands tuition is actually a great deal, but England is pricey as hell. Too bad that I pretty much require a PhD and there aren’t so many places that teach my obscure interests).
I really like the suggestion that composers are a totally interchangable part. (”Eh, it’s all polka to me!”) That aside, it would be legal for me to gig if I weren’t in paperwork hell. I meet all of the qualifications to get a student visa, I’m just standing in the wrong country. I’m lucky in that I’ll be able to go to NYC soonish and sort it out.
For folks that are from half way around the world, a little paperwork screwup can be a huge deal. Somebody has problems with semesters not lining up, and suddenly they’re illegal and have to go half way around the world to work it out. Not everybody that studies overseas is rich. There’s a lot of financial aid out there, but even if they’re living off of savings, few have the budget to go home on sudden notice.
I’m not really worried about getting deported. Because I’m an American and because I’m white. Nobody gives my passport a second look. By contrast, a guy I know from Mexico just had to return home (voluntarily a day before they would have deported him) because he had finished his studies. Even though he’s married to a legal resident, who is also a student. The laws are different for folks that come from the US and for folks that come from Mexico. He and I both have the same educational background and class background, just different passports.
This comment was written by Les.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Ron, if you would prefer that people judge you by only your own words, I’ll oblige. In the Ireland thread, another commenter wrote and you responded:
For those not reading that thread, the topic was a town outside of Dublin that blocked 90 black children from the local schools and instead created a separate, segregated school to take them. The nominal issue is that Ireland may not want to be “multicultural.” But I don’t see how those kids can assimilate the color of their skin.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Jake Squid: Of course, the criminal act to which you are referring is entering or staying in the US. A horrible, horrible crime.
RonF: Do not presume to put words in my mouth. That’s the first crime. I don’t know if you are an American citizen or not. If so, shame on you for distorting the facts to fit your narrative. If you are not an American citizen, here’s what the crimes are.
1) Entering the United States without permission, or
1a) Entering the United States with permission and then violating the terms under which you were admitted.
Bwahaha! Is there really any other response to “I didn’t say that! I said exactly what you said I said.”
2) Obtaining a false Social Security number. When the illegal alien’s income is reported under that number, the real holder is prosecuted by the Internal Revenue Service for not reporting income, threatened with jail time and huge fines. Their credit rating is destroyed. The onus is on the victim to prove that they didn’t earn the money and store it where the IRS can’t see it, it’s not up to the IRS to prove that it was the victim and not someone else who actually had the income.
I hate to have to say that you’re full of crap, but you are. This statement is so false and so flies in the face of commonly reported fact that I can only believe that you’re lying.
If there is somebody else using your SS# for employment, chances are that you will never find out about it. SS taxes are collected on that income but not accrued to you. SS doesn’t report the fact that your SS# is being used by somebody else because they are legally prohibited from doing so. Since the SS admin doesn’t report the use to anybody, it never appears on your credit report.
However, if somebody is using your SS# to obtain credit you can have some big problems. Fortunately, people using a stolen SS# for use in procuring employment rarely fuck up your credit rating because they don’t want to get caught.
Here is one article on the issue: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/02/ss_secret_stash.html
After that sack of lies, I’m done interacting with RonF.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
In case anyone but Ron misunderstood, I was comparing the legal treatment of border crossing to turnstyle jumping; i.e. a lightly regarded and largely unpunished offense. I was not comparing the actual journey to turnstyle jumping.
Since he brought it up, though, once upon a time, it was an easy walk into the San Diego area, and an easy walk back. Only increased enforcement in the last few years has made the crossing an increadingly deadly journey through rugged, remote deserts or in desparate conveyances; an expensive and dangerous endeavor that, since nobody wants to repeat it, deters and undocumented from going home.
Ron, your comment on slavery makes my point. There is a population in this country that has had to deal, for their entire history here, with the consequences of slavery: the slave trade, and slave system, its Jim Crow successor that lasted until just forty years ago, and the continuing impacts of racism in American society. You seem to prefer to wash your hands of it, saying that you didn’t participate in it and didn’t approve of it. That, as I said, is like my preschooler folding his arms and pretending things were as he wished. Just because you didn’t choose the path that got us here doesn’t mean we’re not here. We are here. We have a huge population of undocumented immigrants, and that’s what the American economy and political system did. We have to deal with where we are: wishing that different decisions had been made earlier in our immigration story no more solves that problem then wishing we hadn’t had slavery solves the problem of racism.
Of course, a guy who thinks Ireland should quarantine black children to protect its culture is a tough customer to sell on the idea that those who benefit from the continuing consequences of slavery should do something to help fix the inequality.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I have to quit reading this discussion, since I’m freaking out that my own shaky immigration status will get me deported.
There’s a rally today (thursday) in Amsterdam to support the rights of undocumented immigrants. It’s at 13:00 near the city hall.
This comment was written by Les.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
1. It’s been said before: “We as a nation” didn’t invite illegal immigrants in. We as a nation invite LEGAL immigrants in via the legal immigration process. By definition, illegal immigrants are the ones who came to the US uninvited by “we as a nation.”
To be sure, some specific individuals – including individual US citizens – benefit from illegal immigration, just as some are harmed by it. That’s true of most crimes. I guess one could say that because a lot of crime occurs in the US, “we as a nation welcome crime.” I don’t know that it helps anyone’s understanding of the issues, though.
2. Even if “we as a nation” did invite people in to do various tasks, what has that got to do with receiving citizenship? If the nation of France hired me to paint a mural on their capitol building, I’d expect to get paid. Period. I wouldn’t expect to receive French citizenship. And I sure as hell wouldn’t expect to become subject to being drafted into their armed forces. Labor and citizenship are distinct concepts to me.
I sense that the author thinks it would be NICE to offer citizenship to the people who provide services to us. That’s a fine opinion; everyone’s entitled to their opinion. But if the statement is intended to reflect more than mere opinion, I’m not seeing it.
Yup, some laws look pretty bad in retrospect, and the fact that something violates the law does not render it immoral. Otherwise, I’m not sure I get the point of this list.
Nothing; it’s merely a statement about immigration status. Again, the fact that something’s illegal does not mean it’s immoral. I don’t hate illegal immigrants. But I do prefer legal immigration. So I don’t ignore the fact that illegal immigration is, well, illegal and renders the immigrant subject to sanction.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Acted in reliance on what, exactly? An expectation of receiving citizenship? Or an expectation of working as a member of a cheap and easily-intimidated workforce for decades without citizenship?
This is an interesting argument for maintaining the status quo and NOT granting citizenship. It’s a curious argument in the context of this discussion.
According to racist nativist zealot Jorge Borgas of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard:
- By increasing the labor supply between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of U.S.-born men by an estimated $1,700, or roughly 4 percent.
- Among those born in the United States who did not graduate from high school — roughly the poorest one-tenth of the work force — the estimated impact was even larger, reducing wages by 7.4 percent.
- The negative effect on U.S.-born black and Hispanic workers is significantly larger than on whites, because a much larger share of minorities are in direct competition with immigrants.
Racist nativist zealots Paul Krugman and Robert Reich have made similar arguments.
I haven’t found any proposals for increasing the penalties for illegal immigration to the penalties of armed robbery. Doubtless it’s being covered up by a conspiracy of racist nativist zealots. They’re everywhere.
To be clear, I read RonF to imply that Ireland DOES quarantine black children to protect its culture. I have not understood anyone to endorse the practice.
Finally, if we want to redress the harms of slavery, I can’t see why we’d want to adopt policies that tend to depress the wages of black Americans. Otherwise, the relationship between this discussion and slavery eludes me.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
nobody.really, I’ll respond at length later, but RonF was endorsing the practice, as I read it. He was clearly arguing for Ireland to guard its culture, saying that multiculturalism had produced poor examples elsewhere in Europe. That’s an endorsement, or at least an excuse.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
We are also one of the few (I won’t say only because I don’t know all the different national laws of the world) countries that gives birthright citizenry. Actually, we have the most lax immigration laws of almost any country.
With that said, laws are laws, like them or not. If you break a law, you should expect to be punished for it. I don’t like that my road is set at 35MPH, that doesn’t mean that I can just do 50MPH and expect to get away with it. We can vote to change laws, and if we successfully do that, then the new rules apply.
The point is that we shouldn’t encourage or accept people breaking laws, regardless of how we feel about said law. If we don’t like the law, then we change the law. I have noticed a few people argue on the grounds of state’s rights in relation to the topic of immigration. I find it amusing considering how often state’s rights are ignored.
My point? We should secure the hell out of our border. After that, it should be up to the states to decide what to do with illegals. What is true for the local labor market in Texas most likely isn’t the same in Arizona. The fed should assist the states, whatever they decide.
I do however, see a downside to all of this. Our labor pool is extremely resistant to automation of production and adding more pople to our labor pool with only prolong this resistance. I often imagine what it would have been like if we resisted textile mills as much as we’re resistant to robotic assembly lines.
This comment was written by Bryan.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Bryan-
‘Scuse me, non-citizen immigrants can vote?
If you ask me, anyone who can prove residency should be allowed to vote, citizenship status notwithstanding. That’s what democracy is, right? Everyone affected by the laws gets a say in those laws? Hasn’t much of our history involved marginalized groups fighting to move the American system closer to that ideal? We should be very careful not to reify the concept of citizenship, as it changes with the times and with the blood of oppressed peoples, and has historically and contemporaneously served as a tool that the powerful use to perpetuate white male supremacy. Just look at nobody.really’s conception of citizenship: citizens are subject to the draft. Isn’t there a fairly large group of people that definition excludes? [Women, for those of you playing at home].
This comment was written by Shira.Report this comment to the moderators
September 5th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Sorry, I didn’t mean to exclude anyone; I simply was not aware of any prohibition on drafting women. I know that the US has typically elected NOT to do so, but I don’t know that the US couldn’t choose to conduct the draft differently in the future.
I’m kind of fond of the idea that anyone who is affected by a government having a vote in it. That would pretty much eliminate much of the concept of citizenship, however, because damn near everyone would get a vote in damn near everything. Everyone in the world has an interest in how the US exercises its nuclear strength. Everyone has an interest in the depletion of the Amazon Rainforest. Everyone has an interest in the operation of any anything that produces air emissions – including, say, all mammals. Everyone has an interest in energy conservation, conceptually right down to how much time I’m wasting on the internet.
Not saying it would be a bad system, necessarily. But right off the bat, you could expect a lot of environmental, labor and other regulations to go out the window, because all politicians would need to start pandering to the Chinese; they control a quarter of all votes, you know. Given that the US is only about 5% of the world’s population, politicians could pretty much abandon campaigning here altogether. Which might not be all bad, either….
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 1:37 am
“The Chinese” are not a monolith beholden forever to the interests of the current multinational corporations that have most of the power in this specific sociopolitical context. Chinese workers are still human - what makes you think they would vote against fair labor standards in a system that gave them an equal voice?
Everyone does have an interest in the depletion of the Amazon rainforest - I’m not sure how this is an argument against giving influence to anyone who is affected by a certain policy. If everyone in Iraq had had one vote on the ’should the US blow Iraq up’ issue, surely their collective votes would have overridden the votes of the few who control the corporatized military-industrial complex.
Although frankly, it doesn’t seem like your argument is in good faith. We already have a jurisdictional system set up - my suggestion was to expand the influence of currently marginalized people living within and under this specific jurisdiction, not to expand the jurisdiction itself to include the entire planet. Those are two entirely different discussions.
This comment was written by Shira.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 2:01 am
If you have open borders and a welfare state you are inviting in millions of people who will be a net drain on the system ( because many will be low-skilled and lack advanced education) and eventually bankrupt the welfare state.
Because low-skilled workers who earn minimum wage don’t pay taxes.
Oh wait.
RonF n’em. (I’ll be referring to you anti-immigrant lot collectively for this): Why the fuck should you get to be a citizen just for being BORN here? That’s stupid. Why should so idiot motherfucker who just lucked into their parents being here when they got knocked up get to be American and thereby entitled to that largess?
No, EVERYONE has to pass the criminal background check. If you fail, we send you to a hellish moonscape of a land, like Australia.
In fact, let’s make citizenship contingent on actually providing something to the community: you’re only protected by the bill or rights if you’ve spent 3 years in public service (we’ll focus on serving as either an educator, a public worker, or a soldier) AND you’ve married and have a kid. Maybe tack an employment provision on there too. Why should anyone who isn’t contribuing to the perpetuation of this great nation allowed to benefit from it?
Of course, since you aren’t criminal for not having shot people for god and country or being sterile, we can go with plan B, instead of sending you to Perth (UGH.), you can just live in the Morlock Tunnels. Or we could just pass a No-Child-Left-Unconcieved law, making it illegal to not be a parent by a certain age.
This is a good plan. I like this plan. I think AMERICA likes this plan. Why do you hate America, RonF n’em?
This comment was written by karpad.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 6:40 am
Sailorman invited a calm discussion along these lines back at Post # 18. Inexplicably, Jake Squid immediately expressed doubts that such a topic could be addressed calmly in this forum. Go figure.
Here’s what I suggested in that discussion:
I find no inconsistency in refusing to admit immigrants with a background of antisocial behavior while not also adopting a practice of deporting people with a background of antisocial behavior for practical reasons. I understand ethics as reflecting context. In this context, to the extent that we face constraints in expelling people that we don’t face in admitting people, the two classes are not similarly situated.
In the absence of such constraints? Well, the relevant context would need to reflect the purpose of the state. If the state exists to promote the welfare of its citizens, for example, then we might well expect the state to discriminate between people who currently are citizens and people who currently aren’t. By the standards of the state’s purpose, these two classes would again not be similarly situated.
Now, to be sure, a state might well WANT to export its undesirables to the same extent that it excludes undesirables from other lands. England sent its undesirables to Australia and the New World; Castro allegedly sent his undesirables to the US in boat flotillas. I had never thought of the leaders of the countries defending these practices on the grounds of ethical even-handedness….
However, I could also imagine a state granting and retracting citizenship on the basis of “merit.” You might be expelled for antisocial behavior. Alternatively, you might be expelled simply because the Chinese now have access to the internet and you now have to compete against a billion more people who can file on-line applications for one of those coveted citizenship slots. It’d kinda be like being a member of a professional sports team or symphony: you’d never know when you might get cut from the team, replaced by a new rising star. And you’d never know if your mom or you kid might not make the cut. I might list a number of complaints to lodge against such a ruthlessly even-handed meritocracy, but unethical wouldn’t be one of them.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 7:49 am
I concede. If we assume we can grant a fair and equal vote to everyone regarding every policy that affects them, I’d guess that China would have more rigorous labor and environmental laws than it does now. So would the US, for that matter.
It isn’t. It’s merely an exposition of the consequences of a policy stating “[e]veryone affected by the laws gets a say in those laws….” In many ways I find such a policy admirable. But we would want to understand the policy’s implications.
I merely meant to illustrate that a policy stating “anyone who can prove residency should be allowed to vote” is not the same as a policy stating “[e]veryone affected by the laws gets a say in those laws….”
I argue, and Shria appears to agree, that this latter policy would have the effect of expanding the vote to the entire planet. So I don’t see two separate discussions here. Moreover, given that Shira says we should not “reify the concept of citizenship,” I don’t see the purpose of reifying the related concept of jurisdiction.
In short, I see merit in a policy of giving everyone in the world a vote on policies that affect them. But I could anticipate a lot of devils in the details, especially the devil of implementation. I also see the practicality of treating citizenship as membership in a club, and permitting only the members of the club to vote of club policy.
I’m not yet persuaded of the merits of causing all of a person’s rights, responsibilities and allegiances to change every time the person crosses a national boundary. Consider the draft example again: We might have concern for the plight of the Peruvian illegal immigrant in the US, but how much worse would his plight have been if he had been compelled to complete a citizen’s “national service obligation” in each of the nations through which he passed during his long journey north?
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Karpad: Hate to interrupt your frothing, barely coherent strawman rant, but let me bring up one point of fact: Low skilled minimum wage workers, in fact, DO NOT pay taxes, at least not income taxes. The tax code in this country is currently such that you have to be making a fairly significant yearly sum before you pay income taxes. And with the earned income tax credit most working poor get there’s a good chance that those low skilled minimum wage workers will get a check from the government that will exceed what they pay in payroll taxes as well.
But I’ve got a question for those of you who are both pro-immigration and, curiously enough, anti-American at the same time. Why? Why do you want innocent people from another country coming to this hellhole nation? If we’re such a neocon dictatorship of eroding human rights and freedoms ruled by a puppet president controlled by Haliburton, why would you want anybody from Mexico or anywhere else coming here to suffer with us? Mexico, particularly, has a socialist government and economic system right now. Isn’t that supposed to be perfect? You should be encouraging them to stay in paradise!
This comment was written by The Chief.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Strawman, much? I don’t believe you’re actually this stupid.
I do think that it’s worth noting that people come to the U.S. in search of economic opportunities, often because their local economies have been devastated by a global economic regime which insists that developing nations open up their markets for goods, while simultaneously protecting developed nations’ labor markets. If we’re going to have free trade, we should have free trade in labor as well as goods. And if powerful nations are going to protect their labor forces from competition, less-powerful nations should be allowed to protect their markets as well.
Edited, because I missed this:
And I wanted to preserve it for posterity in case you realized how ignorant it revealed you to be and edited it.
This comment was written by Sally.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Sally,
Dodge the question much? I DO believe you’re actually this disingenuous.
And for the record, there’s a difference between labor and goods. Goods get used up and dissapear. Labor–more specifically, people doing labor–stick around, have children, place a strain on social welfare systems if they don’t actually have the means to pay for those children, etc, etc.
This comment was written by The Chief.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
i’d like to add another voice to the “big grey zone between deportation and citizenship” chorus.
illegal aliens are criminals, by definition. by law, their crime is roughly felony level. we can debate how serious a crime it ought to be considered and what the proper punishment (if any) is, but short of forgetting the concept of “borders” entirely, it will continue to be a crime.
illegal aliens, by and large, aren’t bad people out to destroy the entire country. most of them only want a halfway decent job. making it possible for them to get that job legally and above-board would likely be a huge help for everybody, “them” and “us” alike.
but citizenship… that’s a whole other deal. that’s a much bigger deal, to me, as a legal immigrant. (my N-400 is in processing, currently.) i can see letting illegals adjust status to permanent resident, i can see any number of work-permit-only “amnesty” schemes. but letting somebody whose first interaction with the country was a demonstration that they don’t much care for our border control laws (which implicitly are part of the citizenship control structure) gain citizenship, would to me dramatically devalue U.S. citizenship. i’m not about to agree with that. the passport ought to be taken much more seriously than that.
