patrick.net

tsusiat,

I agree with you on the state of America's social welfare system. It's in tatters and is likely to suffer complete breakdown in the next 20 to 30 years.

As for your American family. For me, yes. I don't dispise the individual immigrants or blame them for their cumulative effect on American society. But I'm not going to deny those effects either.

Hopefully, the bright line test can be held at legality or citizenship. However, a society can only support so many poor people. If you add too many children of illegal immigrants, don't be surprised if the whole system breaks under the strain.

Glen,

The analogy of US citizen = my kids, foreigners = neighbor's kids holds. You can try to restrain or persuade the neighbor's kid, but you can't control them and you don't have the legal responsibility to care for them. This global citizen business is cute but nation states are still in effect and is likely to be in effect for decades, probably centuries to come.

I think the two-income trap is more complicated than that. 30 years ago, I would have been able to buy a single family home on my salary. Now I can't. In a lot of couples, both spouses work so that they can approximate the standard of living that their own parents enjoyed, not becuase they are greedy and insist on living in a 4,000 square foot McMansion.

It's certainly true that technology and the march of time give people in today's society access to a lot more consumer goods than were avaialble 30 years ago. Computers, DVD players, better and more reliable cars, etc. But I still think that in many families, both parents work in order to secure the basics, not so they can afford to buy Ipod's and plasma screen TV's.

If I had to make a purely guess, I'd say that roughly half of two-income families work to keep up with the Jonses, the other half work to keep their heads above water.

The “two-income trap” is a function of our desire to have more stuff (big houses, big cars, fancy trips, etc.). If someone wants to work 60 hours a week and hire a nanny in order to maintain their quality of life, instead of driving a Toyota and living in a cramped apartment, who are we to deny them this pleasure? Not my personal preference, but so what? Let people make their own choices.

Glen, basically what you're saying here is that our only two choices are between a two-income, workaholic, expensive-crap obsessed lifestyle or poverty. This is ridiculous. Prior to the 1970s, most households managed just fine on one income, while the average worker still managed to have more free time, buy a house and enjoyed big gains real wages (purchasing power). Prices for consumer goods and labor will adjust up or down, depending upon relative supply & demand. Granted, we have (mostly) Boomers to thank for the two-income trap and it's not likely to reverse anytime soon, but I reject the notion that my lifestyle choices boil down to: (a) greedy Yuppie asshat, (b) poverty-stricken JBR.

Similarly, let the immigrants choose to work and live in the US. Just because we let them in does not need we need to supply them with cradle to grave public benefits. This, too, is a choice.

Unfortunately, this is not reality. Once people are here, they begin to use public services & public infrastructure. Then there's the impact of on the local labor markets. There's really no way to completely prevent this from happening, either practically or politically. So the best way to deal with immigration is to incentivize/encourage legal immigration of the type (and in amounts) that we can successfully assimilate and are of the most benefit to our society, while prosecuting law-breakers --especially businesses who hire/subsidize illegal immigration.

If immigration were drastically curtailed it is true that some wages would go up. But the cost of this is two-fold: (1) an employer in the US is paying artificially high wages; and (2) a prospective employee is forced to accept artificially low wages in their home country.

Again, how is this bad for me and other working-class Americans of all colors? How are labor/wage issues in other countries my problem?

Anyone who claims to support free market policies (and I don’t know if HARM includes himself in this category) should support a free market for labor, just as we have a free market for capital.

I am not a market fundamentalist, nor do I agree that "free market" = completely open borders or One-world government. See "The Libertarian-Morality Conundrum" thread if you'd like more information.

A lot of the consumer goods are cheap now, so it makes sense to own them. The two income trap, in so far as it relates to higher RE prices, is a giant wealth transfer from younger buyers to older sellers.

The employment environment does make one wage earner families a bit risky. Unless you have a lot saved up or are in a very high demand field, the wage earner's loss of work means the family is entirely without support. That was unthinkable back in the days of blue collar unions and white collar lifetime employment.

