patrick.net

Actually, that’s part of the reason for not wanting completely open borders: most of us already here do not want the U.S. to become yet another Third World hellhole (just like the countires these people are trying to escape from).

It sounds like, basically, you just don't want to see any poor people. Better for them to be even poorer in their native country than come to the US and offend your sensibilities.

Glen,

If you're so in favor of completely open borders, then why don't you welcome some of these fine folks into your house --and volunteer to feed, clothe, insure and employ them too, while you're at it.

HARM

Walls and secure borders are not the same thing. Many dissimilar countries have very secure borders yet don't build walls or fences.

Borders are porous. They always will be. The challenge is to secure that against critical, defensible threats, like from armies or surging mobs.

Building giant walls has, at best, a rapidly diminishing return on investment no matter how you measure it. I'm all for some of your other proposals, like holding employers accountable.

As an employer myself, I find it doubly criminal that other employers utilize illegals, which hurts honest employers as well as taxpaying society while they profit and smugly claim they're anti-illegal immigrant.

HARM,

All else equal, if I were looking for a roommate, employee, or opportunity to do charity work, I would be just as likely to choose an immigrant as a US citizen. I fail to see why I shouldn't.

For the record (before someone else puts more words in my mouth), I am not against all forms of immigration or for closing the borders, or for means-testing all immigrants. That's ridiculous. I would even be in favor of expanding current immigration quotas/limits, and allowing more work visas, if WE WOULD JUST START ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAWS AND PUNISHING OFFENDERS.

Glen,

Good for you. Problem is, when national immigration policy is based on weepy bleeding heart "oh, how sad, they're so poor" emotions, what you get is an uncontrollable and unassimilated flood of "diversity" along your border states, along with all the wonderful "benefits" it brings (poverty, high crime rate, lower wages, overwhelmed deteriorating infrastructure, high uninsured rates, diseases like TB that were once eradicated here, etc., etc.

@Randy H,

Fair enough. I suspect that removing eligibility for welfare subsidies from illegals and a few well publicized cases of punishing employers would quickly "get the word out" and might just make building a wall unnecessary, or at least, a lot less necessary.

HARM,

you are right, I can't even do simple arithmetics. Still, I doubt if we get 3M net inflow. But you are right in pointing out that CA is the major receptor of all these immigrants (which is why I always think that the Pacific Northwest is a much nicer place).

I am not pro illegal immigration either, I earned my status and hope others to do the same. I am particularly against importing old parents into this country, even on a legal basis. Elderly parents have no reasons to be here unless they can entirely fund their own medicare and retirement. But I just think border control will never work.

We have to be smarter at it. One of the proposals I've been thinking is to provide subsidy to multi-national corporations if they outsource jobs to Mexico instead of China or India, because if China or India have employment problems, it is much harder for Chinese or Indians to get on a boat and set sail to America. We have more vested interest in keeping our backyard, Mexico, stable and fully employed at a decent wage than that of China or India.

The subsidy is just a redirection of public resources we would otherwise spend if these Mexican illegals come and stay.

@ Malcolm

What can I say? Truth is stranger than fiction. ...shocking.
I read your site too. Bam!

Oooops! I meant @Allah

What can I say? Truth is stranger than fiction. …shocking.
I read your site too. Bam!

We have to be smarter at it. One of the proposals I’ve been thinking is to provide subsidy to multi-national corporations if they outsource jobs to Mexico instead of China or India, because if China or India have employment problems, it is much harder for Chinese or Indians to get on a boat and set sail to America. We have more vested interest in keeping our backyard, Mexico, stable and fully employed at a decent wage than that of China or India.

The subsidy is just a redirection of public resources we would otherwise spend if these Mexican illegals come and stay.

Ha ha --now there's some out-of-the-box thinking. And not a bad idea at that.

Well NAFTA was supposed to be that subsidy by removing trade tarrifs.

The corruption in Mexico is so bad you almost would rather deal with China. They at least speak English, but their government actively is promoting commerce and growth. The Mexican government is more like dealing with the mafia. Every single thing is a shakedown to those buggers. The whole culture is screwed up to where you would rather say forget it. When I was starting out in life, I worked for a company which made dog leashes and we had a little maquiladora. It was a joke, my boss told me all kinds of stories about every semi official with a badge coming by for their payoff. He just made up a name of someone who sounded important like Mr Castanza and said that would sometimes keep them in check. I can't figure out how the whole country hasn't collapsed, I know it is on the verge.

I will no longer go into Mexico for genuine fear unless I am with a Mexican friend. It is really dangerous, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

I told you guys how I helped build a house down there some months ago. I literally don't know how there aren't real epidemics down there. The houses on this beautiful hillside had no plumbing. Each house has a little shed over a 10 foot deep open hole which is their toilet. I have no idea how the land can sustain that many people constantly crapping in it. I will never forget going down to that part.

Have there been reliable studies on the net economic benefit/cost to the United States of legal immigrants versus illegal immigrants? I recall reading before of studies that show substantial net benefits from legal immigration but substantial net costs from illegal immigration.

Immigration policy should be like a company's hiring policy. You don't hire everyone who submits an application. You look for quality. You pick applicants who will add value rather than drain resources.