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
… letting somebody whose first interaction with the country was a demonstration that they don’t much care for our border control laws (which implicitly are part of the citizenship control structure) gain citizenship, would to me dramatically devalue U.S. citizenship.
Look at that. It’s the same argument that is used against SSM. Citizenship (or marriage) would be devalued for me if we allow people I deem unworthy to have it. Even though I would still enjoy the exact same privileges, rights and responsibilities and citizenship (or marriage) is not a finite resource.
I have to admit that I really wasn’t expecting that.
edited to add:
Since this already happens on a regular basis (and through several large amnesties over the decades), I guess US citizenship is already greatly devalued to you. Does this mean that you won’t become a US citizen? Or does the fact that all those millions “whose first interaction with the country was a demonstration that they don’t care much for our border control laws” do not change your rights, responsibilities and privileges play a stronger role and cancel out your estimated devaluation of US citizenship?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
The Chief wrote:
Warned about rudeness in the past; clearly the warning did not take; banned.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Jake, is there anybody you wouldn’t want to have U.S. citizenship? can you think of any act whatsoever that ought to preclude naturalization, and if so, what is it? i’m trying to find out if we have even the slightest common ground here, or if any sort of communication is impossible.
why are you blithely comparing homosexuality to breaking immigration laws? do you seriously claim the two are even the slightest bit alike? for that matter, why are you comparing marriage to citizenship? those aren’t cognate either.
and, since what already happens on a regular basis — illegal aliens naturalizing to citizenship? if that is indeed happening, then the USCIS is very severely failing to do their job. possible, of course, and would indeed devalue U.S. citizenship in my eyes, but i’ll need more than just your word for it, thanks.
past amnesties may or may not have been good ideas, but they largely happened before i ever arrived in country; they certainly all happened before i had any legal say in whether or not they ought to have happened (as i still do not have any such say). it’s quite possible that one or more of them harmed the value of citizenship (would you say U.S. citizenship has any value, Jake? if so, would you say there’s any way at all by which that value could be harmed or reduced? again, i’m trying to find common ground here), but i would have been unable to argue against them, and the past is the past.
the 1986 amnesty, i note, adjusted illegals to permanent resident status, and not to citizenship. i wouldn’t be averse to such an amnesty, provided that future citizenship was denied to people covered by the amnesty. the 1986 act was too lenient, in my eyes, only in that one respect; permanent residency and permission to work are not at all unreasonable things to grant someone who has violated no laws other than the immigration laws.
but breaking the immigration laws ought to have some punishment associated with it, some consequence above just a wagging finger and a tut-tut. if you can break those laws and not even be denied citizenship, then who could ever take the immigration laws the least bit seriously? what use would they be, any longer? (or are you arguing that we ought not have any restrictions on immigration whatsoever?)
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
why are you blithely comparing homosexuality to breaking immigration laws?
I’m not. Read what I wrote again and you may, if you pay careful attention, see that I am comparing your argument against allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens to the arguments of the anti-SSM crowd. Your argument and their argument are remarkably similar.
Jake, is there anybody you wouldn’t want to have U.S. citizenship?
That isn’t the correct question based on our interaction thus far. The correct question would be “Is there anybody who, by becoming a US citizen, would devalue your US citizenship?” I can happily answer that the same way I would answer the question, “Is there anybody who, by getting married, would devalue your marriage?” That happy and easy answer is, “No.”
… illegal aliens naturalizing to citizenship? if that is indeed happening, then the USCIS is very severely failing to do their job.
Of course that’s been happening. That’s how my grandparents became citizens.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
the argument style is similar, yes. so what? the subjects being argued about are sufficiently dissimilar that an argument style that’s invalid when applied to one of them may still be valid when applied to the other.
if you’re merely making an observation about my argumentation style, without any implication that i’m somehow wrong because the same style of argument is bad when applied to a completely different subject, then what’s your point?
yes, there are people who, by becoming U.S. citizens, would devalue my (future) citizenship; people who began their road to citizenship by knowingly, deliberately, violating the law. this devalues citizenship by stating, in effect, that obeying the law is not an important part of being a citizen. and if obeying the law is not important to citizenship, then why shouldn’t i simply steal a natural-born’s identity and use that for my U.S. citizenship…?
we strip significant parts of citizenship (the franchise, the right to arms) from people who sufficiently badly break the law; we shouldn’t give citizenship to people who break the law, either. being a good citizen, being good citizenship material, just plain involves obeying the law as a necessary element.
and i’m sorry to say, if your grandparents immigrated against the immigration laws of their day, they should not in my opinion have been granted citizenship. permanent residency, quite possibly, or whatever equivalent of it the law may have had at the time; but citizenship ought to matter more than that. (if it doesn’t, what’s the point of having citizenship? if the passport is so blithely given to just anybody, why should anybody respect it or want it?)
[...yeesh, i should know better by now than to talk politics with americans. every time i do, they send me into this depressive funk that makes me seriously reconsider my decision to immigrate to this badly fucked-up country in the first place... if they don't even care about this place, why should i give a damn for it?]
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Here are some questions for you. While I was a child my parents went through a long ardouous process to become legal citizens of this country. We were “resident aliens” for years and they worked shit jobs until we were naturalized and my dad could get into a union. They were so proud the day they took their oath because they had earned it. What do you want to say to them?
As a mother I have watched my daughters public high school deteriorate and her academic choices dwindle because there are not enough resources to accommodate all the non-english speaking students who flood in every year. What do you have to say to me and other similarly situated parents whose taxes go up every year while services decline?
And lastly, I am an attorney who had the importance of respect for the law as a foundation of civilized society pounded into me for three long years. Please explain how this particular situation merits an exception to the rule?
This comment was written by Ice Nine.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Nomen,
Let me break it down for you. Your logic is identical to the logic of those opposed to SSM. That is to say that both you and the anti-SSMers claim that something that is not a finite resource is devalued (in some unspecified and unsubstantiated manner) if a class of people that you (subjectively) deem unworthy is allowed access to that resource. I can’t make it any clearer than that. If you can’t understand that the two arguments are the same, there’s no point in talking to you.
… this devalues citizenship by stating, in effect, that obeying the law is not an important part of being a citizen.
So do those who break the speed limit laws devalue citizenship? If so, you may want to reconsider your desire to become a US citizen as I can assure you that well over 50% of US drivers break those laws on a regular basis. If not, why is immigration law more important than driving laws?
… we strip significant parts of citizenship (the franchise, the right to arms) from people who sufficiently badly break the law…
And I believe that that is wrong. Also, as a side note, “we” don’t strip significant parts of citizenship - some states do and some states don’t. Should we then allow illegal immigrants to become US citizens in some states and not in others?
… if they don’t even care about this place, why should i give a damn for it?
I read this statement and I think to myself, “Is Nomen an idiot or an asshole?” We were having this discussion precisely because I do care. But I really don’t need to waste time with somebody who makes statements like that.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
see, if you’d just have stated that up front, i would have realized that we have no common ground whatsoever and cannot hope to communicate effectively. then i could have written you off and saved the both of us the time and trouble.
(i know you understand that some laws are more important than others; every adult does. so the problem must logically be that you don’t think immigration laws matter, at least not more than barely, in some negligible nominal sense. and there’s no getting from there to where i am, nor have i any desire to find out if there’s any way to get from me to you. have a nice day.)
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
karpad Writes:
The taxes that they pay do not cover the cost of their living expenses.
You average low skilled worker gets assistance from the government in the form of health care ( Medicaid), cash assistance, food stamps and other pograms to help the needy, not to mention the cost of attendance by the low wage worker’s children in publicly funded schools, which also includes subsidized lunch and other necessities for their children. All of these costs add up and the amount of money that a low wage worker pays into to the system by taxes does not cover the average cost of all of the benefits he or she receives.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I won’t speak to whether easing prohibitions on illegal immigration “devalues” citizenship in some philosophical sense. Let me address the economic sense.
I can see two routes a foreigner might consider when seeking to come to the US: legal and illegal. People choose which option to pursue given the anticipated costs and benefits of each option, and each person’s own personal circumstances. If we reduce the expected costs of immigrating illegally (through lax enforcement of immigration laws and lighter penalties), I would expect a smaller percentage of immigrants would choose to bear the costs of immigrating legally. Conversely if we increase the expected cost of immigrating illegally (through stricter enforcement and harsher penalties), I would expect a larger percentage to pursue the legal option.
In that sense, lax enforcement of immigration laws could be understood as prompting a lower percentage of immigrants to pursue immigration by legal means – that is, causing them to “value” legal immigration less than if we enforced immigration laws more rigorously.
To some extent the analogy to same sex marriage seems inapt. While governments in the US do not limit the number of marriage licences they issue in any given year, I understand the US does limit (more or less) the number of immigrants it accepts for citizenship each year. Getting a marriage licence is simply a ministerial matter, entailing very little doubt, expense or delay; you already know whether or not you meet the requirements. Getting citizenship involves a lot of doubt, expense and delay; vastly more people qualify for US citizenship than will ever receive it. Being approved for citizenship is akin to winning the lottery; getting a marriage licence is akin to registering your car for licence plates.
Here’s perhaps a better analogy: Imagine gay Max lives his whole life in a loveless heterosexual marriage because he wanted to enjoy the benefits of marriage yet he firmly believes that marriage is an institution exclusively for couples of different sexes. Having experienced a lifetime of sexual and emotional frustration, “chump” would not adequately describe Max’s feelings when same-sex couples lacking any legal standing started enjoying the same benefits of marriage that he received.
Similarly, someone who incurs the cost, delay and doubt of “playing by the rules” to receive citizenship might feel like a chump if illegal immigrants start receiving the same benefits.
In short, there’s an element of envy there, a sense that somebody got something you had to work hard for, but got it without making the same sacrifices. In contrast, when the Christian Coalition crowd complains that same-sex marriage devalues marriage, I don’t think that they’re expressing envy for people who are entering same-sex relationships. Then again, who knows? That could explain a lot of things about the Christian Coalition crowd….
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
All of these costs add up and the amount of money that a low wage worker pays into to the system by taxes does not cover the average cost of all of the benefits he or she receives.
This is another mindset that I will never understand. The wealthiest people in this society, the ones with the most access to resources, who control most of the income in our economy (for whatever reason, including the luck of being born to rich parents) are by definition getting more out of the “the system” than they are putting in. It’s from a different part of “the system,” to be sure, but if we’re talking about “the system” in the aggregate, begrudging someone struggling to get by on minimum wage their child’s publicly-funded education while ignoring the corporate welfare that allows a CEO to send his kid to private school gets pretty far into “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread” territory.
And the people who work 80 hours a week and STILL don’t have enough to live on are clearly getting out much less than they are putting in - at least, they are getting out much less than the wealthy CEO who puts in an equivalent number of hours at the office, who is in turn getting out less than any of the Walton heirs. Given the way you are constructing this get out/put in ratio, the only people who are not a “drain on the system” are the very people who ARE draining all the resources out of the system! Which, of course, means you are just using “the system” as a euphemism for “the rich.”
The bottom line is that if you want everyone to get as much out of the system as they put in, you have to eliminate income/wealth inequality first, not demand that the poor accept their degraded station in life. But this line of reasoning seems downright outraged that the poor have children and get sick and need food as if they were human, as if they had the right, and the apparent conclusion - that if we get rid of public services for people who can’t afford it, poverty will be solved (presumably a miracle happen somewhere along the way that will cause the poor to cease to be human) - is magical thinking at best, repugnant, Neomalthusian, inhumane garbage at worst.
This comment was written by Shira.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
there’s an element of envy in my position, to be sure, and i’m not going to deny it. given the years of worry and effort i had to go through before i could even file for naturalization (and who knows if it’ll be granted… or what might happen to me if it’s not) i think i’d have to be superhuman not to feel pissed off at any suggestion that somebody else might get to “cut in line”.
but there’s also an element of respect for the laws in there. part of me knows the only reason i bothered with that effort and uncertainty was that i thought the laws of the land did matter, that they were worth obeying, even at the cost of personal inconvenience. the suggestion that those laws might get thrown out the window and violations of them ignored is, i think, even worse than any envy.
mind you, i could put up with having those laws officially repealed if that’s what U.S. society at large decided was the right thing to do. if the message being sent me was something like, “sorry you wasted all that time, effort and money; it was a wrong thing we made you do, we see that now, and we won’t put any more people through that unjust wringer. our apologies”, then yeah, i could live with the borders being completely open. i might not agree with it, i might think such a decision was stupid, but it wouldn’t seem unjust.
letting certain classes and/or groups of people wholly ignore the laws, at random intervals of several years, with no consequences for their having violated said laws in the interim — that seems unjust. that seems to me like society just begging me to disrespect the law. it’s not a good feeling when you start to suspect that obeying the law is something society at large considers stupid and naive, and it seems to me that having such a mentality become too widespread could even be dangerous in some sense.
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
While governments in the US do not limit the number of marriage licences they issue in any given year, I understand the US does limit (more or less) the number of immigrants it accepts for citizenship each year.
You’re missing my point in two ways. First off, I wasn’t comparing the two issues, I was comparing the logic of the two arguments. Secondly, Nomen wasn’t complaining about too many grants of citizenship, Nomen was saying that allowing someone who breaks the law (but, apparently, not any law - some laws are more equal than others?) to gain citizenship “devalues” (in some still unspecified & unsubstantiated manner) citizenship itself.
Tangentially, there really is no limit to the number of citizens (given that 100% of children of US citizens will be citizens) just as there is no limit to the number of marriages. By the same token, neither marriage nor citizenship is a resource. Rather, it is a status (for lack of a better word coming to mind). Citizenship does not exhaust a supply of anything - it confers privileges, rights and responsibilities. Given that those privileges, rights and responsibilities take nothing tangible out of circulation, how can either citizenship or marriage be “devalued”? They have the same value no matter whether you are the only person with it or everybody has it or just some percentage of the population has it. “It” is a status, not a tangible thing.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Shira Writes:
The wealthiest people, and of course the middle class, are the ones creating the most jobs and putting the most into the system. So what is wrong with them benefiting from the system that they are paying for?
I’m not begrudging anyone anything. I’m simply stating the facts. In a capitalistic economy everybody can’t be rich and the poor/working middle class will have to be subsidized to some extent. .
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Jake, one big problem with your “these positions are similar” argument is that gays are denied marriage because of who they ARE, while illegal aliens are denied admission because of what they DO. Big difference.
Similarly, marriage itself doesn’t give much of a competitive benefit. Nor does it allow people the ability to access others’ resources; to have a say in others’ affairs, etc. It’s a fairly private thing, which is one of the main reasons that opposition to marriage is so ludicrous. I mean really, who gives a shit who’s married?
OTOH, citizenship is, while not a finite resource, one in which adding members effectively devalues the position of the remaining citizens. Think for instance about voting. Were there only ten of us, I’d control a full 10% of the vote. As a citizen (in my personal case) who pays more than my share or the tax burden, more citizens are not beneficial.
There is one country-sized pie. Unless a new person at the table adds enough pie, then their slice means less for me.
Citizenship also implies a shared interest in the country. you may disagree on how we should spend our taxes, and whether we should go to war, but if you’re a citizen of the country then you, too, actually get a say in it, and are affected by it. Again: vastly different from marriage. the arguments are similar to such a small degree it’s not worth making the connection.
But in any case: now, you seem to be spending more time trying to posit argument examples than talking about the actual subject. So let’s go back to the subject. I, too, am interested in your response to the question:
Should there be anyone who is denied U.S. citizenship? If so, who?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
I understand Jamila Akil to make an argument about adverse selection which arises in any insurance situation. Citizens in industrialized nations create “social safety nets” wherein they insure each other against some level of coercion, fraud, poverty, etc. and pay for this insurance roughly in proportion to their wealth. Some people receive more than they pay in, some pay more than they receive, but in the long run the pay-outs match the pay-ins. That’s the way insurance works.
As a closed system, it can be stable. As an open system, it will be stable if the net pay-outs and net pay-ins remain in balance. But if you inject into the system a population that you can predict will take more than it pays, the system can go bankrupt. You will need additional revenues or reduced outlays to maintain a balance.
I don’t see anything outrageous in this assertion; it looks like mathematics to me.
I understand Jamila Akil to make the assumption that there are limits on how many resources can be dedicated to a social safety net. Having eliminated the idea of solving the problem through acquiring additional revenues, the only way to reconcile this situation is to seal the boarders (creating a closed system) or reduce the outlays, ultimately down to zero. The latter is, as I understand it, the libertarian ideal.
I understand Shira to make the assumption that there are no limits to how many resources can be dedicated to a social safety net. The solution to the problem is to eliminate the income/wealth inequality first, so that people immigrating to a country are as likely to be net payers as net recipients. But if we don’t limit immigration first, this would require eliminating inequality throughout the world; otherwise the injection of needier immigrants from some part of the world could always threaten the system’s stability. Dedication of all the world’s resources to the creation of a social safety net is, as I understand it, the Communist ideal.
I don’t expect to find reconciliation here any time soon. But, for what it’s worth, here’s an interesting Power-Point presentation on the sustainability of a liberal immigration policy.
I suspect practical remedies lie somewhere in between. Yes, we want some level of social safety net for our nation, but I doubt that we are willing (or even able?) to provide the same standard of living for the whole world. Thus we must be mindful of the consequences of immigration on our social safety nets, which necessitates limiting immigration to some extent.
From this perspective, the question is not “Who should be denied citizenship?” Denial is the default assumption. The question is “For whom should the default assumption of denial be waived?”
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Should there be anyone who is denied U.S. citizenship? If so, who?
Off the top of my head… Those who seek the destruction of the US should be denied citizenship. Those who pose a danger to residents of the US should be denied citizenship.
Where one determines the threshold is up for debate.