I think the consumers are at fault.

First of all, NZ and Oz are helped by the fact that they are surrounded by water.

Second, they both hold English tests for immigrants, skilled or unskilled, you don't speak English? Sayonara, adios, au revoir.

Third, they don't like parents, except rich parents with a fat bank account. To show how much they dislike parental immigration, Oz has an annual quota of 500 for all those poor slob parents. If each parent can come up with $35K AUD, $10K bond, and promise not to dip into the Oz welfare system for 10 years, then he will be let in right away. Otherwise, wait in the queue. America imports way too many poor parents who are going to drain on our welfare and medicare system. I believe old people should generally die in the country where they spent most of their life, because that country has a moral obligation to take care of them, unless they can come up with enough money to make the new country NPV neutral in taking care of them.

Fourth, Oz takes advantage of poor students rather than poor, say, Indonesians, to pick fruit during peak seasons. Oz issues 12-month travel visa to most industrialized countries, so you see plenty of "cheap labor" from Japan, Germany, US, Canada working in the fields as they tour around the country. These students do it for fun, they are unlikely to stick around and cause troubles.

American INS should send a team down under to study the best practice.

The builders in the last five years have been notoriously cheap and shoddy. They have no problem with sticking you with a $10K problem five years down the line, if they can save $100 today and hide the problem. So, tons of foundation and dry wall problem, material problems, bad wiring, etc. I'm unlikely to ever buy anything in the BA built btwn 1996 and 2007.

American INS should send a team down under to study the best practice.

I completely agree, except of course they won't. The INS is already aware of how successful immigration policies work (to benefit working-class citizens) in other countries. The problem is, they are under orders from our government NOT to implement good policies or even to enforce existing laws. They are also severely and deliberately understaffed.

If our government (or the corporate interests it is beholden to) ever really wanted to do something about illegal immigration, they could do it in a heartbeat. The means and resources are there. The political will is not.

"Fourth, Oz takes advantage of poor students rather than poor, say, Indonesians, to pick fruit during peak seasons. Oz issues 12-month travel visa to most industrialized countries, so you see plenty of “cheap labor” from Japan, Germany, US, Canada working in the fields as they tour around the country. These students do it for fun, they are unlikely to stick around and cause troubles."

Yup, there's no reason why kids in this country only work suburban fast food jobs or ("if they're lucky") internships. A lot of the cheap labor hole was filled by kids before the illegals came in. In parts of the country without a lot of immigrants, those jobs are still filled by the (often middle or upper middle class) kids.

I also wonder why America has this hurry up and wait attitude towards the young and work. Plenty of young Europeans, Aussies, and Canadians take time off to travel and find themselves during and after university(could it be because our lives are mortgaged and we can't afford to take any time off?). Many American youths my age seem so narrow minded and ignorant in the ways of the world.

HARM,

We seem to be talking ourselves out of CA today. I wonder where WWII went, he would love us today. :)

Prior to the 1970s, most households managed just fine on one income, while the average worker still managed to have more free time, buy a house and enjoyed big gains real wages (purchasing power).

Prior to the 1970s, the world was very different. Japan and Europe had to rebuild from the ground up after WWII. Their industrial infrastructure was decimated by the war. Most of the developing world lived under oppressive socialist or quasi-socialist governments (China, Soviet states and client-states, Cuba, much of Africa and Latin America...even India), so no competition there. GM had 50% of the domestic car market and a huge export business. GM could afford to make gas-guzzling behemoths and sell them world-wide, while paying generous wages and benefits to unskilled US workers. US manufacturing ruled. Oil was cheap and plentiful. Legalized segregation and exclusion of women from the workforce after the war contributed to the above-market wages for unskilled white men. The long boom in consumer credit was just beginning to get rolling with the introduction of 30 year mortgages... I could go on.