In the past, the United States was terrific at stealing the best and brightest from other countries. They would come here as students and wind up staying to the benefit of U.S. industries. Over the years, I have known many highly talented foreign students who ultimately returned home because they could not obtain a work visa or greencard. Ironically, many left precisely because they were law abiding when, if they were less concerned about the law, they easily could have just remained illegally.

I will no longer go into Mexico for genuine fear unless I am with a Mexican friend. It is really dangerous, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

I will only go to Mexico on a round-trip cruise. And I may not even get off the boat at ports-of-call.

It is interesting to see that the first defense (or last refuge?) of those opposed to immigration controls is: "Do you really want to live in a police state?"

There are many ways to enforce current immigration laws without having roadside checkpoints.

As a (fully documented legal) immigrant, I have absolutely NO problem with the government asking me to produce evidence of my legal status when I desire access to taxpayer-funded government benefits. Sure, it is an inconvenience, but is perfectly reasonable if I am asking the government to pay for something.

I am not surprised that there are people who pretend that this is some great affront to their dignity, when it is clear to the meanest intelligence that it is merely a ploy to abuse benefits to which they are not entitled. What amazes me is that the this country's government actually puts up with this. Only in America!

SP

I will only go to Mexico on a round-trip cruise. And I may not even get off the boat at ports-of-call.

I was in Cancun few years ago and a lot of the restaurants in the hotel zone were really expensive, the waiters were making some serious $$$ in tips, I never saw any women waiting on us.

It’s when people that are totally unrelated all dog pile into a SFH more based on where they work and simply for economics and convenience that bugs me.

I don't really understand why this is a problem, but I guess that is why I live in a city and not in the suburbs. I think people should be allowed to live as densly as they desire. Often times that is the only way to save money. But I grew up in a big family.

I have travelled all over Mexico, by car, bus, airplane and train. I have been there dozens of times and have not had the least bit of trouble. I speak a fair bit of heavily accented gringo Spanish, which helps, and I am also careful to be culturally appropriate, but I can honestly say that I have never felt the least bit threatened there. I think some gay guy made a pass at me once when I was wandering around Guadalajara, but I just pretended like I didn't understand him.

I also once got held by immigration for about two hours in Mexico City because I stupidly forgot my passport. I had visited northern Mexico so many times, I started to think of it as the 51st state and forgot that you need a passport more than 50 miles from the border. I sat and chatted with a pleasant young man for about an hour and then my airline (!) vouched for my identity and I was given a 14 day tourist visa.

I would not drive from Arizona to Chihauhua by car though. That area is pretty lawless and has had problems with bandits since at least the time of Pancho Villa.

Don't think that you can go to Mexico and just get drunk and stupid and you will be fine.

Randy H Says:

> Could someone provide me with a historical precedent
> where the fence-builders fared better than those they
> were trying to fence-off?

It is not PC to say this but as someone who has hired Mexicans to do work with shovels I know for a fact that the wall will not work at all to slow the Mexicans down (but it sure will be a big contract for Bechtel or Halliburton)…

> I propose that fences are antithetical to human nature,
> and especially to American nature.
> “Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall!” You know, the
> Soviets didn’t tell das Volk in the DDR the fence was
> to keep them in after all. It was to keep the evil
> kapitalists out.

All the tank traps in East Berlin were designed to keep someone in a tank from getting out not to stop someone in a tank from getting in…

Randy H Says:

> I think most people have a cartoon notion of
> how well borders and walls can seal off a
> population. You guys do know that even
> during the grand castle sieges of antiquity
> literally thousands of people were able to sneak
> in and out every night, right?

That reminds me that a friend’s firm was doing some work “inside” the gates of San Quentin and his laborers were buying pot “inside” the gates of the prison from “inmates” for less than they could buy it for on the streets of San Francisco…

OO,

I think you should pitch your argument at the High School or Junior College level, because the LAST thing the white elite want is educated Mexicans competing for THEIR jobs.

OK, that's a snark but IMHO there's some truth in it. We have a similar situation in Australia, where employers are attempting to use the Skilled Migrant Program to bring in TRUCK DRIVERS and the like. They don't want people with real education and skills!! THEY intend to remain on the top of the heap, after all. What they want is 'support staff' for THEIR economy.

Sorry to sound like DS, but it really burns me every time I read about a grossly overpaid executive whining about the need to bring in unskilled or semi-skilled labour so they can have 'competitive' labour costs.

Glen,

(3) working for low wages, which is a benefit to business owners and consumers.

I strongly disagree. Low wages remove the incentive to increase productivity, and in the long term that is what leads to a wealthier and better society.

HARM,

Who does them NOW in places with low immigration rates (Australia, NZ)?

Australia has about twice the US percentage of foreign born citizens and currently about a 50% higher per capita immigration rate.

HARM,

In the Australia/US comparison, the Net Migration numbers are indeed closer than the Gross numbers.

HARM,

In the Australia/US comparison, the Net Migration numbers are indeed closer than the Gross numbers.

Ahem, they already have a program in place where U.S teenagers live abroad in 3rd world countries without a stipend or "position" (it's called the U.S Navy!)