However, a system in which immigrants are enticed with better paying jobs and more security (the economy depends on illegal labor - everyone from corporate giants such as Walmart & Big Agro down to independent contractors make big money utilizing illegal labor) while creating a law so that we can selectively prosecute is immoral.
If we were to actually enforce immigration laws as they exist, we would see the economy take a big hit and taxes go up to pay for the mechanisms of enforcement.
Given that, I have a hard time holding immigrating illegally against people.
But, if you’ve read my (semi-educated) proposals on immigration in other threads on this blog, you know that I believe in some requirements for citizenship.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
The wealthiest people, and of course the middle class, are the ones creating the most jobs and putting the most into the system. So what is wrong with them benefiting from the system that they are paying for?
Clearly, they are benefiting from the system, more than the poor/working class. That was my point.
I’m not begrudging anyone anything. I’m simply stating the facts. In a capitalistic economy everybody can’t be rich and the poor/working middle class will have to be subsidized to some extent.
If an impoverished working class is a feature, not a bug, of capitalism, then surely the workers are creating wealth just as much as the wealthy are creating jobs. And it’s unfair to turn around and treat the poor as this useless subhuman (or irritatingly human, more accurately, with obnoxiously human needs) drain on what otherwise would be a happy, healthy and wealthy society.
This comment was written by Shira.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Clearly, they are benefiting from the system, more than the poor/working class.
But is that really true?
They are certainly living a better life than the poor, for the most part. Would they be living a worse life, relative to the poor, under a different system?
Under most systems, rich people (however that is defined in the particular culture) have pervasive and genuine advantages. It seems at least plausible that this is a systemic property of wealth, rather than a systemic property of particular social systems.
If that’s the case, then rich people aren’t getting more out of the system. They’re getting more out of the universe - and fiddling with systems isn’t going to get rid of the inequality. They’re benefiting from their wealth, not from the innate social structure.
Now, under one system or another, a particular group of people might be or might not be wealthy. That might make for a real social change from a change in system. But I suspect - admittedly without evidence other than my own native reason and life experience - that whatever the new system, there will still be rich people, and they will still have big advantages over the little folk.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
, then surely the workers are creating wealth just as much as the wealthy are creating jobs.
Neither is axiomatically true. There are jobs which do not create wealth (although not usually for very long), and there are forms of wealth that do not imply or cause employment.
I agree that poor people should not be thought of as human refuse; poor people, like rich people, are the Body of Christ. That doesn’t necessarily make them economically productive, though.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
“New laws are not needed for this; what’s needed is the will to enforce existing laws. Ironically, the most effective way to do this is be to go after American citizens; the ones that are employing illegal aliens. This could be the CEO of the company that owns the meat packing plant in Iowa filled with illegal aliens (and that is now filled with American citizens after ICE raided the place; it turns out that Americans DO want those jobs). This could be the guy who lives next door to me. I say “could be” because I don’t know the citizenship status of the crew that mows his lawn and cleans the leaves off his yard (in part by blowing them onto mine, but that’s a separate issue …). Throw some CEO’s ass in jail and you’ll see the illegal alien problem dwindle quickly. We won’t have to deport them; they’ll leave, because they won’t be able to get jobs.”
This is, I would think, the most optimal solution. We want to see illegal immigration abate, but we also don’t want existing illegal immigrants to be treated like violent criminals along the way. (Ostensibly to “send a message” - in which case sending a message looks suspiciously similar to political pandering to racists.)
“The goal (or, perhaps, ideal) is to have completely open borders.”
Yes - when every nation adopts basically the same systems of government and domestic policies. Otherwise, this ‘openness’ is going to be incredibly one-sided.
“Mexico, particularly, has a socialist government and economic system right now.”
I’m at a loss for words. Wow.
“The taxes that they pay do not cover the cost of their living expenses.
You average low skilled worker gets assistance from the government in the form of health care ( Medicaid), cash assistance, food stamps and other pograms to help the needy, not to mention the cost of attendance by the low wage worker’s children in publicly funded schools, which also includes subsidized lunch and other necessities for their children. All of these costs add up and the amount of money that a low wage worker pays into to the system by taxes does not cover the average cost of all of the benefits he or she receives.”
Your average low skilled *illegal immigrant*, on the other hand, cannot receive most forms of government assistance. For one thing, they lack any form of legal identification.
If this is an argument for not allowing poor illegal immigrants the same benefits that poor citizens get, then I agree with you. I’m just not entirely sure where you’re going with this.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Under most systems, rich people (however that is defined in the particular culture) have pervasive and genuine advantages. It seems at least plausible that this is a systemic property of wealth, rather than a systemic property of particular social systems.
Accumulation of wealth is the pervasive and genuine advantage that this particular social system imbues on the wealthy. You can’t separate “getting wealth out of the system” from the equation only for the rich if you are going to turn around and use the income that the poor get out of the system via subsidized healthcare, welfare, etc. as a metric of what they are getting out of the system. Which brings me back to my initial argument: that the rich are getting more out of “the system” than the poor almost definitionally - they just get it out of a different part of the system (namely, the part that allows them to profit off the labor of the poor).
Now, under one system or another, a particular group of people might be or might not be wealthy. That might make for a real social change from a change in system. But I suspect - admittedly without evidence other than my own native reason and life experience - that whatever the new system, there will still be rich people, and they will still have big advantages over the little folk.
Before I respond, I want to make sure I’m reading this correctly. Are you really arguing that you cannot attribute the generation of income and wealth to a particular system - that whether someone is wealthy or poor has nothing to do with the current social structure? You seem to be arguing for something like a caste system, where there is an immutable class of “the poor” who should simply accept poverty, and not try to get out of “the system” what rightfully belongs to the upper-castes. But maybe I am misreading you.
This comment was written by Shira.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Your average low skilled *illegal immigrant*, on the other hand, cannot receive most forms of government assistance. For one thing, they lack any form of legal identification.
True. But illegal immigrants do get Medicaid and if they have children who were born here then those children are eligible for all the same benefits as the rest of the citizens.
If this is an argument for not allowing poor illegal immigrants the same benefits that poor citizens get, then I agree with you. I’m just not entirely sure where you’re going with this.
You hit the nail on the head, that’s all I was trying to say.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
You’re misreading me. Some systems have more mobility than others, but “rich” and “poor” are characteristics that are measured, not innate.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
nobody.really Writes:
Nobody.really said exactly what I was trying to say but said it about 10 times clearer than I did.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
You’re misreading me. Some systems have more mobility than others, but “rich” and “poor” are characteristics that are measured, not innate.
So if rich and poor are relationally defined, I don’t see what the problem is with trying to reduce the distance between these two groups via progressive taxation and a large social safety net. The whole idea that poor people are receiving more in benefits than they are putting into the system via taxes ignores the people who receive more in benefits from profit than they pay in to the system via wages to their workers and benefits for those workers. Which seems to me to be incredibly one-sided, especially since it necessarily ignores the value of the work that the poor put into the system that gets translated into the income of the wealthy that we’re not considering as being taken ‘out of the system.’
We need to acknowledge that there are more ways to contribute to a system than tax money, and more ways to drain the system than social services. Otherwise we just get the macro version of “I paid for all this stuff so why should my lazy ex (who put in 20 years of unpaid domestic and reproductive labor so that I could be single-mindedly focused on my career) get any of it!”
This comment was written by Shira.Report this comment to the moderators
September 7th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Shira Writes:
You discourage people who have the potential to become rich from doing so: Why would I take huge risks and work longer and harder to become successful when it will be taken away from me to support those less successful?
You discourage those who are poor from helping themselves: Why should I do anything to pull myself up from poverty when either way I will live the same quality of life as the hard-working self-sacrificing person next door?
And if poor people have no incentive to work harder and improve their lives and those with the potential to be successful have no incentive to do so either, you end up with everyone doing as little as they can. You can examine the formerly communist countries to see how all this regression to the mean leads to a stagnant economy and a population that avoids working too hard to accomplish anything.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 7th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Shira Writes:
This comparison doesn’t work. The arrangement between a stay-at-home mom ( or dad) who raises the children and the spouse is a voluntary and personal relationship; either person can leave the arrangment by divorce and they were each free to never have entered the arrangement in the first place.
The relationship between people who don’t know each other in the general economy, but are forced to take part in income redistibution, is a non-voluntary and impersonal one: Why should I have my money forcibly taken away from me to give to people I don’t know and whom I have little desire to help?
The social safety net requires some involuntary impersonal redistribution of money from the rich to the poor to maintain the net for the benefit of all people, but this is still nothing like the voluntary and personal redistribution of money that occurs within families.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 7th, 2007 at 8:15 am
“if poor people have no incentive to work harder and improve their lives and those with the potential to be successful have no incentive to do so ”
The above takes 2 things as given: 1) that working harder improves poor people’s lives and 2) that the potential to be successful can be realised merely by applying oneself. Both are demonstrably false: most poor people on the planet work a fuck of a lot harder than most of the richest people. Being poor isn’t caused by people choosing to not work. In fact, “choosing to be lazy” has never at any time in history been the primary reason for poverty, or even one of the bigger reasons. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m getting really bored by the constant assertions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that it is.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
September 7th, 2007 at 9:08 am
The above takes 2 things as given: 1) that working harder improves poor people’s lives and 2) that the potential to be successful can be realised merely by applying oneself.
Actually what it takes as given are that 1) not working hard will never improve your life and 2) the potential to be successful cannot be realized without applying oneself.
There are no guaranteed positive outcomes; nothing will lock you into success. There are guaranteed negative outcomes; there are things you can do which will (nearly) automatically cause your failure.
Therefore, incentives matter, even if they do not guide every person who does the “right” behavior to utopia every single time.
Both are demonstrably false: most poor people on the planet work a fuck of a lot harder than most of the richest people.
That’s probably true. But for most poor people on the planet (the vast majority, in fact), the majority of their relative poverty is not caused by their own personal lack of hard work; the majority of their relative poverty is caused by their bad luck in being born in countries with systems that do not build wealth as effectively as capitalism does. You can be born into dire grinding poverty in Mogadishu or in Montreal. In one of those places, hard work and some luck can result in a transformation of your life. In the other place, hard work and some luck can result in subsistence survival.
Is it guaranteed? No. Nothing good in life is guaranteed.
In fact, “choosing to be lazy” has never at any time in history been the primary reason for poverty, or even one of the bigger reasons.
I agree. Choosing to be lazy is rarely the reason that a person falls into dire poverty. The discomforts that attend dire poverty are usually more than sufficient to prevent that; even the lazy guy would rather work and have a roof than not work and live rough.
That said, within the same population and the same country under the same economic system, hard work is significantly more likely to lead to the OPPOSITE of poverty than laziness is. J.K. Rowling was not lazy; she worked her ass off while on welfare to write her book, and got rich. J.L. Dowling, her doppelganger, identical in every way but blessed with an attitude of “tomorrow will be soon enough”, never got around to writing the book. She’s still on welfare. She didn’t go on welfare in the first place because she’s lazy, but laziness surely isn’t making it any easier for her to get off.
Luck is important. Innate talent is important. Circumstances are important. None of the significance of those things takes away from the fact that, ceteris parabus, working hard and seizing opportunities is more likely to lead to success than doing nothing is. You can be as bored with that as you like, but it will remain true.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 9th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I said:
To which Jake Squid replied:
I hate to have to say that you’re full of crap, but you are. This statement is so false and so flies in the face of commonly reported fact that I can only believe that you’re lying.
Lying, eh? Tell it to one Ms. Nancy Law
So, here we have an example of precisely the circumstance I described, the one that it seems to me you described as a “lie”. An illegal alien started using her SSN. The IRS started dunning her for unpaid taxes, it appeared in her credit report (it’s not specifically stated here, but trust me, if the IRS is on your case it doesn’t exactly help your credit rating), and she’s having to do a whole lot of legwork to clean up her records.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 10th, 2007 at 8:49 am
RonF earlier:
Obtaining a false Social Security number. When the illegal alien’s income is reported under that number, the real holder is prosecuted by the Internal Revenue Service for not reporting income, threatened with jail time and huge fines. Their credit rating is destroyed.
Strangely, this claim is not at all supported by the link provided by RonF. Rather, the article (which is not the original, but a repost of a Denver Post article - I am unable to find the original online) tells us that :
Polite but firm, the letters urged the fifth-grade teacher to pay the extra taxes she owed on those little jobs she did on the side — working at the textile plant in Missouri and the tortilla factory in Denver.
Nowhere in the link provided by RonF (as he tried to flimsily support his lies) is there a mention of, “the real holder [being] prosecuted by the Internal Revenue Service for not reporting income, threatened with jail time and huge fines.”
Here is the inconvenience and pain caused to Ms. Law:
Instead, she devoted days every year to cleaning up her credit and tax records. The first Internal Revenue Service letter about unpaid taxes arrived in 1998. As Morales changed cities and jobs, Law got similar letters each year.
The horror! The threats detailed here are unconscionable, aren’t they? And right in line with the claims of RonF., too.
And look at how angry the Laws were at the people who had used their SS#:
“These are probably very hard- working people that are trying to get by. They’ve found gaps and loops in the system and are trying to get through those gaps and loops,” Law’s husband, Rich, said of Morales and other immigrants.
Clearly, the Laws were terrorized by the situation and angry at the criminals who had stolen Ms. Law’s SS#.
Well, I’m sure I’ll resume wasting my time interacting with RonF. soon. Just after I become expert on the lute.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 10th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Right, Jake. Because if you don’t convince the IRS that it isn’t you doing it, they won’t prosecute. They’re cool about that. You just say “Jake says it’s all right”, and they close the file.
Here’s a lady who got a back tax bill for more than 15 grand, spent more than four hours in detention when another illegal committed a felony under her identity, and was out of work for a month because an employer couldn’t clarify her status owing to the more than 200 false tax documents filed under her number.
Those are probably all lies, too. After all, the woman eventually got the job, and was released after the four hours, and was able eventually to convince the IRS that she didn’t owe the 15 grand. So no harm done. It didn’t hurt her. And anyone who says it did is a filthy liar.
(Eyeroll.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 10th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Jake,
Did you forget how to apologize?
First you accused him of being full of crap. Then you get a post (two, now) that suggest the reverse is true.
You can nitpick if you want, but in this limited instance Robert and RonF are, essentially, right. You are, essentially, wrong.
If you expect your opponents to retain some modicum of politeness when you make a compelling point, you’d do well to return the favor. Otherwise, go practice the goddamn lute.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 10th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Robert,
From your link:
Schmierer’s number became so compromised that Social Security officials finally took a rare step used only in extreme cases: They gave her a new one.
This certainly implies that the article refers to a rare case. I’ll ask again, is this common? Was (in RonF.’s lying words), ““the real holder [being] prosecuted by the Internal Revenue Service for not reporting income, threatened with jail time and huge fines?” The answer is clearly, “No.”
So, I fail to see how your link provides any factual evidence to back up RonF.’s lies about what happens when your SS# is used by somebody else (citizen or not).
Perhaps you’ve forgotten, so let me quote RonF.’s big lie for you, Robert.
2) Obtaining a false Social Security number. When the illegal alien’s income is reported under that number, the real holder is prosecuted by the Internal Revenue Service for not reporting income, threatened with jail time and huge fines. Their credit rating is destroyed. The onus is on the victim to prove that they didn’t earn the money and store it where the IRS can’t see it, it’s not up to the IRS to prove that it was the victim and not someone else who actually had the income.
So, did the IRS threaten either of these people with “jail time and huge fines?” It’s not mentioned in either your link or RonF.’s link.
Was their credit rating destroyed because of problems with the IRS? I haven’t seen evidence for that in either link.
Was the onus on the victim to prove that it was not their income unreasonable? It seems, from both links, that it was not (although, as with all things with the IRS, the onus is on you to provide evidence of their mistake). That their problems with the IRS were cleared up fairly quickly and easily.
So I fail to see how your link (or your eyeroll inducing responses) actually addresses RonF’s lie or my calling out of the aforementioned lie.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 10th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Sailorman,
I’d apologize if they actually provided something to back up the lie. It seems that those 2 weren’t the only ones who forgot what the lie I called RonF. on was. (See my comment, #82, for the exact text of RonF.’s lie) Please show me people who were threatened with jail time by the IRS for having their SS# stolen. Show me how many people were threatened with huge fines for the unreported income accrued by the stolen SS#. The fact is, the IRS doesn’t work that way. They send a polite notice informing you of the discrepancy between what you paid/reported and what they think you should have paid/reported. It isn’t difficult nor particularly time-consuming to show them their error. So, please, tell me how RonF. is doing anything but lying as a scare tactic.
I readily admit that you must convince the IRS that they are mistaken. That, however, is not a difficult task. (Yes, I speak from personal experience on that.)
Now, how about the claims of oppressive prosecution by the IRS? Show me some documentation, some facts showing that this is anything but extraordinarily rare (if extant, at all) when an SS# is used by illegal immigrants & I’ll apologize for my comments.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 10th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Everyone, take it down a few notches.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 10th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
About “getting more out of the system than one puts into it” - I think that’s a bit of an unfair characterization. One of the wonders of economics is that it is actually possible for EVERYONE to get “more out of the system than one puts into it” because capabilities and desires differ.
Consider the trivial case: I have a used car I that you want more than I do. I sell the car to you. I’m happy because I exchanged something (a used car) for something I wanted more (whatever I buy with the money you gave me), and you’re happy for exactly the same reason - you’ve got something you wanted more than what you had. Commerce is not a zero-sum game!
Employment under capitalism isn’t a zero sum game, either. If I represent the owners of a mine (and the equipment needed to mine that mine) and you represent miners, then if we agree on how to divide the revenues from selling the mined resources, and then those we represent follow through on that agreement, they both end up richer than if our inability to come to an agreement means that the resources sit in the ground unsold and unused. Now, this example does ignore the issue of exactly how the revenues should be distributed, whether those I represent ought to be the ones to own the mine, or, for that matter, whether those you represent ought to be miners, but it illustrates that employment is a relationship in which both employer and employee are getting out more than they put in.
My Economics 101 textbook is the most effective brainwashing tool I’ve ever seen. (It worked on me!) For changing the way people think, professors of religion, politics, and philosophy have nothing on professors of economics. ;)
This comment was written by Doug S..Report this comment to the moderators
September 10th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
“You discourage people who have the potential to become rich from doing so: Why would I take huge risks and work longer and harder to become successful when it will be taken away from me to support those less successful?