Even if you kicked out all the immigrants, we would not be magically transported to the 1950s. Instead, as we already see happening, if the people can't come to the jobs, then the jobs will go to the people (overseas). Why not capture tax revenues here by letting workers in, instead of letting jobs go to places where the wages of the workers can not be taxed by the US?

Can someone unlock my last comment?

astrid,

Yeah, I seem to be talking myself out of CA pretty much every day! :-) I grew up here and am saddened by how far the quality of life here has degraded for most working-class people. Every day, I'm reminded of how little my + wife's salary buys us vs. what my parents or grandparents were able to afford on one salary. I see the whole state unnecessarily transforming itself into a third-world country --thanks to anti-working class policies at both the federal and state levels.

Oh well, I'll just manage to make do until I can get my ticket out of Bubble-Central. And pray that the CA equity locusts and "diversity" fanatics don't try to mass-migrate to other states and ruin them too.

Glen,

Can't unlock. But in response. The runup in CA RE prices mean much of the reason for the two wage earner rat race is to pay for an expensive house in a good school district. If the house prices were lower, those one wage earner family would be productive enough to get by. Indeed, with one parent at home, many of their childcare and transportation expenses may be avoided.

You're also ignoring how much of the US economy is entirely internal and not subject to outsourcing. Is it really productive for this economy to have so many realtors and mortgage brokers? Wouldn't this economy be even more productive if there were fewer of them looking for their next big score? There is no iron rule that the US needs to arrange its financial priorities as it has. In Europe, people have arguably better quality of life for much lower GDP. That would be good for us as individuals, but bad for corporations trying to sell us crap and for retirees trying to stick up with their overpriced houses. (due to fewer buyers willing to pay crazy prices)

HARM,

Hehe, meanwhile, I need to persuade my boyfriend to buy a convertible, to up my utility of CA's pleasant weather (before climate change turns it into half Seattle, half Mojave). :)

I think Washington State and Washington DC definitely has the edge over CA, especially for families or anyone over 40. They've gotten a lot more expensive than they used to be, but they have good social services and a broad middle class. The housing prices are only 1/2 of CA prices and the weather is reasonably mild.

CB,

I see that too. Most fast food places are so clannish, partly as favoritism and partly because its easier to for minority owners/managers to oppress other members of their ethnicity.

I don't ever go to McD's or Burger King except in airports. In CA, In-N-Out is just so much better. Great service, good product, good pay, and lots of diversity in their staff. It helps that they're not franchises but owned by one well runned company.

Glen,
I approved your post.

Even if you kicked out all the immigrants, we would not be magically transported to the 1950s. Instead, as we already see happening, if the people can’t come to the jobs, then the jobs will go to the people (overseas). Why not capture tax revenues here by letting workers in, instead of letting jobs go to places where the wages of the workers can not be taxed by the US?

I agree that allowing the maximum number of legal, taxable immigrants that can be assimilated is a good policy. However, we cannot allow everyone who wants to come here to immigrate overnight, or we would have a population of about 4-5 billion (approx. = third world's population). I doubt that you or I would not want to live in a U.S. with 4-5 billion impoverished inhabitants.

And, yes, there is little we can do to curb global wage arbitrage. Capital tends to go where labor is cheap. However, one thing we can do is to promote new high-wage/high-skill job creation through innovation, investing heavily in technological R&D and education. High-skill, high-tech jobs that require extensive training & education (human capital investment) are not so easily exported (or automated) as low-wage, low-skill jobs.

Glen,

I wholly agree with most of your last comment. The low-level manufacturing industry here really does depend on low wage immigrant workers, without them the garment factories and machine shops really would get outsourced to China.

However, I don't think that the illegals are truly "necessary" to our economy, or that we "cannot get along without them."

The recent "Day Without Immigrants" protest here in LA really opened my eyes to this. The car wash was closed, and all but one of the parking valets at our office building didn't come into work. But that was it. The city of LA did not come to a screetching halt. However, traffic was light.