Remeber! Illegals are only doing crimes Americans refuse to do!

eburbed,

There were several aspects of the tanker truck crash that bothered me. However some of the "evidence" is a little skewed to say the least. If the administration wanted to exhibit that steel can melt in a fire why wouldn't they have staged this little "dog and pony show" 5 years ago when the cries were the loudest?

justme Says:
May 1st, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Malcolm,
"I don’t think outhouses are a problem in rural areas. After all, the cows have been crapping on the land for thousands of years "

I know, but I'm not talking about a single house on a hill. Picture a high density neighborhood of a few thousand people ALL doing it. There is NO running water, they get their water from water trucks driving around which fill 50 gallon buckets at the houses.

"Do you really want to live in a police state"

SP, good point. In fact it's catch all that gets used for well... just about anything people want it to mean! "Medicinal" pot, NAMBLA, getting a fishing license....

Something I noticed when following CB's link on the previous thread.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_5790742?nclick_check=1

Have a look at the last 3 paragraphs.

Commuting from Colfax (40 miles North-East of Sacramento) to Sunnyvale. :shocked:

Sorry to sound like DS, but it really burns me every time I read about a grossly overpaid executive whining about the need to bring in unskilled or semi-skilled labour so they can have ‘competitive’ labour costs.

Here's a thought: How about outsourcing EXECUTIVE JOBS for a change? How's that for forcing them to "put up or shut up"?

"Ok, Mr. CEO, so you like outsourcing and illegal immigration, do ya'? Well how 'bout this: Let's start by outsourcing YOUR job. You get paid something like 300X your average employee, so outsourcing you should have the same fiscal impact of outsourcing hundreds of rank-n-filers, right?

What... you say you're not in favor of that? But you said you were PRO-OUTSOURCING. I don't understand --are you for it or are you against it? Please explain..."

Australia has about twice the US percentage of foreign born citizens and currently about a 50% higher per capita immigration rate.

I'm a bit sketical of this, considering that the bulk of immigration here is of the illegal variety (and very hard to precisely count) vs. Oz. While I have personally never been to Oz, I have not seen many non-white faces in service jobs in New Zealand and in those parts of Western Europe I have traveled. The wife has been to Oz and tells me it's just like Europe & NZ.

Even assuming Oz's per-capita immigration rate is significantly higher than U.S., once again, I must again point out that CA receives far more of U.S. inflow than any other state. So, while the national statistics show a more moderate net migration rate, the effective rate in CA is at least an order of magnitude greater.

Um, yeah. There is just no way the Cali infrastructure--which is not great in the first place--can realistically continue to handle the immigration of so many people from Mexico. And the problem is population, I think, in the end. You could probably trace it back further to religious beliefs that favor large families.

Check out the age curve for Mexico versus the US:

Mexico's curve looks like a Christmas tree: tons of children and young people, fewer middle aged, very few older folks. The US, by contrast, is relatively evenly spaced across all ages. What are all those young Mexicans supposed to do?

No wall will keep people from trying everything to have something of a life. I'm thinking these people--especially the young ones--are pretty desperate.

I would tend to think that it would be good to try to improve the economy and opportunities in Mexico--probably a federal government decision. Right now the US--esp Cali--is in an equilibrium relationship with Mexico. Either we wait it out until everywhere is equally bad, or we try to bring everyone up together.

I find it interesting that even as I try to address this topic a bit, I am self-censoring. Clearly there is a problem around immigration from Mexico to the US. And yet it's so tied up in race and cultural identity that attempting to define the problem as a white woman makes me feel somehow racist.

Most of Australia's immigration is legal, about half white (mostly British and Kiwis), and half from India and China (at least graduate school level education to obtain immigration approval). All legal immigrants need to pass English test. Australia doesn't want parent immigration, unless you can come up with USD 60K-equivalent ransom, your parents will be stuck in the waiting queue of 500 a year, and most probably they won't make it for family reunion. All parents moving to Australia via kids need to stay out of the welfare system for 10 years. Australia says it loud and clear, old people, die somewhere else, we don't want you (unless you are bloody rich). Australia also abandoned birth citizenship, so kids of illegal immigrants will remain citizens of wherever they come from.

Australia's illegal immigrants are usually people who go in as tourists and overstayed. Even as tourists, they need to pay extra cost for that expensive airfare, and come up with a big enough bank account to obtain a tourist visa to begin with.

There is no comparison of the immigration situation in Australia vs. America.

In general, different races and cultures shouldn’t really mix and live close together.

I think the American experience contradicts this notion. Not to mention a bunch of other cosmopolitan cities in the world, including Singapore, London, Vancouver and Sydney.

I will agree that mixed societies seem less stable. It is doubtless easier to govern people who are all on the same page.

I do see evidence that societies comprised of many cultures are richer in some ways, though. More stories, more ritual, more beauty. That happens when the cultures are open to one another.

When the cultures are not open to one another--and I notice this even with the immigrant rights movement sometimes--well, that does not work out as well.

gc= chinese version of bap, another racist different color.

Neither one of you can quote a single study or statistic, just spout your nonsense.