You discourage those who are poor from helping themselves: Why should I do anything to pull myself up from poverty when either way I will live the same quality of life as the hard-working self-sacrificing person next door?”
The reverse is also true.
You discourage people who have the potential to escape poverty from doing so: Why would I take huge risks and work longer and harder when it all doesn’t seem to get me out of poverty anyway?
Say a government stipend, when in conjunction with earned wages, helps our resident poor dude escape poverty when he couldn’t do so with the latter alone. The more visible upward movement he experiences helps him associate hard work with a positive, immediate payoff, instilling in him a greater appreciation for hard work in general than he had before. Conversely, say that the stipend didn’t exist, and our part time can collector didn’t escape poverty, at least within the same reference frame of time. That’s added time to become discouraged, change attitude, and pick up/revert back to bad habits. A lot of people seem to forget this, but a perfectly normal reaction to persistent and chronic poverty is not to whip out more and more cans of Can Do, but be drained of the spirit that they’d otherwise have.
Now, maybe the latter reaction really is indicative of a moral failure that deserves to be punished by hunger and homelessness. But unfortunately, we have no method of fairly testing for the very same moral failure those who hold this view, given that they are statistically most likely to be comfortably shielded from all such circumstances. (Imagine that.) So in the meantime, I don’t have a problem with recognizing that there’s such a thing as positive incentives*, and that government is an acceptable agent of last resort to provide these.
*Note that I’m not saying that the primary purpose of a broad-based government handout that has no other criterion than level of income is positive incentive building - the intent is purely one of humanitarianism and compassion, a fact that I don’t dispute and a philosophy I don’t object to. However, as an added effect, it could encourage more people to stay on their feet - at the very least counterbalancing the negative effect it would have on recipients of a different mindset, to some, all, or greater degree.
“About “getting more out of the system than one puts into it” - I think that’s a bit of an unfair characterization. One of the wonders of economics is that it is actually possible for EVERYONE to get “more out of the system than one puts into it” because capabilities and desires differ.”
I think you’re using the wrong analogy in the post. Purchase of a used car is exactly the sort of market transaction, involving high measures of consumer control and a rapid market response rate, that Economics 101 loves to focus on. It’s also exactly the sort of scenario that’s a bad, bad model to use for many situations. Including the transfer of wealth from a tax base to a recipient minority.
Rather, I think a better analogy would be an insurance company taking the money from all its customers to give to the minority of legitimate claimants within that group, or a landlord increasing rent prices to accommodate some subgroup of tenants who need it more - say, wheelchair bound tenants who need ramps and automatic doors installed.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
September 11th, 2007 at 9:14 am
gays are denied marriage because of who they ARE, while illegal aliens are denied admission because of what they DO
Wrong on both, actually. There is no law of which I’m aware (feel free to correct me) that says “if you are gay, you may not marry anybody.” For one thing, such laws would make being gay a ’status offense’–for another, the laws are facially discriminatory on the basis of gender, and de facto discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation.
Unless by “what they DO” you mean “remaining in this country rather than returning to their country of citizenship”, this is not really a correct standard for illegal immigrants, either. An illegal alien who was brought to this country by her parents as an infant didn’t choose to sneak over the border. If she has been told she is a citizen by those parents, then she isn’t even willfully remaining in this country in defiance of the immigration laws.
Why would I take huge risks and work longer and harder to become successful when it will be taken away from me to support those less successful?
Because “it” will not be taken away. Nobody takes away your success. Your entire income is not confiscated. If this argument were true, the mere existence of income taxes would insure that America would never have a single millionare.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 11th, 2007 at 10:05 am
sylphhead
If you have a bad driving record, DUIs, etc you are likely to have a disproportionately large insurance payment. If you smoke, get sick a lot, or have had major health problems, etc you will pay more for your health insurance. If your company has a large number of accidents you will pay a much higher workers compensation bill. Another way of thinking about it is that the more likely you are to benefit from the insurance the larger your payment will be. Adapting that to a national social service system would have poor people paying much more since they are more likely to take social safety net benefits.
Usually all these economic and tax arguments come down to whether and what level you believe that a person’s body, and derivatively what he does with his body (labor), is owned by the state. 100% tax rate and we would all be total slaves to the state, 95% tax rate a little less so, and so on.
This comment was written by LarryFromExile.Report this comment to the moderators
September 12th, 2007 at 12:11 am
sylphhead Writes:
A poor person who takes risks, works longer, harder, and–dare I say it?–smarter, is very likely to escape poverty. Assuming of course that this poor person doesn’t have too many kids too soon, become addicted to drugs, or do something else to kept them chained to their present station in life. One of the best things about a free society is the level of social mobility that is possible for someone who chooses to work hard: poor people can become rich and rich people can lose everything to become poor.
There are no promises made to anyone that they will eventually become rich or middle class.
Say a government stipend, when in conjunction with earned wages, helps our resident poor dude escape poverty when he couldn’t do so with the latter alone. The more visible upward movement he experiences helps him associate hard work with a positive, immediate payoff, instilling in him a greater appreciation for hard work in general than he had before.
Or he could end up with an entitlement complex the size of Montana and become even lazier than he would have been had there been no external help from the government.
I’m all for “helping people who are trying to help themselves” but I oppose any system that goes as far as to say that no one can be allowed to be poor.
I agree with you that an overwhelming sense of hopelessness is a possibility for some people who can’t quite seem to pull themselves up by their bootstraps; a sense of entitlement and lack of initiative may also be just a likely.
I think it is far more likely that a system which refuses to allow anyone to be poor will hamper the development of initiative and risk taking than it will to encourage people to just give up.
I also believe that private organizations are more readily able to help individual people or families that are struggling with their best effort rise above their circumstances. A government organization has to use the same standards for everyone to determine whether or not the applicant seeking assistance would benefit from help or be hampered by it. A private non-profit agency is better able to look at the circumstances of the particular case and make a judgement that reflects intimate knowledge of the person’s situation, knowledge that a government organization can’t seek because it would be intrusive.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 12th, 2007 at 12:15 am
mythago Writes:
If I measure success in terms of financial status, then yes, it can be taken away from me. Part of the reason that I work hard is because I enjoy feeling successful, but another part of the reason is because I enjoy the fruits of my hard work, such as a nice home, vacations, fast cars etc.
A rich person’s entire income is not confiscated but a large portion of it is, I believe the top tax bracket in America is now something like 33% on personal income. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 12th, 2007 at 6:31 am
And yet, people keep working hard to become rich, instead of saying “Screw this, part of my income goes to taxes.” Probably because the rich, like the poor, benefit from public spending.
A poor person who takes risks, works longer, harder, and–dare I say it?–smarter, is very likely to escape poverty.
“Very likely”? Is this on the Libertarian Fantasy Planet?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 12th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Mythago, would you be happier if it were re-written as
“A poor person who takes NO risks, does not work longer, harder, or smarter, is much less likely to escape poverty.”
I don’t think there are any guarantees to be not poor. But there seem to be things that can be done to be less poor or be less likely to be poor. Bad luck can be a killer and I want to do everything I can to help mitigate that. But I think everyone should work as hard as they can as best they can to help themselves.
It’s one of the reasons I think we should allow people from other countries to come here and work if they want to. Regarding illegal immigrants from South of the border: ? I have a lot of respect for anyone who goes to such great lengths just for a better job than they could get at home. How do you look at someone willing to do pretty much ANY work for 10-12 bucks an hour 60 hours a week and see a bad thing
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
September 12th, 2007 at 7:44 am
What adverse consequence does taxation have for people’s productivity? Jonathan Chait addresses this question in The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics. Here’s an excerpt, although you can find a longer excerpt here:
“From 1947 to 1973, the U.S. economy grew at a rate of nearly 4 percent a year–a massive boom, fueling rapid growth in living standards across the board. During most of that period, from 1947 until 1964, the highest tax rate hovered around 91 percent. For the rest of the time, it was still a hefty 70 percent. Yet the economy flourished anyway. [W]hatever negative effect such high tax rates have, it’s relatively minor. Which necessarily means that whatever effects today’s tax rates have, they’re even more minor.
“This can be seen with some very simple arithmetic. As just noted, Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy taxpayers in the top bracket had to pay a 91 percent rate. That meant that, if they were contemplating, say, a new investment, they would be able to keep just nine cents of every dollar they earned, a stiff disincentive. When that rate dropped down to 70 percent, our top earner could now keep 30 cents of every new dollar. That more than tripled the profitability of any new dollar–a 233 percent increase, to be exact. That’s a hefty incentive boost. In 1981, the top tax rate was cut again to 50 percent. The profit on every new dollar therefore rose from 30 to 50 cents, a 67 percent increase. In 1986, the top rate dropped again, from 50 to 28 percent. The profit on every dollar rose from 50 to 72 cents, a 44 percent increase. Note that the marginal improvement of every new tax cut is less than that of the previous one. But we’re still talking about large numbers. Increasing the profitability of a new investment even by 44 percent is nothing to sneeze at.
“But then George Bush raised the top rate to 31 percent in 1990. This meant that, instead of taking home 72 cents on every new dollar earned, those in the top bracket had to settle for 69 cents. That’s a drop of about 4 percent–peanuts, compared to the scale of previous changes. Yet supply-siders reacted hysterically….
“If such a piddling tax increase could really wreck such havoc on the economy, how is it possible that the economy grew so rapidly with top tax rates of 70 and 91 percent? The answer is, it’s not. It’s not even close to possible. All this is to say that the supply-siders have taken the germ of a decent point–that marginal tax rates matter–and stretched it, beyond all plausibility, into a monocausal explanation of the world.”
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 12th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Nobody, it’s my impression that those historical very high rates were not the actual marginal rate that was in effect. IE, if you had a rate of 91% you also had a wide variety of deductions and shelters that meant your effective rate was much lower.
I suspect that the actual percentage of national income taken in taxation at all levels in the US shows a general upwards trend in most of the 20th century, with a leveling off around the Reagan years and fairly flat after that. I could be wrong - I can’t find any immediate statistics - but I’m pretty sure that’s the picture. (Contrary evidence welcome.)
That said, it really doesn’t matter so much what percentage of income is taken overall. As a motivating factor, what matters most is what the marginal rate of taxation is. If Joe puts in the overtime to create a $10,000 revenue stream, how much of it does he keep? If it’s $8000, he’s pretty likely to put in the overtime. If it’s $500, he’s pretty likely not to. This assumes that Joe is knowledgeable about his tax status and is aware of what a change to his income will do to that picture, and that he is at least somewhat motivated by money. This may not be everyone, but I imagine it is a fairly large group of people - and a particularly high proportion of those people in the class that pays a lot of taxes.
(A cynic might suggest that the somewhat opaque US tax system is designed to prevent that knowledge, thus encouraging entrepreneurs to work harder. Fortunately, I am sure there are no cynics here.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 12th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
mythago Writes:
Nope, I’m talking about here in the good ‘ol US of A.
The Economic Policy Institute also argues that social mobility has declined since the 1970s. In the 1990s 36% of those who started in the second-poorest 20% stayed put, compared with 28% in the 1970s and 32% in the 1980s. In the 1970s 12% of the population moved from the bottom fifth to either the fourth or the top fifth. In the 1980s and 1990s the figures shrank to below 11% for both decades. The figure for those who stayed in the top fifth increased slightly but steadily over the three decades, reinforcing the sense of diminished social mobility.LINK
It seems that as taxes are increased in order to decrease inequality, the result is that social mobility is may also be decreasing and those folks who start out poor end up having a harder time moving up the social ladder.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 12th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Exactly. And (to the best of my understanding) 91% was the marginal tax rate, deductions and shelters notwithstanding. (Contrary evidence welcome as well.) So I don’t find this criticism compelling.
But here things get stickier. Jamila Akil and LarryFromExile argue that increasing taxes tends to discourage people from earning more. Chait argues that mere taxes cannot explain people’s productivity. And I find merit in both perspectives.
Rather than focus on taxes exclusively, I’d focus on the relative rate of risk-adjusted, post-tax return on investment. Maybe today’s entrepreneur can take heart that the US’s tax rate is lower today than in 1947. But today if the entrepreneur can earn and keep a larger share of his money simply by incorporating in the Caymen Islands, why not? As Robert Reich notes in his new book Supercapitalism, we all have more choices now and are more apt to change purchasing/investing decisions with ever less prompting. Consequently, the fact that a 91% tax rate did not prompt much capital flight in 1947 does not lead me to conclude that a 31% rate does not prompt capital flight today.
The point is not that we need to pity today’s poor entrepreneur, burdened by a 31% tax rate or whatever. The point is we need to fear that today’s entrepreneur will simply pack up and reincorporate in the Cayman Islands, or that today’s investor will buy the foreign stocks instead of the domestic ones, simply because he can get a 30% tax rate instead.
In short, if we want a social safety net (or anything else), we must be mindful of the concerns of those who would pay for it. We need them. And maybe wealthy people from 1947 - 1973 lacked practical ways to escape US taxes, but that ain’t true of the wealthy today.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 12th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
As far as I know, tax rates have been generally falling, not rising. As this table shows, the top US federal tax bracket in 1970 was 72%. In 1981 it fell to 50%. It fell below 35% from 1988 - 1992, and has bounced between 35% and 40% since then. I find little support for the idea that “taxes are increased in order to decrease inequality” over this period.
Thus the Economic Policy Institute data seems to support the conclusion that when rich people keep more money, they tend to stay rich. Whoda thunk?
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 12th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
When you say “illegal immigrant,” other than relating a fact of American citizenship status, what are you saying?
Hey look, there’s another sorry bastard with the God damned police on his or her back.
Jamila Akil: [quoting mythago]The Economic Policy Institute also argues that social mobility has declined since the 1970s…
It seems that as taxes are increased in order to decrease inequality, the result is that social mobility is may also be decreasing and those folks who start out poor end up having a harder time moving up the social ladder.
What are you saying? As everyone knows, tax rates, particularly for the very wealthy, have radically decreased since the 1970s, so if changes in tax rates somehow affect changes in social mobility, then lower tax rates for millionaires do not result in higher social mobility but lower social mobility - exactly as you’d expect, as they tend to make the rich even richer.
This comment was written by W. Kiernan.Report this comment to the moderators
September 12th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
nobody.really Writes:
and W.Kiernan Writes:
You’re both correct about the marginal tax rates decreasing dramatically over time.
What I wrote was very sloppy and I incorrectly used the term “tax rate” when I should have said “tax burden”. The rich are shouldering an increasing share of the federal tax burden since the 70’s.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 12th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
The rich are shouldering an increasing share of the federal tax burden since the 70’s.
Doesn’t that naturally follow from the rich possessing an increasing share of domestic wealth since the 70’s? Or are you saying that the rich are paying a higher percentage of the federal tax burden than the percentage of wealth that the same subset owns?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 12th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Jake Squid Writes:
Not necessarily. If actual tax rates on the richest one percent have been reduced then the only way that they should be shouldering more of the tax burden is if tax rates for the poorest people in our society have also been dramatically reduced, perhaps even more than the tax rates on the richest. I think the middle class/working class/people-who-are-barely-middle-class is the group that has been getting squeezed because this link says that their percentage of the tax burden hasn’t changed that much over time.
Middle 50 percent of taxpayers paid a roughly even share of the taxes in 2003, 2000 and 1997: 12.6 percent, 12 percent and 14 percent, respectively
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers bore less of the burden in 2003 compared to 2000, paying almost 3.5 percent of taxes compared to over 4 percent three years earlier. The bottom half of taxpayers has paid a decreasing share of taxes since 1980.
Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 12:10 am
“A poor person who takes risks, works longer, harder, and–dare I say it?–smarter, is very likely to escape poverty. Assuming of course that this poor person doesn’t have too many kids too soon, become addicted to drugs, or do something else to kept them chained to their present station in life. One of the best things about a free society is the level of social mobility that is possible for someone who chooses to work hard: poor people can become rich and rich people can lose everything to become poor.”
‘Very likely’ is a judgment call, but it’s worth noting that countries with more generous welfare policies have higher social mobility;. When the US was more generous with redistribution, such as the 60’s and 70’s, it also had more mobility - as has been presented already here, I think.
“Or he could end up with an entitlement complex the size of Montana and become even lazier than he would have been had there been no external help from the government.”
Okay, but my whole point was that the incentive argument cuts both ways - something that goes either unrealized or ignored. Say you turned on the TV to a random cable news channel. Some talking haircut pundit is at it, but due to station problems, you only catch three words: ‘poverty’, ‘welfare’, and ‘incentives’. Which of our two arguments would you think was being made?
“I’m all for “helping people who are trying to help themselves” but I oppose any system that goes as far as to say that no one can be allowed to be poor.”
Well, ‘poor’ is an inherently relative term, so any society that doesn’t mandate dollar for dollar equality is going to allow some people to be poor. I don’t want anyone allowed to be homeless. I don’t want anyone allowed to be hungry - our Jewish friends who are fasting this Rosh Hashanah notwithstanding. There is a lot - A LOT - more to poverty than food and shelter. The majority of these are perhaps beyond our ability to engineer away - or at least, for the government to engineer away. But basic, bottom-of-Maslow’s-pyramid type concerns are legitimate.
There really should be a third item on that list, though: I don’t anyone allowed to be shut out from the prospect of upward mobility in the future. This may or may not require positive provisions, not merely the bare allowance of the fact by law. People are controlled by many outside factors besides the law.
“I also believe that private organizations are more readily able to help individual people or families that are struggling with their best effort rise above their circumstances. A government organization has to use the same standards for everyone to determine whether or not the applicant seeking assistance would benefit from help or be hampered by it. A private non-profit agency is better able to look at the circumstances of the particular case and make a judgement that reflects intimate knowledge of the person’s situation, knowledge that a government organization can’t seek because it would be intrusive.”
I agree - though I’d add the caveat that factors such as power, size, and decentralization affect the efficacy of agencies, not whether they are public or private. In general, governments are bigger, and in general, governments are more powerful, and in general, governments are more distant than most good-willed NPC’s. However, I could imagine a situation where, for instance, the municipal government of a small town may be better situated than a large, national non-profit that doesn’t have a regional chapter specifically for the town.