A lot of the cheap labor that immigrants provide is a luxury, plain and simple. We don't "need' affordable car washes and landscaping. We would get along just fine wihout vast numbers of immigrants to supply us with these things. Moreover, our ability to engage in more lucrative work, such as desigining software and building Boeing jets -- is not in any way dependant on having a steady supply of illegal aliens working at the local car wash.

So I pretty sure that we could survive without illegals. I don't want us to do that, becuase I admire and respect them and think that America has always benefited from hardworking immigrants. But do we need them? I don't see how.

@CB & astrid,

I'm shocked --SHOCKED I tell you!!

Are you trying to tell me that it's possible for NON-WHITES to perpetrate RACISM against other ethnic groups?? How can this be? When I was growing up, all of my liberal CA teachers and textbooks explained to me how racism was possible in only ONE DIRECTION.

I am truly disillusioned... :roll:

Also, we already have a version of unskilled guest workers engaging in low end manufacturing. In the Mariana Islands, where they don't comply to the federal minimum wage.

Consequence? Near slavery conditions and workers owed months of backpay. All so they can put the "made in USA" tags on cloth while saving less than a dollar a shirt on labor. Is that really the optimal or humane solution? When this sort of thing happens abroad, we can at least claim distance, or that we're helping developing economies mature. When we allow it to happen within the control of the US government, we are collective responsible for the bad consequences that follow.

HARM,

I'm really really sorry about that. If only Americans weren't saddled with student loans and could travel the world more, maybe they would have realized it sooner. ;)

Hehe, once a person sees a little of the world, or even make an effort to pay attention to the work dynamic of the local fast food store, they will quickly realize most of those student activists on campus have their head up their nether regions.

Like it or not, we're creatures of human evolution. Clannishness was an evolutionary necessity and it dies hard. Every one of those little vegan peaceniks (and keep in mind that I almost never think war is a good solution for any problem) had ancestors who scalped enemies and oppressed slaves.

Astrid,

You know, there is a Federal Dstrict Court in the Marianas Islands. A federal judge here in the Central District of CA began his legal career by clerking there and liked it so much that he stayed for several years before coming back to LA.

I've seen pictures of Saipan, and it looks pretty sweet. I don't know what your career plans are, but maybe you can talk your firm into letting you clerk for a year? I'm sure they'd be thrilled to do it, an associate with a clerkship will add to their prestiege.

What could be better than a clerkship in the Northern Marianas? You still have to clerk all day -- but you can chill on the beach all night! And your salary will allow you to live a pretty comfortable life there; the same cannot be said in LA, SF, or most of the other major US cities.

Joe,

That was a good observation. On top of this, I maintain that it is the average consumers who are at fault for their own long-term plights. They want to emulate the life of the riches. The only way to afford such a grand albeit pretentious lifestyle is to import cheap labors who eventually cause social disintegration. Cheap manufactured goods, too. Immigrants are not to blame but the greedy and pretentious consumers.

Ok, you've convinced me. Deport all the illegals. Some expected consequences re: housing:

- Double Income families would have to pay more or drop one earner out of the labor pool. Net result - even more jobs available and less competition on future house bids. DI FBs with kids are thrown to the wolves.

- Baby Boomers and Silent Gen forced to mow their own lawns. Increased housing turnover due to a sudden surge in Heart Attacks.

- Rental Prices plummet with huge new vacancy rates applying downward pressure everywhere.

All this benefits me personally, so I should support it, right?

Kant's Categorical Imperative says otherwise.

Like it or not, we’re creatures of human evolution. Clannishness was an evolutionary necessity and it dies hard. Every one of those little vegan peaceniks (and keep in mind that I almost never think war is a good solution for any problem) had ancestors who scalped enemies and oppressed slaves.