Whenever possible, I’d like organizations that are smaller, more local, and closer to the ground to handle these matters - which usually corresponds to private non-profits. But if and when these organization’s efforts are insufficient in some way, I have no problem with government filling the gap. Given that the state does its best to help these NPC’s through tax breaks, I don’t see that it has to be an either/or.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 12:34 am
“Nobody, it’s my impression that those historical very high rates were not the actual marginal rate that was in effect. IE, if you had a rate of 91% you also had a wide variety of deductions and shelters that meant your effective rate was much lower.”
True, but deductions and shelters still exist today - and in the case of the latter, they’ve become worse. No, the millionaires of the 40’s never actually paid 94 cents on the dollar. But the millionaires of today don’t actually pay 35 cents to the dollar, either, and you’ll be hard pressed to prove that those deductions and shelters - which still exist today, which in many ways have gotten worse - will manage to push the former figure below the latter.
“I suspect that the actual percentage of national income taken in taxation at all levels in the US shows a general upwards trend in most of the 20th century, with a leveling off around the Reagan years and fairly flat after that. I could be wrong - I can’t find any immediate statistics - but I’m pretty sure that’s the picture. (Contrary evidence welcome.)”
Is there any reason to suspect that income tax loopholes or offshore havens became less of a problem as the 60’s and 70’s progressed? Or that tax enforcement became stricter? I’m not aware of any evidence that they did. The common sense position is that higher taxes = higher government revenue*, and as we’ve already seen a crackpot economic theory that postulated otherwise crash and burn in recent history, I’ll need a strong burden of proof met to convince me otherwise.
In the end, though, all this talk about the tax rates on the rich are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are interested in the amount of tax revenue that goes toward *anti-poverty* programs, which make up a miniscule portion of total government spending. Even if the rich paid more in taxes during the 90’s than they did during the 70’s - a proposition that I highly, highly doubt - there is no serious debate among those who haven’t lived under a rock or underwater that spending on anti-poverty programs has gone down. Remember when there actually was a War on Poverty?
*Income taxes are the main part of government revenue but by no means the only one - there is the possibility that other forms of revenue and other types of taxes went up. Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about US government history to say anything definitive on this. But I wouldn’t want to make the conservative mistake of equating income taxes with all government revenue, conveniently forgetting about those forms that are regressive in nature.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 7:33 am
Jamila, you keep shifting your definitions and you’re not really answering the question. By “the rich” I assume we’re all referring to rich individuals (or families), and omitting corporate contributions to the tax burden, which is a whole ‘nuther debate.
You wrote a platitute about how a poor person who works hard, takes risks, etc. is “very likely” to escape poverty. (Said poor person is named Horatio Alger in your mind, I assume.) In support of this argument, you claim social mobility is decreasing. That’s what we call a non sequitur. joe phrases it correctly–no risk-taking means very unlikely to get out of poverty–but there is no logical inference that those lazy, risk-averse poor would be “very likely” to escape their situation if only they got a little gumption.
Robert, reducing the tax issue to “how much money does Joe want to make?” is oversimplifying. If Joe is making enough money to have to worry about the AMT and higher tax rates on ‘the rich’, then money is probably not the only benefit he receives from his job. Joe is also likely considering his long-term income, not just what he makes this year and what taxes he pays this year.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Are there no other possible explanations?
Could it possibly be that since 1970 the richest 1% of Americans have become VASTLY RICHER BEYOND THE WIDEST DREAMS OF THE ROBBER BARONS OF THE 1900s, such that even when the lower tax rate is applied to their VAST INCOME, it produces a growing share of national tax revenues? As the New York Times explains:
“[F]or Americans in the middle, the share of income taken by federal taxes has been essentially unchanged across four decades. By comparison, it has fallen by half for those at the very top of the income ladder.
Because the incomes of those at the top have grown so much more than those below them, their share of total income tax revenue has risen despite the reduced rates.
The analysis by the two professors showed that the top 10 percent of Americans collected 48.5 percent of all reported income in 2005….
The top 1 percent received 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income.”
To be fair, reported income has likely been influenced by changes in the tax code over the decades. New forms of business organizations (S-Corporations and Limited Liability Companies) permit income from business entities to be taxed as ordinary income rather than as corporate income. As a consequence, today rich people are reporting more personal income than they would have under the tax code of, say, 1947. But they’re doing so to avoid paying the corporate taxes that they would have paid in 1947. In other words, when you combine the share of income owned by rich people individually AND as shareholders, the growth of their wealth has expanded even more than the growth of taxes would suggest.
Interesting that we’re heading back to the levels of income disparity - and the rapacious policies that supported those levels - of 1928, the last year before the Great Depression. I’m just sayin’….
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 8:36 am
How does this argument over hard working poor vs. lazy poor have anything to do with illegal immigrants? Isn’t the typical complaint about people sneaking across the southern border that they’re willing to work harder for less money and are thus ‘stealing’ jobs from ‘decent blue collar union folks’? Am I wrong in assuming that the largest public resource consumed by immigrants is schooling for their children? Isn’t this the idea behavior for the poor?
This comment was written by joe.Take smart chances (move to the US where there are better job)
Work hard,
Raise your children
Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Joe, it’s pretty usual among the restrictionist crowd where I hang out to acknowledge that. Nobody dislikes the fact that these are immigrants who want to work and improve their lives, and few people are unaware that the current immigrant wave isn’t much different than previous waves in terms of human capital and potential being brought into the country.
The questions are rather, how many low-capital individuals can we assimilate at one time, how to manage the immigration process in a way that keeps our nation secure, and how to make the immigration system fair to everyone who wants to come here - without giving away the store to people just because they happen to live next door. There are a lot of people who would like to immigrate here; right now, illegals (most, but not all, of whom are Mexican) are pretty much sucking all the oxygen out of that room. Nobody’s going to increase the legal quotas when the illegal numbers are swamping the system.
I generally approve of Mexican immigration and think that we should be letting in plenty of our neighbors; I also think that a guest worker program to allow them to work without gaining US citizenship or benefits would be productive both for the US and Mexico. But it has to be controlled and we have to have a grip on our border. It isn’t 1950 anymore; we can’t be Texas casual about this stuff.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 9:16 am
, and few people are unaware that the current immigrant wave isn’t much different than previous waves in terms of human capital and potential being brought into the country
C’mon, Robert. Lots of people are unaware that the current immigrant wave is pretty much the same as previous waves. Heck, some restrictionists have written best-selling books insisting that this time, it’s different.
The idea that our immigration system is an unfortunate result of all those illegals makes no sense. We prioritize families and skilled workers. Engineers from Bangalore are not been kept out because strawberry-pickers from Jalisco took all their slots.
The biggest enemies of a fair immigration system are businesses. When your workers are in this country legally, they tend do to things like making Workers Comp claims when they get hurt, and suing you if they get shorted on heir paychecks. A legal workforce drives up costs. Agribusiness, to name one 800-pound gorilla, has zero interest in a guest-worker program unless deportation is a threat for crossing your employer.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 9:22 am
One objection to illegal immigration is that it burdens the social services that US citizens provide for each other, thereby reducing the services available for US citizens and undermining support for the services. This led to a discussion of wealth transfers from rich to poor, and the consequences of those transfers.
Yeah, maybe the optimal thing from the world’s perspective is for poor people to get their kids into school. But few people have a world-wide perspective.
Imagine rich people have three objectives: they want to keep as much of their money as possible, they don’t want to see poverty, and they want to avoid producing a generation of muggers. So rich people are more prone to help poor people they can see, and children in the neighborhood, than others. In short, they have a parochial perspective. But if their charity prompts more poor people to move into the neighborhood, rich people realize that charity is not achieving their objectives. They may be succeeding at alleviating suffering from a global perspective, but they’re increasing evidence of suffering on a local perspective. Consequently rich people lose enthusiasm, and focus more on the objective of hoarding their resources instead.
I postulate that such “rich people” make US immigration policy.
So praising illegal immigrants for putting their kids into school is akin to praising Pretty Boy Floyd for using some of the money he got from robbing banks to feed the poor: It’s nice, but it doesn’t necessarily justify the underlying crime to the policy makers.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Mythago, what would you consider a ‘fair’ immigration policy? I think that all interest groups will oppose things that harm them.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 11:14 am
“The idea that our immigration system is an unfortunate result of all those illegals makes no sense. ”
Really? Because it makes sense to me. And a lot of other people. Just saying.
I certainly can’t support an increase in legal immigration without tying it to a decrease in illegal immigration. One is, potentially, desirable, controlled, and beneficial to the country.
And control benefits a lot of people. Our current system benefits Mexico but fucks over people in a lot of other countries like, say, the impoverished ones in Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. They might like to immigrate, too. And we might actually let them (pro-immigrant forces are always talking about the U.S. need for workers, right) but when there are so many illegals then they’re not needed.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Really? Because it makes sense to me. And a lot of other people.
The idea that we were seeded onto this planet by UFOs makes sense to a lot of people, too. Just saying.
If you make it legal for anyone from Central America (not just Mexico) to come here by filling out a form, you’d certainly increase legal immigration while decreasing illegal immigration, but that’s hardly a solution.
joe, a ‘fair’ immigration policy would start with a complete reform of our immigration laws and agencies. The agency formerly known as INS has a schizoid split between its bureaucratic arm and its law-enforcement arm. The idea that immigration policy is thoughtful or fairly enforced would be funny if it weren’t so sad. Hell, Congress passed a law in 2000 creating a special “U Visa” for victims of trafficking and violence, and we STILL don’t actually have such a visa in existence because immigration hasn’t gotten its shit together.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
mythago, while I get that you don’t like the way our current system is run I’m curious how, if at all, you’d handle immigration. I don’t expect a policy paper and I’m not trying to trap you. But since the current system doesn’t seem to work well what would you recommend? Assuming we could administer it. Broadly speaking.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
It doesn’t matter what system you have in place if you have total administrative breakdown. The best, most sensible rules will not work if they are not followed nor enforced, if the judges who oversee cases under those rules have near-absolute power and exercise it arbitrarily, and where the rules aren’t even implemented because hell, it’s just a bunch of fur’ners.
I know this will bum Robert out majorly, but I do favor strong control of our borders. I just happen to also believe that the legitimate path to legal immigration and citizenship ought to be wider, instead of people from certain countries getting preference because they share ethnicity with a U.S. Congressman, or being kept out because if they aren’t deprived of their legal rights, celery costs more.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
The best, most sensible rules will not work if they are not followed nor enforced…
Well, yes. Do you think that maybe the presence of 12 million unscheduled players on the field might be making it a leetle more difficult to enforce the rules?
I just happen to also believe that the legitimate path to legal immigration and citizenship ought to be wider
Great! Advocate for that. And since widening the path to legal immigration and citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the border is controlled, we can control the border and stop the flow of illegals while you work on expanding the quotas.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Actually, just because Mythago doesn’t object to controlling the border, it doesn’t logically follow that you “can” control the border. Attempting to stop undocumented immigration from the supply side (controlling the border), rather than the demand side (removing the motivation to immigrate illegally) has so far been a failure from a practical perspective. Worse, it’s a failure that does lead to hundreds of immigrants dying, because they take less safe routes.
Saying “we can control the border” is meaningless as a statement of principal when you lack the practical ability to control the border.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that nothing can be done. It just means that slowing down undocumented immigration is a matter of economics, not a matter for border control.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Do you think that maybe the presence of 12 million unscheduled players on the field might be making it a leetle more difficult to enforce the rules?
No.
Amp, I’m not talking about the current system of “let’s just funnel them all into the Sonoran Desert and hope it kills them”. When there is a wider path to legal immigration, there will be a lot fewer illegals, and border enforcement will be easier.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
I understand a lot of what you DON’T want, and a lot of what you’re NOT talking about, but i’m having a harder time evaluating what you do want, or what you are proposing, even in the face of your last post.
Can you elaborate a bit more?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Mythago, thanks for explaining what you’d like to see: A more open immigration policy with better enforcement of existing rules.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
sylphhead Writes:
The link you provided only seems to partially support the idea that a more generous redistribution policy encourages social mobility. The link says that in Britain, a country that appears to be far more generous in terms of welfare than the US, social mobility has declined whereas in the US it was atleast stable.
I wouldn’t even try to answer that question. It depends on whether the news channel was Fox News or something more liberal like MSNBC.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
mythago Writes:
I know this statement wasn’t directed at me but I have a question for you: Do you think that we will have to increase the size of our current welfare state to take care of the low skilled workers and there families? And if you do believe that we will have to increase taxes to fund a greater safety net, how much bigger do you think the government should expand to do this? Is there any point at which you would stay stop?
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
mythago Writes:
In post #95 I didn’t bring up decreasing mobility to support the argument that a poor person is very likely to escape poverty; I brought up decreasing social mobility to point out that a progressive policy of increasing the share of the tax burden paid by the rich will not necessarily increase social mobility, it may in fact have something to do with decreasing social mobility by discouraging people from working harder to make more money ( or the middle classes could be becoming more effective at avoiding paying taxes at they make more money).
Yes, more than gumption is necessary. This person will need to work harder, longer, and smarter than a person who was born into a well-off family.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 4:12 am
The person will also need luck. Maybe just a little good luck (maybe more) But definitely very little bad luck.
and not the self created luck. The “my car doesn’t get rear ended at a stop sign and I can’t get to work kind.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 7:45 am
A more open immigration policy with better enforcement of existing rules.
Half right. I also favor a more consistent immigration policy with logical rules that are based on our actual needs, and not on “there is a US Senator batting for his ethnic group” or “a particular industry would like to bring in below-market-wage workers” or “no, we need more white and less brown people in this country”.
I’m not actually sure that what I’m favoring is a more open policy, in that perhaps a consistent and system would end up being less open overall. I guess I just have that silly leftie attachment to that whole “give me your tired, your poor” foofaraw.
Jamila: quit dissembling. You said, plainly, that a hard-working poor person is “very likely” to get out of poverty if they apply themselves. If what you meant to do was try to make an argument about the tax code, you should have done that. Instead you just tipped your hand.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 8:33 am
I also favor a more consistent immigration policy with logical rules that are based on our actual needs…I guess I just have that silly leftie attachment to that whole “give me your tired, your poor” foofaraw.
Well, which is it? Rules based on our actual needs, or based on our ideals? I’m pretty sure we don’t have an actual need for any boatloads of Sudanese refugees; I’m also pretty sure what our ideals have to say about that.
You mention, derogatorily, the Senator going to bat for a particular ethnic group, or people who prefer one particular version of our ethnic balance. Yet how else are we to assess needs, other than through our political process and through the lens of our existing racial relationships? It’s not like there’s an objective list of what America really needs and it’s the cupidity of the Senate that prevents that list from being made into law; there’s no agreement about what we need. Or at least, no consensus; where there IS widespread agreement (if not consensus), the values endorsed are not necessarily in favor of your perspective. The number of Americans who think America would be better 80% white is probably larger than the number who think it would be better 40% white.
So who’s conception of “need” is it that you endorse? The broad democratic mishmash of priorities that our political system produces? Or some narrower, more personal vision that would not necessarily find wide acceptance among the citizenry?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 9:12 am
I suspect many people would like to see a “rational” immigration policy, limited yet allocated on the basis on some principle. As Robert suggests, I favor admitting more refugees, for example. But I know that however many slots I’d like to make available for refugees, I need to anticipate that a large number of the immigration slots will already be taken by illegal immigrants. Thus another Karin family will remain huddled on the Thai/Myanmar boarder, dodging bullets from the junta that wants them dead and the Thai guards that want them gone, because their slots were taken by some young Mexicans who want better paying work.
Good outcome? Bad outcome? Whatever; until the US adopts open boarders for everyone, this is an inevitable outcome. To whatever extent the US limits immigration, there will be illegal immigration. Any immigration policy must reconcile itself to this dynamic.
I agree that slowing down undocumented immigration is a matter of economics - supply and demand - and that managing the problem would require a focus on both. Politicians tend to focus on boarder control, which probably has some effect. But, as many observe, it definitely has the effect of funneling illegal immigrants into ever more dangerous boarder crossings. As some wag remarked, “Desert crossing seems to be a kind of employment screening test administered by the INS on behalf of the construction industry.”
To limit the demand for immigrants to enter illegally, we must influence a potential immigrant’s cost/benefit calculations. We could try to make alternatives more beneficial and less costly. One alternative a would-be immigrant faces is not to immigrate. We could try to make staying put more beneficial and less costly; that is, we could engage in economic development in the areas that send us illegal immigrants.
Another alternative is to immigrate legally. We could try to make this alternative less costly in terms of money, delay, uncertainty, etc. Perhaps we could make this alternative more beneficial in terms of making new legal immigrants eligible for certain government programs that are unavailable to illegals.
But the other side of this coin is making illegal immigration less beneficial and more costly. And mostly we do that by making the lives of illegal immigrants miserable. We make them risk their lives to get here. We subject them to bad treatment if they get caught. And more importantly, we adopt policies that will have the effect of subjecting them to bad treatment (“exploitation”) even if they don’t get caught.
I sense much of this discussion is prompted by people’s compassion for the suffering of illegal immigrants in the US. Why can’t we fix our system to stop this? For better or worse, the suffering of illegal immigrants is a functioning part of the system. It is mainly through their deaths and their suffering – not through boarder patrol agents – that illegal immigration can be deterred to the extent that it is.
Oppression: it ain’t a bug; it’s a feature.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 9:29 am
“Border”, damn you. Proper spelling is one of the tenants of good Internet discussion.
(Gunshot)
(Thump)
To whatever extent the US limits immigration, there will be illegal immigration. Any immigration policy must reconcile itself to this dynamic.
Well, to the extent that we limit immigration there will be a demand for illegal immigration. Not all demands are filled, even by the most efficient markets.
I am not sanguine that it would be a trivial matter to control our southern border. Nor am I so convinced that it would be impossible to establish rudimentary physical control. The game might not be worth the candle; it might cost more to get control than the control is worth to us. But given the maximum theoretical potential downside of an uncontrolled border (”do you remember what Texas was like before Al Qaeda detonated that nuke in Houston, uncle Bob?”) I suspect that the cost wouldn’t be all that high.
Heck, the border is only 1,951 miles. The least effective possible method is just stationing a guy with a gun every 100 feet; that’s about 100K guys. Assuming three shifts, 300K guys could seal it “arm to arm”. Would it be trivial or cheap to deploy a 300,000 man border patrol? No. Could we do it? Of course.
Fencing, walls, and surveillance technology would just make it cheaper and easier. It isn’t that we can’t do this; it’s that we don’t want to. Or at least, enough of us don’t want to. The identities of the people who don’t want us to is fairly amusing to anyone who finds the prospect of a progressive-agribusiness axis counterintuitive.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Jeez, where would we find a labor force of 300,000 people who were willing to hang out at the border all day?
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Heh. It’s an old joke in restrictionist circles; hire illegals to build the wall, because illegals do the jobs that Americans don’t want to do.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Oppression?
If I put an alarm system and a mean guard dog in my house and then a burglar gets bitten and caught after breaking in have I oppressed him somehow? Or if he cuts himself trying to wriggle in through in my barred windows he hasn’t been oppressed either. He doesn’t have a right to entry or my stuff not matter how badly he wants it.
Similarly, we are a sovereign country and people choose to break our laws and not recognize that sovereignty. They choose to try to get around the impediments we place in protecting that sovereignty. There is no “right” of entry into this country for non-citizens except maybe in very select situations.
This comment was written by LarryFromExile.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I can envision some policies lead to situations in which illegal immigrants must choose between 1) revealing themselves and subjecting themselves to separation from family, imprisonment and/or deportation, and 2) virtual slavery (including sexual slavery) by US employers. I label this “oppression” in the hope that, by conceding that illegal immigrants suffer, we can avoid lengthy discussions attempting to establish this undisputed proposition.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
mythago:
this may be overly optimistic. i suspect it’s just as likely that, if illegal immigration could really be reduced through economic or legal means, border enforcement would become considered unnecessary and have its funding cut.
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
But the other side of this coin is making illegal immigration less beneficial and more costly. And mostly we do that by making the lives of illegal immigrants miserable. We make them risk their lives to get here. We subject them to bad treatment if they get caught. And more importantly, we adopt policies that will have the effect of subjecting them to bad treatment (“exploitation”) even if they don’t get caught.
This simply isn’t as true as you would think. As I wrote in an earlier thread on immigration, in the 1930’s Jews from eastern European countries were illegally entering and working in Nazi Germany because they could make more money there. They did this even though they had to risk their lives to get there, were subjected to bad treatement (they figure they’d be killed if they were caught) and were in a country that had adopted policies of subjecting them to bad treatment even if they weren’t caught.
I’m not sure that a country that isn’t ruled by an insane dictatorship would even be able to get close to making things as bad for illegal immigrants as Nazi Germany did for Jewish illegal immigrants. It didn’t work for them, how’s it going to work for us?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Just guessing here, but I expect that it did “work for them.” That is, I expect that the number of Jews that illegally entered and worked in Nazi Germany was less than it would have been if the Nazi’s hadn’t been homicidal maniacs or if the pay scale in Germany had been lower (or if the governments of Eastern Europe had also been homicidal maniacs, or if their pay scales had been higher, or some combination of these factors…).
Part of my point is that I don’t expect to find a “cure” for illegal immigration. I expect we can identify policies that increase immigration and policies that decrease it. But I doubt we’ll find a workable policy that decreases it to zero.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Part of my point is that I don’t expect to find a “cure” for illegal immigration. I expect we can identify policies that increase immigration and policies that decrease it.
Even the threat of death didn’t decrease illegal immigration in the ’30s in Germany. Once Germany’s economy started to get back on it’s feet, it became the place to make money for those from countries that were even worse off. The only way that we can decrease illegal immigration is to stop it from being economically better than countries of origin. People will risk anything for the chance that they can make more money so that they can improve the conditions in which their families live.
That is, I expect that the number of Jews that illegally entered and worked in Nazi Germany was less than it would have been if the Nazi’s hadn’t been homicidal maniacs…
You’re making my point for me while trying to ridicule me. The number of Jews entering Nazi Germany didn’t lessen until the Nazis became overtly homicidal maniacs. The chances of any near future US regime of becoming homicidal maniacs is pretty slim. So, what are the chances that creating a hostile environment that doesn’t include mass round-ups and massacres is going to reduce illegal immigration?
I just don’t think that it’s an effective route to go down.
I was specifically addressing the paragraph of yours that I quoted, a paragraph in which you stated that treating illegals worse if they were caught would work to reduce illegal immigration.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
This strikes me as an empirical proposition, and I don’t have evidence on hand one way or the other.
That said, I would expect empirical data to refute this statement. Rather, I would expect empirical data to show that people vary in their tastes and preferences, including their risk tolerances. Thus I would expect empirical data to show that some people will take riskier measures than others to make more money, that you could induce more people to take Action X by increasing the potential for making money by doing X, decreasing the risk of doing X, decreasing the potential for making money by means other than X, and increasing the risk of failure to do actions other than X. I would be surprised if these dynamics did not apply to illegal immigration in Germany in the 1930s and illegal immigration in the US in the 2000s.
Again, I’m not arguing that subjecting illegal immigrants to bad treatment will deter ALL illegal immigration; I’m arguing that it will deter more illegal immigrants than if we didn’t.
I mean, think about the converse proposition for a second. Some people have suggested granting citizenship to illegal immigrants. What effect do you think that such a policy would have on rates of illegal immigration? If you conclude that a policy making life better for illegal immigrants would increase the flow of illegal immigration, you are of necessity also concluding that making their lives worse would decrease it. It’s the same proposition, rephrased.
But again, it’s an empirical proposition, so I don’t know what more can be accomplished by discussing it in the abstract.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
It’s a matter of balance. Can we really make the conditions and economic incentives worse in the US than in the country of origin? Can we come close to making the conditions here plus the risk of entering & staying bad enough that it will have any significant effect on (illegal) immigration from Latin America or Asia or Africa? Without a murderous regime, I don’t think that we can and that, therefore, our efforts would be best spent elsewhere. Maybe in the directions that your other paragraph mentioned, ie “we could engage in economic development in the areas that send us illegal immigrants.” Of course, I doubt we have the political will to do any such thing and so our national conversation will always return to punishing and excluding.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
My exact words are were as follows: A poor person who takes risks, works longer, harder, and–dare I say it?–smarter, is very likely to escape poverty.
“Applying yourself” is not enough, you may be applying yourself in the wrong way.
I think this thread has splintered off into too many different directions and at this point it’s becoming increasingly difficult for us to understand what the topic of any individual post is.
I’ll try to keep things clear from here on out.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
This is what I think would be a great start at solving the situation.
1. Increase legal immigration quotas. You cannot apply from inside the US or if you have lived in the US illegally in the last 5 years.
2. Implement a system of database checks that an employer must do to verify every employee with the IRS and Homeland security. (and get the damned computers from different agencies talking to each other during these checks)
3. Triple or quadruple the number of agents investigating employer violations of immigration laws.
4. Crackdown on employers for every violation with a heavy hand. $25K - 50K per illegal that was in violation of #2, or wasn’t checked. If you knowingly hire illegals it should be a very real financial risk.
5. No welfare for illegals. They came looking for jobs, they will go home when those jobs dry up due to #4. The vast majority will go back voluntarily, no massive roundup will be needed.(that was such a red herring during the immigration debate)
6. Build the double wall across the border at the more populated areas and let the military man the more remote areas. Its our sovereign border and its our governments number one responsibility to see that its secure.
Regarding the wall, its both a deterrent and an obstacle (which is much more effective when electronically monitored and manned). Sure some people will try to cross it, but many won’t.
Most people lock there doors and windows at night even though there are a hundred other ways into their house then with a key, yet people still bother. Its a minimum level deterrent and obstacle. An alarm and guard dog would raise security level even more. Yet if someone wants your stuff really really bad they will still try (but a much fewer number of people).
What I am trying to say is that we cannot expect the border to be perfectly secure, but if we can cut down illegal border crossing attempts from several hundred K per year, to a few hundred or less, that’s good enough. Plus an added benefit of all the deterrents and obstacles is that many of the people that are still willing the attempt are people we really want to catch (drug smugglers, terrorists, etc). We can concentrate on them without them melting into the human wave that’s currently coming across.
This comment was written by LarryFromExile.Report this comment to the moderators
September 14th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I like Larry’s list of jackbooted ideas. I would add to it the following:
Establish it as a matter of national policy that Mexican and Canadian citizens, as our friends and neighbors, are welcome to come and go as they please, subject only to reasonable border security. For those who wish to come here and work, there should be some reasonable accommodation.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2007 at 7:32 am
We have a huge population of undocumented immigrants, and that’s what the American economy and political system did.
No. That’s what the Mexican economy and political system did. Mexico has a corrupt oligarchy that artificially limits Mexican citizens’ ability to enjoy “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. So Mexicans come here, knowing that here in the U.S. they can actually enjoy the fruits of their labors in proportion to their abilities and levels of effort and don’t have to worry nearly as much about the civil authority abusing them.
We have to deal with where we are:
No argument there. But dealing with it by granting people who break our laws every day American citizenship is not the way to do it.
Of course, a guy who thinks Ireland should quarantine black children to protect its culture
I would think you’re right. But who would that guy be? I haven’t seen anyone take that position here.
on the idea that those who benefit from the continuing consequences of slavery should do something to help fix the inequality.
Slavery? The topic here pertains to illegal aliens, not slaves.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2007 at 7:45 am
nobody.really, I’ll respond at length later, but RonF was endorsing the practice, as I read it. He was clearly arguing for Ireland to guard its culture, saying that multiculturalism had produced poor examples elsewhere in Europe. That’s an endorsement, or at least an excuse.
So much easier to demonize someone than to actually logically counter their arguments, isn’t it? Saves all that messy effort of thinking.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Amp:
Attempting to stop undocumented immigration from the supply side (controlling the border),
Ask me and I’ll say that we really haven’t dedicated sufficient resources to this effort and could do it a lot more effectively. Having said that,
rather than the demand side (removing the motivation to immigrate illegally) has so far been a failure from a practical perspective.
We haven’t done this hardly at all. I’ve said it before, but if the ICE goes into a plant and hauls out 50 illegal aliens, the people who hired them should be hauled out in handcuffs as well, tried, convicted as is appropriate and thrown in jail. We definitely need to cut down on the demand side here.
Worse, it’s a failure that does lead to hundreds of immigrants dying, because they take less safe routes.
Every time I see this debate come up on Free Republic you see a cohort that condemns the humanitarian groups that go into the desert and leave water and otherwise try to keep people from dying. Fortunately for my peace of mind, it is a minority cohort that is shouted down. People are responsible for their own actions, but that doesn’t mean that we should not show compassion. It’s one more reason to solve this problem.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2007 at 8:07 am
I wonder what would happen in Mexico if the U.S. actually started effectively controlling it’s border with them and also actually started effectively controlling the ability of illegal aliens to get jobs in the U.S.?
I think the question pertains to this discussion because I figure that at least executive branch governmental decisions regarding law enforcement on both sides of the border are being made in part on the basis of what they think the answer is.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Well, which is it? Rules based on our actual needs, or based on our ideals?
Robert, you know that it doesn’t bother me much when you disagree with me, but it really does bother me when you bust out tired old rhetorical tricks like false dilemmas and expect me to be so stupid that I won’t notice ‘em. On the off-chance that you were asking that question in good faith: Our ideals do not mean that we are idiots who set aside all other valid considerations, like national security. But the starting point, for all us Constitution-huggers, ought to be starting from the principle of open immigration and then setting limits, not the other way around.
Unless you do think it’s a good idea to ape Old Europe and its attitudes like “France for Frenchmen” and “just because you were born here doesn’t mean you’re one of us”.
My exact words are were as follows: A poor person who takes risks, works longer, harder, and–dare I say it?–smarter, is very likely to escape poverty.
Indeed they were. Which is why you got called on your ‘very likely’. joe’s take is accurate; yours is merely secular Calvinism.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Robert
Let another 20-40 million poor immigrants in who are willing to do the work for a price that Americans won’t do. Great idea! Then we can get formerly middle-class Americans wages suppressed for a couple dozen other industries while the lucky new employers get to push the rest of the cost of these people onto the dwindling number of self-sufficient American tax payers. (i.e.. low wage workers take more out of the system then they put it. Especially when you add up the cost of schools, hospitals, and social safety net.)
So now schools become even more over-crowded, hospitals are over burdened, and the self sufficient American tax payer can look forward to tax increases to fix it all. Then with the usually increased birth rate of poor people added with the anchor-baby policy, we can look forward to 50 million brand new American citizen children in the span of only a few years. Viola, just what we needed: 10s of millions of new poor children heading off to school and showing up at the emergency rooms with runny noses.
A national policy of importing a massive amount of poverty. That’s a great plan, Robert.
As for the “jackbooted” thing. I know, its mean for a country to protect its borders and attempt to control who crosses them. I mean, we are probably the only country in the world that cares about such things. With the rest of the planet as “citizens of the world” that can go where they want, we here in American are a cruel lot. For Shame.
This comment was written by LarryFromExile.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Larry, I agree with you about the border controls and the need for them. “Jackbooted” was an attempt to be light-hearted; apparently it misfired. My bad.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
We definitely need to cut down on the demand side here.
Good luck with that happening. Americans are not going to be happy when they see the price tag that comes with using only legal labor.
Really, a simple solution would be a voluntary private certification agency (aren’t you conservative types big on the private sector?). Businesses that wish to sign on are perfectly free to do so, perhaps receiving a “Open for Legal Business” certification if they adhere to a strict set of guidelines, open themselves up for random audits, and so on. Then all the folks who are so very concerned about illegal labor would simply funnel their dollars to those businesses. The corner-cutting businesses would wither away, and the good businesses would not only attract customers, but would be able to hire more reliable, safer, legal employees, whose higher salaries would go back into the local economy. Everybody wins.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 15th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Robert
Nope sorry, my bad.
Mythago
II am sure someone will correct me if my memory is wrong, but I think they did a study a year or so ago and figured that you could double the wages of lettuce pickers and the price per head would only go up something like 22 cents. Housing construction would probably get quite a bit more expensive though.
This comment was written by LarryFromExile.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
“I kind of remember a study a year or so ago” is not really a cite, Larry.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
“The link you provided only seems to partially support the idea that a more generous redistribution policy encourages social mobility. The link says that in Britain, a country that appears to be far more generous in terms of welfare than the US, social mobility has declined whereas in the US it was atleast stable.”
Sure… in the same vein that the Sun only seems to partially be hot, by virtue of the fact that it’s not actually infinity degrees Celsius. Britain, which generally has wider social safety nets (though not as extensive as those in continental Europe), is declining in social mobility whereas the US is not. I’ll go you one better - Britain’s social mobility is actually lower in absolute terms, as well. It’s one country.
What we find, though, is that countries with highest income mobility have names like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. Countries in middle are Germany, Canada, and France. There isn’t even a debate that the US has very low mobility relative to other nations with high living standards. I think you’re banking pretty heavily on no one actually following my link.
mythago, I love your plan purely as a political gambit - there’s significant overlap between nativists and the deregulation crowd. Perhaps this would show them that market solutions are sometimes just ineffective and plain bad.
Of course, the reason I love it is because I strongly suspect that it *won’t work*. There are a kajillion reasons to hate WalMart, yet when it matters they all seem to lose out to the one pretty good reason to love it. “Raising awareness” only goes so far - there is no substitute for security measures such as the ones Larry listed.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Mythago, I know. Thats why I loaded it with caveats. Free time for posting was short so I was hoping that someone remembered it. But its entirely possible that I have mixed it up with rhetoric that I read during the congressional immigration debate.
When I get a little more time I will do some searches to see if I can find it.
This comment was written by LarryFromExile.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
sylphhead Writes:
You just repeated almost exact what I already wrote, except for the part you threw in about Britain’s social mobility being lower in absolute terms. Sooooooooo……let me say it again, your link only partially supports what you have asserted about wider social safety nets increasing mobility. If a more generous welfare state will always increase social mobility then British society should be more socially mobile than the US.
And this now brings us back full circle. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are not allowing thousands of low-skilled illegal immigrants into their country every day and they have nowhere near the millions of illegal immigrants present in their country as we do. Their immigration policies are far more restrictive. Hopefully you see where I’m going with this.
Sweden has birthright citizenship but they also recently restricted immigration. Norway has also been restriction immigration due to an increasing Muslim population. Germany does not have automatic birthright citizenship.
If you want higher social mobility you can’t allow millons of low-skilled illegal immigrants to come into the country and not think that they will be a substantial burden on the (welfare) state or fail to realize that many of them will be stuck in poverty for their entire lives.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
So the question would be whether or not poor immigrants from across the Mexican border are skewing the numbers down.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/SR9.cfm
Since I don’t have time to check their numbers and methodology I’m not going to bother with a summary but at least there’s something to chew on.
fwiw, i can’t imagine that a large number of people coming into the country to work at rock bottom prices won’t affect poverty stats.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
September 17th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
“You just repeated almost exact what I already wrote, except for the part you threw in about Britain’s social mobility being lower in absolute terms. Sooooooooo……let me say it again, your link only partially supports what you have asserted about wider social safety nets increasing mobility. If a more generous welfare state will always increase social mobility then British society should be more socially mobile than the US.”
That is an incredibly weak argument. If I say that winters are cold, my statement is still true despite the fact that every once in a while there’s a warm day during the months of December, January, or February; this is an understood convention of language. True universals simply don’t exist in the real world, and trying to pretend an opponent’s argument is necessarily a universal is flimsy, even by strawman standards.
If a gunshot is always more dangerous than a stab, we shouldn’t expect at any point, ever, anywhere, a situation where one person is shot with a gun but survives while another is stabbed with a knife and dies. But occasionally we do see that, which must forever invalidate the idea that guns are more lethal than knives - if for nothing else than to preserve the face of other logical contortions, such as the idea that helping the poor doesn’t help them.
I suppose that was unfair. We could always hedge it by saying a gun is ‘only sometimes, partially, haphazardly, oogily-doogily’ more dangerous than a knife.
Well, a strong social safety net is to social mobility what a gun is to killing. Canada would be something like a steak knife. The US is a spoon.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 1:28 am
sylphhead Writes:
True universals do exist in the real world. It’s just that “generous welfare state=high social mobility” is not one of those universals.