Yes. And most of the young vegan peaceniks today have Boomer parents who try to scalp their customers and oppress their Gen-X employees (sorry, just couldn't resist a perfect setup for a BB/Gen-X jab). :mrgreen:

You’re also ignoring how much of the US economy is entirely internal and not subject to outsourcing. Is it really productive for this economy to have so many realtors and mortgage brokers? Wouldn’t this economy be even more productive if there were fewer of them looking for their next big score?

Astrid,

I think you would be surprised how much could be done overseas. Especially with the internet. Manufacturing, agriculture, banking & finance, engineering, technology, R&D, services (even accounting, advertising & legal!), many medical services, etc... Which leaves.... military (including most contractors), resource extraction like mining and drilling, restaurant and retail work, some medical services, washing cars, multi-level marketing, newspaper routes, gardening, nannies, selling oranges...am I missing anything?

You are absolutely right that we have too many realtors and too much investment in residential real estate. While I am not a free-market purist, I do think that a lot of our problems would be ameliorated by a more "hands-off" government.

Getting back to the housing bubble, look at how all of the well-intentioned laws, which were supposed to make housing more accessible, have actually assured that housing prices continue to inflate out of reach of future generations. We have chosen to limit supply (through restrictive zoning laws, catering to NIMBYism, etc.), while stimulating demand (through tax breaks like Prop 13, mortgage interest deductibility, capital gains exclusion, etc.) We have further stimulated housing prices in some areas by misallocating public resources so that the quality of your child's public school depends on your zip code.

In order to begin to reverse the misallocation of resources toward housing (and away from other forms of investment) we just need to remove some of this regulatory clutter and stop trying to engage in social engineering through the tax code. For instance, if mortgage interest is deductible because housing is "important," then rent should be tax deductible too (neither should be deductible, IMO, but that's another discussion). If someone can exempt $500K of capital gains from taxation when they sell a house, then why not allow the same if they sell their small business?

These policies have a real, tangible effect. In effect, the government is telling you that you *should* buy a house instead of getting an education or investing in a small business.

FRIFY,

Who said anything about forcibly deporting 12 million illegals? I don't think this would even be practical, much less politically feasible. Moral (fitting into the KCI)? Well, that depends on your POV. They broke in knowing that there might be consequences --including deportation. Other countries --including Mexico btw-- routinely deport illegals. Can't say it's morally "wrong", but practically speaking it's pretty much impossible.

I don't think this would be at all necessary. If we merely started removing illegals' easy access to jobs and all the "free"/subsidized healthcare, education, housing and prosecuted & heavily fined employers. there would be no need to even try. Once you stop subsidizing and start dis-incentivize such behavior, the problem tends to go away on its own. As in, many will voluntarily return to their home countries.

That said, I am ok with expanding the paths to legal immigration (within reasonable bounds) --especially valuable high-skill workers.

HARM,
Thanks for approving my post.

I agree that allowing the maximum number of legal, taxable immigrants that can be assimilated is a good policy. However, we cannot allow everyone who wants to come here to immigrate overnight, or we would have a population of about 4-5 billion (approx. = third world’s population). I doubt that you or I would not want to live in a U.S. with 4-5 billion impoverished inhabitants.

Perhaps we don't disagree as much as I thought. I agree with your first sentence. I think it is a matter of figuring out how many people to allow in at a given time and how to regulate the flow. IMO, the current quotas are way too low to be realistic, which is why I support some kind of change of the status quo.

I disagree, however, with the premise of your second sentence---I know you didn't mean it literally, but I think it is a common fallacy that opening the doors would cause every poor person in the world to cram into the US. In any case, I wouldn't advocate completely unrestricted immigration--just a more permissive and realistic policy than we have today. But even if we did throw open the borders, I think that immigration would stop as soon as the supply of unskilled jobs dried up.

Most people are comfortable staying with their families, where they grew up and where the cost of living is low. The average rural agricultural worker in China would be completely befuddled by life in the US. Only the *above*-average, restless, ambitious types are willing to make the journey, suffer the hardships and indignities, and try to make a better life for their families. These are exactly the kind of people we should want as citizens of our country. Let the elderly, sick, lazy and indigent stay behind. Harsh, maybe, but that's how I see it.

Glen,

I don't get it. The solution to outsourcing (and I am by no means convinced that those jobs are all that easy to relocate. Proximity to the customers and knowledge of the customers are huge advantages in most of those fields) is to import more low paying workers, thus straining our government resources further and risk destablizing society at large? That doesn't seem like a step forward. You have not convinced me of the necessity for these workers, certainly not to the extent that I've convinced of their long term costs and strain on our society.

I agree that in a perfect world, every human being would start their life on an equal playing field, be given an education that maximizes his or her potential, and be compensated according to his or her merit. But we're not there yet. We're not even capable of doing so in the US. In the meantime, we've created a higher living standard in the US. Is it better to lower that living standard to the point where the US become as messed up and dysfunctional as the countries these people came from? Or to try to restrict the source, perhaps provide some aid and encouragement so that their country become less messed up and more functioning?

Joe,

Thanks. :)

SFWoman,

I'm not saying it's a good thing, just that it could happen. I hope it doesn't, because it would be awful. I have a couple of friends who would get deported. But if there is another terrorist attack, the American public will be interested in surviving, and nothing will take precedence over that.

This is one of the reasons why I am such a staunch supporter of President Bush's policies. Suppose the Muslims get ahold of a nuclear weapon and detonate it in Philadelphia. What do you think will happen to the people in the Middle East if that were to occur? I think there is a very good chance that we would kill them all. If we didn't know how many more nukes were out there, wheter we'd be hit again, etc., we might well decide to eliminate the entire Middle East as a precaution. For sure Iran would be attacked. We're willing to engage in the charade of negotiations now, mostly becuase we don't want to hurt the people of Iran, but there won't be any further negotations if someone detonates a nuke here. We would not care about collateral damage, either.

President Bush is desperately racing aginst time to stop this from happening. The reason we are in Iraq is to save the lives of the people of the region. It would be a lot easier for us to just kill them all, or at least crush them like bugs. And we could, easily. But that would be evil, so we are giving them a chance to reform first. But if they hit us again, people will be a lot less concerned about the innocent people in the Middle East, and more interested in ensuring that no one can ever hit us again. President Bush doesn't ever want to have to make a horrible choice like that, so he's desperately trying to reform the region in order to prevent additional violence and bloodshed.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative says otherwise.

I never liked Kant.

Glen,

Speaking of recent Chinese illegal immigrants. Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. There's been a huge influx of Fujianese migrants into New York (and maybe elsewhere) since the late 1980s and it completely destroyed the preexisting dynamic of the New York Chinese community. Huge amount of violence, bad social habits, poorly prepared students at school, gang activity, clannish behavior, massively depressed wages...you name it. The people moved in signed huge debt contracts with their smugglers, were kept in virtual slavery for years working off their debt. Many of the more established Chinese families left for the suburbs and left their old homes to be a slum of illiterate (in Chinese) people.

Getting back to the housing bubble, look at how all of the well-intentioned laws, which were supposed to make housing more accessible, have actually assured that housing prices continue to inflate out of reach of future generations. We have chosen to limit supply (through restrictive zoning laws, catering to NIMBYism, etc.), while stimulating demand (through tax breaks like Prop 13, mortgage interest deductibility, capital gains exclusion, etc.) We have further stimulated housing prices in some areas by misallocating public resources so that the quality of your child’s public school depends on your zip code.

In order to begin to reverse the misallocation of resources toward housing (and away from other forms of investment) we just need to remove some of this regulatory clutter and stop trying to engage in social engineering through the tax code.

Very well said, Glen.
Finally, something we can both agree upon wholeheartedly :-) .

I don’t get it. The solution to outsourcing is to import more low paying workers, thus straining our government resources further and risk destablizing society at large? ... Is it better to lower that living standard to the point where the US become as messed up and dysfunctional as the countries these people came from? Or to try to restrict the source, perhaps provide some aid and encouragement so that their country become less messed up and more functioning?

The fact is, that 12 million undocumented immigrants are already here. Because of our overly restrictive policy of *legal* immigration, we have created a huge black market, which doesn't do much good for anyone. What I am suggesting is that (1) assimilated immigrants are good for the US; and (2) if we expect people to assimilate, then we need to make it possible for them to do so legally. Don't complain about people failing to learn english when they could be fired, arrested or deported at any moment!

Perhaps we should offer citizenship to 500,000 or 1 million people per year--I don't know what the number is. All I'm saying is that the status quo is not working and the direction of change should be in favor of more liberalized legal immigration, not harsher enforcement of existing, unrealistic quotas.

As for providing aid to poor countries... sounds like another well-intentioned waste of taxpayer dollars. If we really want to help people in poor countries, then we should just let them compete with us freely. You should check out Oxfam's website to see how the diversion of US tax dollars to agribusiness has caused enormous suffering in poor countries by making agriculture infeasible in those countries. That's right, our government gives your tax dollars to US sugar and corn growers, which leads to artificially low prices for domestically grown sugar and corn, which means the US doesn't import these products, which means farmers in poor countries can't export these products. But this won't stop because the lobbyists have paid off the politicians and very few voters are looking at the big picture.

A lot of immigrants today just treat America as a place to make money and get some benefits, without truly merging into the American society at large.

that charge has been leveled at every immigrant group in our country’s history.

yeah, those nasty irish coming out post 1850 because of the potato famine and the california gold rush... and the scottish refugees after the enclosure of the highlands by landlords... they happen to have determined about 90% of the current american accent and culture. of course, land was for the taking back then, you only had to dispossess a few indigenous people and put them onto reservations, and do monetary deals with france and spain for vast lands under the veiled threat of war...

I agree that in a perfect world, every human being would start their life on an equal playing field, be given an education that maximizes his or her potential, and be compensated according to his or her merit. But we’re not there yet. We’re not even capable of doing so in the US.

Yes --charity begins at home.

In the meantime, we’ve created a higher living standard in the US. Is it better to lower that living standard to the point where the US become as messed up and dysfunctional as the countries these people came from? Or to try to restrict the source, perhaps provide some aid and encouragement so that their country become less messed up and more functioning?

No kidding. I'm tired of seeing MY standard of living become a casualty of "Operation Release Valve" for corruption & overpopulation-induced Third World poverty.

astrid Says:
I’m against market distortions in all its forms and I want people to pay the fair and total cost of any goods and services they receive. In my opinion, guest workers are a highly disruptive market distortion that subsidize the users of the cheap laborers while penalizing everybody else.

and where did you get that piece of neoclassical economics dogma from? serve the market at all costs, and define 'distortion' anyway you want, so long as you come out on top.

'market distortion' is just a theoretical piece of bollocks designed to benefit the mercantile class, no one else. Even most innocently, it's just represents a case at the failed 'scientisation' of economics, but it's been co-opted by right wing think tanks and right wing economics professors everywhere to push an agenda.

nothing to do with the migrant labour question, i just object to the attempted 'theorification of everything'...

Glen,

In general, I'm all for ending market distorting behavior. But I think that since giving up the status quo (America's good life) is not an acceptable solution, doing things to make the US less appealing for illegal immigrants is better than have them flood this country and overwhelm our living standard.

I don't see how a policing action (preventing the mass influx of law breakers or saying no to guest workers) is necessarily equivalent to government subsidies or like market distortions.

Glen,

Based on your last post, I believe our positions on immigration (and government subsidies/social engineering) are not that far apart after all. We may be arguing past one another.

I agree that in a perfect world, every human being would start their life on an equal playing field, be given an education that maximizes his or her potential, and be compensated according to his or her merit.

That's only one view of a 'perfect world'. See John Rawls 'original position' and 'justice as fairness'...