You could say a single gunshot wound is more likely to be fatal than a single stab, assuming that all other variables are the same. And you could say that social mobility is likely to increase with a more generous welfare program in America, like it has done in Sweden and Norway, but then you would need to keep a tight grip on immigration like Sweden and Norway have done. You would also probably need a more homogenous society, just like Sweden and Norway.
And once again, I’m going to bring us back full circle. If you want to increase social mobility, then we have to stop allowing thousands of low-skilled illegal immigrants to come into the country and change immigration policy to favor educated workers instead of focusing so much on family reunification. We also need to stamp down on employers who hire illegal immigrants and increase criminal liabilities for entering the country illegally.
I would just rather decrease welfare and let more people in, regardless of their educational level, and let them figure out how to take care of themselves or either go home.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I’m an avowed constitution-hugger myself. Glad to know you are, as well.
Would you mind showing me where in the Constitution, exactly, you’re getting your support?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Would you mind showing me where in the Constitution, exactly, you’re getting your support?
You know, all that bleeding-heart crap about due process and birthright citizenship. I hear that is sometimes referred to as the “anchor babies” provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
“True universals do exist in the real world. It’s just that “generous welfare state=high social mobility” is not one of those universals.”
You know, perhaps they do. From induction/deduction principles, we know that somewhere out there, there might be dry water, or a horse with seven heads - but for all intents and purposes, we’re dealing with universals. But when we’re talking political pronouncements dealing with something as multivariabled as a society, no, there aren’t any universals. Massive defense spending=safer on the world stage? Hardly. Pegged currency=dependency on foreigners? Often the opposite is true. Harsh laws=less crime? Not always.
“You could say a single gunshot wound is more likely to be fatal than a single stab, assuming that all other variables are the same. And you could say that social mobility is likely to increase with a more generous welfare program in America, like it has done in Sweden and Norway, but then you would need to keep a tight grip on immigration like Sweden and Norway have done. You would also probably need a more homogenous society, just like Sweden and Norway.”
A bit of a false dichotomy here. There’s no doubt Sweden and Norway have done very well for themselves. If aliens landed tomorrow and I had to show them the pinnacle of human society, I’d show them the Scandinavian countries - somewhere in between metropolitan Tokyo and the Pyramids. But yes, there are many aspects to their situation that aren’t strictly applicable to the US (or to France, for that matter, or Canada or Botswana…)
However, this isn’t a question of “how to turn the US into Norway or Sweden”. It’s “how to turn the US into any other Western country where peasants don’t fry rats for food”. (With the exception of, of course, Britain - insert joke about British food here.) When you’re the basically last in the standings, perhaps you should try and concentrate on getting into playoff contention first before worrying about the championship. And I don’t care how many farm workers in the US lack SS numbers, it can’t possibly compare to, say, the logistical nightmare of the wholesale ingestion of a sizeable impoverished Communist country. Yet Germany is making it work. Every country has its problems.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
September 18th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
sylphhead Writes:
I said the real world, not in Somewhere Out There land.
I can guarantee you that a sudden influx of low skilled workers into a country will depress wages for the only jobs that the immigrants can get. This is a universal; it happens every single time. If you can think of one instance where a sudden influx of low skilled immigrants has come into a country and not depressed wages in the industry that the majority of them flock to, then you’ve got me.
I’m glad you recognized why the situation in the US is different from the situation in Norway or Sweden.
Simple. We should start keeping out the poor people like all the other Western nations with substantial welfare states do.
From what I know about Norway and Sweden, they aren’t too keen on importing millions of people from the third world who fry rats for food.
Last in standing in what? All things considered, America is doing an excellent job of handling the millions of immigrants, both legal and illegal, in this country. I promise you that if you dropped 12 million illegal aliens into the middle of the sweet little nation of Norway, their beautiful welfare state would collapse under the weight of it.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 4:49 am
Oh, you’re tlking about that? That’s pretty limited, as it only applies to your kids. And itrequires you toget in, and have babies. And it doesn’t stop the govrnment from kicking the parents out. And it sure as hell says nothing about whether we should let any given individuals in in the first place, or refrain from kicking any other individuals out.
The only thing that provision really does is to make birthright citizenship. We could make our laws a gazillion times more draconian without crossing that line.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 6:46 am
The only thing that provision really does is to make birthright citizenship.
And, again, there’s that whole ‘due process’ and ‘equal protection’ thing, which I know is horribly out of fashion except for wealthy persons accused of sexual assault or of white-collar crimes.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Mythago says:
You know, all that bleeding-heart crap about due process and birthright citizenship.
I did some research on this and found something surprising. The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark decided that the Fourteenth Amendment extended citizenship not just to former slaves and their offspring (who had been disenfranchised by Dred Scott) but also to people who could reasonably be supposed to owe allegiance to some other country (which was apparently the original intent of “subject to the juristiction of …”). However, the Supremes did not apparently make a broad statement on the matter and have apparently never explicitly ruled on the citizenship status of persons born in the U.S. who were illegal aliens. The parents of the subject of Wong Kim Ark were legal resident aliens. From Wikipedia:
I wonder if anyone is thinking about bringing this before the Supreme Court? If the Supremes of 1898 left some wiggle room in there, the current Court might just decide to slide through it.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
RonF, I’ve read your post several times and I’m very confused as to what issue you think SCOTUS might consider. There’s nothing about Wong Kim Ark that gives hope to those terrified of “anchor babies”.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Jeez, enough of the snark please; it’s getting sort of tiring.
Especially with such a bad argument. If you’re a lawyer, you KNOW what due process is. Why the hell would you claim that due process has much to do with whether or not we allow someone to stay in the U.S.? It doesn’t, and you know damn well it’s a weak argument. Sure, we can’t deport people from the U.S. willy nilly–gotta follow our own rules, after all, which is what DP is really about–but the final question of whether we can deport them at all isn’t really a DP issue. It’s a PROCESS requirement, not an OUTCOME requirement, after all. (and of course a wannabe immigrant who isn’t in the U.S. may not have much of a DP argument at all, ya? Not being in the jurisdiction of the U.S. and all that. Don’t forget that part.)
And equal protection? Again: doesn’t work here. Sure; maybe it applies to how illegal immigrants get caught (can’t discriminate, etc.), or how they are treated by the authorities. But it has piss-all to do with whether they are actually illegal. Or whether (if they’re not in the U.S.) they are allowed to come in.
So in this argument, we’re debating illegal immigrants. And you are citing DP and EP in support of an “open” immigration policy…? God, I thought I had enough of this with the republicans I argue with. If you’re going to wrap yourself in the Constitution, get it right.
Oh yeah: I actually believe in due process. And I argue for it consistently, across the board. I want DP for everyone–white, black, poor, rich; whether accused of embezzlement, drug dealing, or rape. Including people who I don’t like as well as those I do. If that “for whites only” comment was aimed at me, it’s about as untrue as you can get.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 19th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
“I’m glad you recognized why the situation in the US is different from the situation in Norway or Sweden.”
No problem. But in light of:
“And you could say that social mobility is likely to increase with a more generous welfare program in America” (post 156)
Norway and Sweden aren’t the only countries with higher income mobility or more generous welfare programs than America. They’re not the only countries we could try emulating.
“Simple. We should start keeping out the poor people like all the other Western nations with substantial welfare states do.”
Better yet, we could start limiting the amount of immigration and expanding the American welfare state, giving income mobility two shots in the arm. Two’s better than one, no?
“I can guarantee you that a sudden influx of low skilled workers into a country will depress wages for the only jobs that the immigrants can get. This is a universal; it happens every single time. If you can think of one instance where a sudden influx of low skilled immigrants has come into a country and not depressed wages in the industry that the majority of them flock to, then you’ve got me.”
All right. If the industry in question is an infant industry, and that sudden influx of low skilled workers gave it the threshold number it needed to be structurally viable (or expand/incorporate, as the case may be). This allows the industry to expand, raising the wages of all its workers.
No, this doesn’t happen as often as depressing wages from an established, mature industry. But doesn’t happen as often =/= never happens. That’s why we are careful around the language of universals, and why we are extra careful about not falsely accusing your opponent of making one, as a strawman.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 8:00 am
eez, enough of the snark please; it’s getting sort of tiring.
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to be stealing your flavor. See, I made a remark about “Constitution-huggers” and you thought you would be clever and rest the debate on “what does the Constitution say about illegal immigrants”?
Do you believe that due process has no place in deportation proceedings? Do you believe that the United States has no jurisdiction over persons residing in this country unless they are citizens or legal aliens? That if the government believes somebody is not here legally for whatever reason, we should just put their ass on a bus and that’s the end of it? Otherwise you seem to be making some kind of Werner von Braun argument: it’s not my problem what ICE does once we arrest the bastards.
So in this argument, we’re debating illegal immigrants.
We are? I thought we were discussing the subject of immigration, and specifically illegal immigration vs. legal and policy considerations related thereto.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 8:55 am
OK, mythago, you’re right; let’s both agree to revert back to politeness. I’ll start.
Do you believe that due process has no place in deportation proceedings?
No; any tribunal in the U.S. (including deportation ones) needs to have DP.
However, in my view, DP alone is a fairly de minimis requirement and often relates more to equal treatment than a particular result. A harsh, lengthy, or usually-negative-result process can still be due process.
And that process (like the criminal laws) may have to adapt to the problem it is trying to solve. The vast number of illegal immigrants may require that the process for evaluating their claims is more limited than the process for evaluating the defenses of accused murderers.
I don’t think we do an outstanding job of process. However, the real test would be where the type I and type II errors are. If we’re accurate and unpleasant, that bothers me far less than if we’re inaccurate and unpleasant.
That if the government believes somebody is not here legally for whatever reason, we should just put their ass on a bus and that’s the end of it?
I don’t trust the government’s belief about anything, really, immigration issues included. But at some point we have to trust SOMEONE to make that call, and I think the judiciary can do an OK job.
The issues of appeals are trickier. Appeals are important because they help prevent error. But they are also generally used as a delaying tactic, and are generally hideously expensive to manage. I don’t know if there’s a way to separate out people who actually think they should win, or who actually have a good case (e.g. the people we ‘want’ to appeal) from the people who don’t think they will/should win, and are just trying to stop the clock for a few months.
Otherwise you seem to be making some kind of Werner von Braun argument: it’s not my problem what ICE does once we arrest the bastards.
Well, you and probably disagree on what should happen to illegals; I think most of them should be deported (absent the asylum ones) and I don’t think you agree. But irrespective of what ICE does, you and I agree that the pre-deportation process must be reasonable.
There will ALWAYS be an element of unfairness, though, mostly because of the large # of illegal immigrants in comparison to the ones who are deported. I don’t see that as a DP issue, though. Do you?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
If we’re accurate and unpleasant, that bothers me far less than if we’re inaccurate and unpleasant.
I’m not at all concerned with “pleasant”; I’m talking about an impartial process that is subject to judicial review and that proceeds according to existing law. That’s not what we have now by any stretch of the imagination. There’s a lot of room between kangaroo courts and long, ponderous, Dickensian layers of appeal.
I have no opinion as to whether ‘most’ illegal immigrants should be deported; the standards for who is allowed to stay and why should be clear and the courts and the law should adhere to them, that’s all. My bias is on the front end–allowing people into the country in the first place–not on whether, if they ARE breaking the laws, we should enforce those laws.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
sylphhead Writes:
I prefer the reverse: expanding–or, in other words, allowing people to come and go as they please across borders–the amount of immigration and decreasing the welfare state.
The business is going to want to maximize profit. It’s not going to raise wages until the influx of cheaper labor slows or stops: why would I start paying a worker $10 an hour when I can continue to pay that worker $5.15 an hour and keep the extra profit as the business expands?
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2007 at 4:38 am
Really, a simple solution would be a voluntary private certification agency (aren’t you conservative types big on the private sector?). Businesses that wish to sign on are perfectly free to do so, perhaps receiving a “Open for Legal Business” certification if they adhere to a strict set of guidelines, open themselves up for random audits, and so on. Then all the folks who are so very concerned about illegal labor would simply funnel their dollars to those businesses. The corner-cutting businesses would wither away, and the good businesses would not only attract customers, but would be able to hire more reliable, safer, legal employees, whose higher salaries would go back into the local economy. Everybody wins.
Funny you should bring this up, mythago. Something like this already exists for the building trades; they’re called “labor unions”. Labor unions are already subject to random audits by the Department of Labor, and folks entering apprenticeship programs are already required to produce proof of citizenship or green card. I know that the union contractors in my area are pretty damn diligent about their employees’ legal status; as someone with black hair, olive skin, and a Latin name, I’ve been required to provide my birth certificate as part of my employment paperwork (while whiter compadres could pass with just their union card and driver’s license).
However, the existance of this system hasn’t created a demand for this easily verifiable 100% legal labor. Seems like there’s something about “illegal” status that really appeals to employers…..hmm…..what could it be……….
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2007 at 6:46 am
mythago Writes:
…There’s a lot of room between kangaroo courts and long, ponderous, Dickensian layers of appeal.
But what about the underlying accuracy? Isn’t that the end point of analysis? It’s a bit like the typical standard; if the claimed error wouldn’t have made a difference, then it’s not enough to overturn an appeal.
Of the people who get deported through the existing U.S. deportation system (which isn’t so hot from the bit I know, though “kangaroo courts” seems like a stretch), what percentage are deported who shouldn’t really be deported? Don’t you think that’s an important consideration?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2007 at 8:56 am
“I prefer the reverse: expanding–or, in other words, allowing people to come and go as they please across borders–the amount of immigration and decreasing the welfare state.”
Okay, but that’s not what I was responding to. You implied that the way for America to have the higher income mobility that other Western nations have, it would only have to limit immigration. I pointed out that the strength of the welfare state also plays a large factor. If income mobility isn’t a concern of yours at all, then fine. If it is, you’d do well not to ignore the role of the state that you’ve already admitted exists.
“The business is going to want to maximize profit. It’s not going to raise wages until the influx of cheaper labor slows or stops: why would I start paying a worker $10 an hour when I can continue to pay that worker $5.15 an hour and keep the extra profit as the business expands?”
What’s ironic about this analysis is that it reads straight out of the LTV: as if the only economic considerations in any system are a worker’s wages and his employer’s profits, and the zero-sum game between the two.
This business, particularly an expanding one (which we can safely assume in most cases does not have majority market share), does not have a monopoly on labour. Other businesses can pull workers away if it tries to keep a very low lid on wages and compensation - we see this in real life, where even struggling small businesses rarely pay the bare minimum wage - no one would work for them if they did. (In my experience, bare minimum wage is offered by two main sorts of employers: gigantic mega-employers affected little by competition and those that primarily employ students. Often the two go together.) So a business such as this one is under constant pressure to raise wages, as long as it remains in competition - this pressure is tempered when it is financially incapable of doing so, but not when it is expanding and able. The effect is an upward pressure on wages, as sure as a stream of immigrants provides a downward pressure on wages.
Moving on, I read an article recently that brought up a very good point: strong-armed security measures may make it harder for illegals to get into and stay in America, but they may also make it harder for working illegals here to send money back across the border - thereby strangling off a major source of income for families down there, increasing the incentive for more of them to cross the border into America.
All this suggests to me that the way to control the borders is two-pronged: border security and enforcement will be needed to contain the adverse, spiralling consequences that would occur in its absence. But the leg work of actually reversing the problem that we have now can only be done by choking off the demand for illegal immigrants. This can be done both by strict enforcement of legal labour practices on employers, and the cessation of all tendencies to force economic programmes on Mexico that make it prone to historic currency collapses.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 am
sylphhead Writes:
If we had an open border there would be plenty of cheap labor to go around. The problem is the same: businesses are not going to raise wages until they have to compete for employees–which they won’t have to do as long as the supply of cheap labor is flowing. Once the numbers of people willing to work for rock bottom wages slows down or stops, and the businesses continue to expand, ,i>then wages will rise.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:39 pm
“If we had an open border there would be plenty of cheap labor to go around.”
What is absolutely amazing is that this is presented as a good thing. This is a quote I just have to save for posterity.
“The problem is the same: businesses are not going to raise wages until they have to compete for employees–which they won’t have to do as long as the supply of cheap labor is flowing.”
There is always a supply of cheap labor flowing - even if there were no immigrants, there are still the unemployed looking for work and those who are just coming out of school. That does not mean businesses never have to compete for labor. The influx just has to be greater than the sum total of the variables that run the other way, which is not always the case - hence not a universal.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
September 25th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Heck yeah it’s a good thing! The goods we buy are cheaper, because the labor that went into making them was inexpensive, thus allowing us to buy more of them.
The laborers who come into the country illegally to work for low wages wouldn’t be doing so unless coming here was better than whatever it was they were leaving behind. So for them low wage work in the US is a dramatic improvement over unemployment/low wage work in whatever country they came from.
Sounds like a win-win to me.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 25th, 2007 at 5:51 am
suggestion, Jamila: since you think cheap labor is such a good thing, how about you take a pay cut for the greater good?
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
September 25th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Nomen -
Which products do you think we should make more expensive for poor people to buy?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 25th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
“Heck yeah it’s a good thing! The goods we buy are cheaper, because the labor that went into making them was inexpensive, thus allowing us to buy more of them.”
This reminds me of a label that Conceptual Guerrilla came up with: Cheap Labour Conservative (or Libertarian). You know, how you have ‘family values conservatives’, ‘law and order conservatives’ - we can add ‘cheap labour conservative’ to the list.
And just as the former two have become labels that right wing politicians, advocacy groups, and activists have readily adaopted, I’m sure “Cheap Labour Conservative” will be no different - after all, cheap labour is a good thing, is it not? So write to Ron Paul and tell him to campaign under a banner of “Cheap Labour”. Convince the American Enterprise Institute to adapt it into a slogan. At least amongst yourselves, on right wing blogs and public forums, headline topics and entries that openly pine for “cheap labour” - in those words.
It’s a good thing, remember.
“Nomen -
Which products do you think we should make more expensive for poor people to buy?”
So you’re of the camp that says that it’s okay to lower poor people’s wages, as long as the CPI goes down or something. There’s lot of people who’d say the reverse - it’s okay if the stuff they buy gets more expensive, as long as their wages go up with it.
Here’s a radical idea - why don’t we let poor people decide for themselves what they’d prefer, instead of telling them what they ought to want? Start a Republican political offensive into inner cities, hollowed out ghost towns, former manufacturing hubs that now have high, high unemployment - and convince them that cheap labour = cheap goods, which is good for them. I’m sure they’ll be mighty impressed.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
September 25th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Nomen Nescio Writes:
No thanks. I’m damn near working for minimum wage already. However, for someone making the US equivalent of $50 a month in another country, minimum wage would be a decided improvement.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
September 28th, 2007 at 6:38 am
Of the people who get deported through the existing U.S. deportation system (which isn’t so hot from the bit I know, though “kangaroo courts” seems like a stretch), what percentage are deported who shouldn’t really be deported?
The ends justify the means? We got the bad guys anyway, so who cares if we followed the rules? Is that really your argument?
Robert, how about tobacco?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 28th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Robert, how about tobacco?
I’d love some, thanks.
I don’t think it’s the state’s job to improve the moral lives of the poor by taxing their pleasures into unaffordability.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 28th, 2007 at 8:00 am
I’m pointing out that an important aspect of process analysis is, IMO, ultimate accuracy. You are deliberately misphrasing it as some sort of Western frontier justice, so let me state it more accurately for you and other readers:
Process is designed to ensure fairness, but “fairness” is difficult to define. A better measure of fairness is accuracy, which can be measured by looking at cases in retrospect.
An attack on the existing court system based on DP is, at heart, an accusation that the system is inaccurate. And a protestation for better DO is–or should be–based on a belief that a lack of DP is causing inaccuracy.
When the system focuses more on process than accuracy, that is a failure of due process.
Take criminal law. The fact that our criminal system allows many guilty people to go free is a cost. It’s worthwhile cost–we have few real ways to reform it that wouldn’t result in innocents being convicted. But when someone who is actually guilty gets off on a technicality of process, that’s a bad thing. Similarly, when someone who is actually innocent gets convicted or denied appeal because of a technicality of process, that’s a bad thing.
So yeah, when you complain about DP for illegal immigrants, I want to see the result of accuracy. Because the quest for accuracy should drive DP, NOT the other way around.
Think of the various DP requirements that we have enacted. Think of the requirement for exclusion based on warrantless search. This was not enacted because of some random DP belief. It was enacted because it was necessary to avoid lying; to ensure accuracy of the police’s statements; to enhance accuracy of the outcome.
That’s why federal courts will, when reviewing a defendant’s appeal, look at whether or not the claimed error made any difference in the defendant’s trial. I think they are too anti-defendant to do a good job at this most of the time, but the concept is strong.
So: you complain about the kangaroo courts. Are they inaccurate? Are they kicking out people who have a legal right to remain?
And why would you suggest that doesn’t matter?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Process is designed to ensure fairness, but “fairness” is difficult to define. A better measure of fairness is accuracy, which can be measured by looking at cases in retrospect.
Which is a fancier way of saying that the ends justify the means and due process doesn’t matter. As long as we can say the results are the same, who cares, eh?
“Most of the people who got deported would have been deported under a fair system” is not a measure of accuracy. For starters, it assumes that no mistakes are made in the other direction. It also assumes that unfairly imprisoning, prosecuting or attempting to deport people who are legally entitled to remain here is not all that important.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:54 am
RonF, I’ve read your post several times and I’m very confused as to what issue you think SCOTUS might consider. There’s nothing about Wong Kim Ark that gives hope to those terrified of “anchor babies”.
Sorry to take so long to respond, mythago.
The idea is this; when pregnant alien women come into the U.S. and give birth, current law says that their children are thereby U.S. citizens by birthright. Some, as in the case of Wong Kim Ark, are legally resident aliens. Some are illegal aliens. Some cross the border with a legal permit they’ve gained via deception; they are legal aliens, but not resident.
This benefits the child because he gains the rights of an American citizen, and the benefits of those rights are often superior to those benefits available to him or her in the country of their parent’s origin. It also makes it easier for their parents to gain residence in the United States, which is something also highly sought for by citizens of various countries.
As I said, current law is based on the Supremes’ decision in Wong Kim Ark. But Wong Kim Ark was a legally resident alien. The article proposes that it’s not at all impossible that if someone brought the proper suit, the Supremes could construe Wong Kim Ark narrowly and restrict birthright citizenship only to children of legally resident aliens and deny it to children of illegal aliens and legal non-resident aliens.
The reading that people here are giving the word “juristiction” as found in the 14th Amendment is “subject to the laws of the U.S.”. That’s basically taken to mean anyone except children born to foreign diplomats. But in researching the adoption of the amendment (and I apologize; I don’t have the cites at hand and have no time to look them up), I found that this may not be true; that what was meant was “owes no allegance to any other government”. So, if a child is born to a Mexican couple in U.S. soil that child is a Mexican citizen and owes allegiance to Mexico, and would thus be ineliglble for American citizenship. The intent of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that slaves and their children could not be denied American citizenship, since they owed allegiance to no other country.
I do not offer this as being definitive - I’d have to re-do the research, and I’ve got no time for that right now. But be aware that between that and the grounds on which Wong Kim Ark was decided, there’s a lot of wiggle room for the Supremes to go ahead and declare that children of illegal aliens are not automatically citizens under the Constitution.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:59 pm
This benefits the child because he gains the rights of an American citizen
That’s because the child IS an American citizen.
But be aware that between that and the grounds on which Wong Kim Ark was decided, there’s a lot of wiggle room for the Supremes to go ahead and declare that children of illegal aliens are not automatically citizens under the Constitution.
There’s really not as much wiggle room as you are making it out to be.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2007 at 8:33 am
That’s because the child IS an American citizen.
Under current law, yes. I didn’t mean to imply differently.
There’s really not as much wiggle room as you are making it out to be.
It’s not something that can be quantitatively measured. There’s as much or as little wiggle room as 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices decide there is. Any opinion on what way that would go would be pure speculation. But the justices could easily decide against birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens without violating stare decsis.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Actually, they would be going against a great deal of precedent. But it’s not like they are; this Court has made it clear that they’ll do whatever the hell the think, whadarayagonnadoaboutit?
Of course it’s speculation as to how SCOTUS would actually rule; but the excited notion that Wong Kim Ark is the tool that will happily kick all those anchor babies back to Mexico is a pipe dream.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Implementation of such a ruling would be interesting; would it only apply to all children born after it was made, or going back to all children that ever qualified under the original law to begin with? And would the Supremes take that into account upon considering how they would make their ruling?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
If that’s what I meant to say, I’d have said it.
I’m not sure why, but you seem to be doing a lot of “what you’re really saying is…” and it is getting sort of annoying. Especially since I responded in some detail to you, AND posed some followup questions based on your post, none of which you have answered. Is this some sort of sound bite war?
I made that assumption to use the bias to your benefit, not mine. Most people who are concerned about DP focus on Type II error (the innocents who are mistakenly held to be guilty. In this case, that would represent the people entitled to stay who are mistakenly deported.
Your point has no meaning unless you mean to apply it to Type I error. It is true that I intentionally didn’t go into the number of “should be deported” people who the courts are allowing to stay in the U.S. But complaining about high levels of Type I error in the immigration courts is a conservative argument, not a liberal one. Are you sure you want to go there?
I’m not sure where you’re getting that. Certainly the prosecutorial type II error is also relevant.
But would you care to point out some statistics to back up your claims? Because after all, ANY system is going to have type II error at the prosecution stage, and the arrest stage, and the conviction stage. The question isn’t whether a system HAS such error–they all do–but rather which system has LESS.
And that goes back to the question I asked before: why do you make the claims you do?
Ron, IMO the concept of a USSC-driven revocation of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants’ kids is so far-fetched as to be almost pointless to discuss. It’s much more likely that it would pass via a constitutional amendment (which will almost certainly not happen. And yes, the ‘much more likely’ still applies.)
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
But complaining about high levels of Type I error in the immigration courts is a conservative argument, not a liberal one. Are you sure you want to go there?
I’m honestly not following you here. An argument is valid or invalid depending on whether a conservative would like it?
The issue isn’t merely error–if by “error” you mean “the result would have been the same either way”. The issue is having an impartial, fair and consistent system of immigration courts. That’s why I keep saying you appear to be arguing that the end justifies the means. You’re a lawyer, so I truly can’t fathom your argument (or at least what I believe you’re arguing), which is that as long as we aren’t making too many errors we must assume there is due process.
As for ‘back up my claims’, I guess I could ask you to go first–beauty before age and all that–although I could cite you plenty of articles on how broken our immigration system is, if you truly aren’t aware of that. Personally, I’ve been involved in the system both as the spouse of a potential immigrant, and as an attorney volunteering for a legal clinic that assisted people with immigration problems. The staff attorneys at that clinic had inhuman levels of patience. (I know I wouldn’t remain that calm trying to handle a system that has not managed to implement a special visa for victims of human trafficking seven years after Congress approved it, for example.)
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
The issue is having an impartial, fair and consistent system of immigration courts.
I boggle that you think any systemic entity capable of having all of these attributes simultaneously and categorically. They must be traded off against one another.
You can call them a list of desirable traits in specific decisions, if you like. (”This was a fair ruling.”) That’s the kind of impartiality and fairness that Sailorman is looking for, I think, which is why he’s focusing on whether correct decisions are being reached.
I agree that it’s important to have proper process and such, but I also think that the primary criteria for judging the quality of a judicial system is the quality of its rulings, not the optimality of the process’ alignment to a rulebook.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
mythago,
a system with lots of type 1 error and little type 2 error is a very liberal system. Since you appear to be approaching this from the pro-illegal-immigrant viewpoint, it seemed fair to assume that wouldn’t bother you.* Generally speaking, a DP argument focuses on Type 2 error, as there’s no entity who does a good job asserting a “too much type 1 error” complaint.
So are you saying that you actually care about the number (large as it is) of people who we could prosecute and/or deport, that we don’t prosecute and/or deport? If you don’t care about it–which I strongly suspect is the case–why bring it up?
Can you PLEASE stop with this bullshit? I’ve called you on it above; now you’re continuing with a bizarre ad hom. I considered a reply in kind (”you’re a lawyer, so I can’t believe you’d fail to understand…”) but please. It is fucking ridiculous, and beneath you. Please stop, now.
Impartiality and consistency are means to an end, which is that elusive “fairness.” Complaints about partiality or inconsistency are at heart complaints that the result “should have” been different than it was.
Do you see another goal of the process? DO you think the process is a goal unto itself?
*Info for those who don’t know the lingo: Type 1 error is “failing to convict the guilty;” and Type 2 error is “accidentally convicting the innocent.” Generally speaking, there’s a balance between the two and in a given system a change will trade one for the other rather than reducing total error. However, different SYSTEMS can easily have different amounts of total error. Also, some changes to a system will reduce total error without changing the 1/2 ratio; I’ve posted on that w/r/t rape law on my own blog, most recently here: http://moderatelyinsane.blogspot.com/2007/09/more-on-bias-neutral-improvements-for.html
Authoritative regimes tend to reduce Type I error by increasing Type II error (”kill ‘em all and let God sort them out;” or “we may have to imprison a lot of innocent Muslims to catch a terrorist, but it’s justified.”) The “potential terrorist” sweeps post 9/11 were an excellent example.
Liberal regimes tend to prefer Type I error over Type II error (”better than 100 guilty go free than that an innocent man be convicted.”) Exclusionary rules in evidence are a great example. As a point of interest, though, some liberals feel very differently when it comes to rape law. But that’s a different thread.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2007 at 7:32 am
I agree that it’s important to have proper process and such, but I also think that the primary criteria for judging the quality of a judicial system is the quality of its rulings, not the optimality of the process’ alignment to a rulebook.
Sorry, Robert, could you put that into English? Do you think that courts would all be better off if they followed the whims of the judge instead of some wacky, you know, laws?
Since you appear to be approaching this from the pro-illegal-immigrant viewpoint
Oh, I see. It’s not that you have problems with ad hominem attacks or unfair categorizations, it’s just that you feel they’re sort of your intellectual property. (It’s also more than a little disingenuous to take a swipe at rape-shield laws as part of your argument, then pull a no-tagbacks by saying ‘but that’s for a different thread’.)
So are you saying that you actually care about the number (large as it is) of people who we could prosecute and/or deport, that we don’t prosecute and/or deport?
Why, yes. Sorry to disappoint.
Complaints about unfairness are not merely complaints that the result was wrong. They go to the validity of the system itself. Take your example regime, Killemallistan. Imagine that the police in that country arrest a man for embezzlement, not because of any evidence, but because his cousin refused the advances of the chief of police. They torture him into confessing, and bring him before a judge who says “If you were arrested you must be guilty,” convicting the man of embezzlement.
If the man’s employer later stumbles across evidence that the man WAS an embezzler, it’s all good?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Mythago, It seems to me that Robert and sailorman are arguing that correctly applying bad rules is not a ‘fair’ process. You seem to be arguing that correctly applying any rules is a fair process. So universally applying a horrible system of laws without error would be fair in your opinion but not in theirs. Did I get that wrong?
Sailorman, can you please explain what you mean by Type I and Type II errors? The only time I saw that nomenclature it was in reference to rejecting or failing to reject the null hypothesis in hypothesis testing and I’m not sure how that applies here. I’m not sure about other readers but your use of the terms do not help make your point clear to me.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Sorry, Robert, could you put that into English? Do you think that courts would all be better off if they followed the whims of the judge instead of some wacky, you know, laws?
This is so grossly not what I said that, although I’d sworn off trying to get you to stop dishonestly mischaracterizing posts, I’ve gotta join Sailorman: please knock it the fuck off.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Next time I’ll be sure to just say “What the fuck did you just try and say?” instead of guessing at what you could possibly have meant. Better yet, how about you just add me to your virtual bozo filter, since you’re persuaded that, like you, I am only interested in scoring rhetorical points?
joe - I’m saying that you can’t have a good result if you have a manifestly broken and arbitrary process.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2007 at 9:42 am
OK. I will use simple words and concepts.
It is important to have rules for a court system. Those rules should be as fair as is reasonably possible. The court system should follow those rules as well as it can. We know from our understanding of human nature and history, though, that there is no perfectly fair set of rules. We also know that no court system will be able to follow the rules perfectly.
It is also important that the court system reach just outcomes. When it is looking at people who are guilty of the crimes they are accused of, it should find them guilty. When it is looking at people who are innocent, it should find them innocent. We also know from history and human nature that no court system will achieve this perfect justice.
If there is a conflict between a court having fair rules, or doing justice, it is better if the court does justice.
You demand a system that is “impartial, fair and consistent”. I suggest that this is a conceptual error, and that human systems are not capable of maintaining these categorical qualities simultaneously. I suggest that what is important is justice.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Joe, did you read my “info for those who don’t know the lingo” paragraphs, that attempt to explain type I and II error in the legal context? If you still don’t get it I’ll explain more, but I suspect you missed them. Let me know.
Mythago:
This was merely an explanation of why I assumed you were less interested in Type I error, based on the earlier content of your posts. Note the word “appear”, which acts as a qualifier (are you even paying attention to what anyone else is typing? that’s an ad hominem, I know, but I’m honestly beginning to wonder here. I don’t know why you’d miss that.)
I like rape shield laws. I think they’re justified. I’ve said as much in a variety of threads. But they are what they are, and their effect on Type I and Ii error is what it is. And as such it serves as an interesting example of how people’s preference for varying levels of type I and II error can change through the subject matter.
I don’t control the threads here, and–in theory at least–this thread is about something else. Feel free to “tag” me back if you want to, though I doubt we disagree on the rape shield subject.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
I missed that paragraph. So the legal profession uses Type 1 and Type 2 as a term of art? I Didn’t know that. They’re somwhat similar to the way they’re used in statistics.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Sailorman
”
Thats true. But then again a few short years ago most of us thought we had private property rights too before the USSC magically swept them away in the Kelo decision.
This comment was written by LarryFromExile.Report this comment to the moderators
October 10th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Note the word “appear”, which acts as a qualifier
And please note in my previous posts, I stated what your opinion seemed to be. Are you bothering to read anything *I’m* writing?
If there is a conflict between a court having fair rules, or doing justice, it is better if the court does justice.
“Doing justice” meaning what in this context, setting aside the whole issue of the false dilemma posed?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 10th, 2007 at 10:35 am
“Doing justice” meaning what in this context
Finding people guilty who are guilty, and finding people innocent who are innocent.
If you mean the specifics of immigration courts, then reaching decisions that accord with the will of Congress when they passed whatever rule or policy is being adjudicated.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
October 10th, 2007 at 10:52 am
mythago:
Is my statement of what I understood your position generally to be incorrect? If so, then I apologize. It didn’t have any effect on the your argument, other than to make a particular segment of my response make more sense.
So: you care about Type I error? Why? Do you care about it more, or less than Type II? Do you think Type I error is the main issue that constitutes problems with due process, as I understood you to be implying before?
And while we’re at it, would you mind distinguishing who you are quoting, when you quote multiple people in the same post?
I disagree. There are two kinds of general unfairness complaints: results and process. But in reality the results complaints are much more common, because few people tend to complain about something that gives them what they ultimately hoped to achieve.
If you look at most people who are are complaining about process, they are doing so because of the results. Your example below is somewhat of an unusual exception; I’m not sure how it really applies to the immigration argument.
OK, right here you sort of lost me. It’s difficult to separate “torture into confessing” from the rest of the example. And AFAIK we’re not talking about torture based confessions, right? We’re talking about immigration decisions. Why are you going down this road?
I’m going to address thius part of your post as its own standalone hypothetical:
Let’s see if we can agree on one thing first: Do you agree that the worst case is “if the man’s employer later stumbles across evidence that the man WAS NOT an embezzler”? That any situation where a convicted defendant is actually guilty is “better” than an otherwise-identical situation where the convicted defendant is actually innocent?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
October 10th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Sure. “Better” does not mean “not bad”.
If a process is corrupt or unreliable, then what’s the point of having the process at all? How can we judge whether, in Robert’s words, whether justice is being done? “Most of the people we deport should have been deported anyway” is not a justification of a bad process. It ignores the question of whether we would have gotten the same–or better–results with a fair process, and it ignores Type I errors.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators