Good Fences Make Bad Policy
Roy Beck, head of anti-immigration group Numbers USA, and Gordon Liddy were chatting yesterday about the desirability of building an Israeli-style giant wall across the Mexican border:
LIDDY: I’ve been over to Israel a number of times and they’ve got fences that work.
BECK: You bet.
LIDDY: They’re like Jersey barriers 18 feet high.
BECK: It would be a great thing…the idea was a double fence, you gotta have a double fence. Because the idea was you slow them down getting over the first wall. You’ve got these long distance cameras, they see the people working the first wall. And while they’re getting over the first wall and we’ve got boots on the ground — they’re driving between these two walls. And you either catch them or you get them on the other side of the wall, but that’s the whole idea.
I guess the thinking here is that Israel is a better-sounding example than the other analogy that comes to mind: East Germany. Still, though in my view there are all kinds of geopolitical and human rights problems with what Israel is doing with its wall, the basic thinking over there is that they want to keep out Palestinians who are trying to kill Israelis. Beck and Liddy, by contrast, are talking about a wall to keep out Mexicans who want to reach voluntary agreements to perform work in exchange for money. It’s about the least-nefarious plot of all time.
My colleague Andrea Nill notes that this is a fairly costly endeavor:
U.S. government investigators have indicated that it will cost taxpayers $6.5 billion over the next 20 years to maintain the fencing already in place and the Congressional Research Service estimated in 2007 that building and maintaining a double set of steel fences along 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border would add up to $49 billion over the expected 25-year life span of the fence.
That’s a lot of money to spend on an enterprise that, if successful, would reduce GDP and lower wages for most native-born Americans. It would make about a million times more sense to just spend an extra $2-3 billion a year on providing enhanced services or lower taxes to low-income Americans.
91 Responses to “Good Fences Make Bad Policy”
Register
RSSLogin
Yglesias Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 11th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Remind me again, who were all those people trying to break IN to East Germany? Analogy fail.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
I guess the thinking here is that Israel is a better-sounding example than the other analogy that comes to mind: East Germany.
It’s sad that in mainstream US political discourse Israel is an obviously “better-sounding example” than East Germany.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Re: It would make about a million times more sense to just spend an extra $2-3 billion a year on providing enhanced services or lower taxes to low-income Americans
Better yet, we could spend that money on development assistance to low-income Mexicans, so that fewer of them would be interested in leaving their homes in the first place.
And we could also start by stopping our subsidies of American corn, so that Mexican corn farmers can actually make a living.
I’m also unsure why people are giving the convicted felon, G. Gordon Liddy, so much attention.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Of course if this insane idea were ever implemented, immigrants would turn to the thousands of miles of coast line the U.S has and try to reach the country by boat. What then? Normandy style garrisons at every beachhead?
March 11th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
I agree with G-Man that the analogy of the Berlin Wall is a failure. But this statement is utterly ridiculous:
Lowers wages for the rest of us? That’s false and it’s nuts. The reason why illegal aliens are hired is because they aren’t protected by U.S. labor laws, something those doing the hiring exploit. Having more illegal aliens working is what lowers wages for the rest of us.
One other thing. One of the primary functions of government is to protect its borders. Obviously the country shouldn’t go bankrupt doing it, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
chatting yesterday about the desirability of building an Israeli-style giant wall across the Mexican border:
Israel. Yeah, there’s a model to emulate.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
That’s a lot of money to spend on an enterprise that, if successful, would reduce GDP and lower wages for most native-born Americans.
Proof? Not on the fence part, because the fence is a spectacularly dumb idea but the GDP and wages part.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Did you just inadvertently equate the Mossad and the Stasi? I can’t wait for the hyperpolysyllabicsesquipedalian rant from Wieseltier.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Henceforth, this policy should not be framed as a “fence”, but should instead be referred to as a “$49 billion wall”
March 11th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Not only is this fascist happy talk in terms of politics, it’s an environmental nightmare for wildlife. The Borderlands project commissioned a team of brilliant photographer to document the evil we’re already doing along the U.S.-Mexico divide; check it out at Art for Conservation’s site:
http://www.artforconservation.org/border.php
March 11th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
The whole problem will melt away when we allow each others citizens to own property and do business freely in each other’s countries.
Also, broadcasting English lessons in Mexico will help as well.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
49 billion is still cheaper than paying for their heath care for the next 20 years!
That’s a lot of money to spend on an enterprise that, if successful, would reduce GDP and lower wages for most native-born Americans.
Do you really believe this?
March 11th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Employers who hire illegal immigrants are breaking the law. Send a bunch of them in jail every year, and the problem is solved.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Remind me again, who were all those people trying to break IN to East Germany? Analogy fail.
Exactly what I was going to say. I also don’t think it’s been proven that this would lower wages. Matt’s never really addressed that in any rigorous way; it’s just become one of the five or six talking points he repeats ad nauseum. Nevertheless, the wall does seem like a waste of money.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Both analogies fail.
East Germany, obviously, was trying to keep its own population from leaving, not trying to keep our prospective immigrants.
Though Israel is more justified in building a fence, the problem with it, unlike this proposal, is that it basically divided economic regions that were previously integrated in the name of protecting against terrorists. Palestinian farmers were suddenly separated from farms they had worked on their entire lives, and so forth. I don’t recall any claim analogous to this one, that Palestinians had no right to work on the other side of the fence. Instead their economic freedom was outweighed by Israel’s security needs.
From a standpoint of fairness, notwithstanding its racist supporters, this proposed wall is not as problematic as the Israeli fence or obviously the Berlin wall. The problem it is designed to address – illegal immigration – is a viable problem and the wall would be targeted to directly addressing this problem without the sort of collateral human costs of the Israeli fence. Though I am all for greatly expanding immigration, to the extent we make it illegal, it is legitimate for the government to take steps to enforce its laws.
All of that said, building a wall is a ridiculous waste of money to treat a problem that could be much better solved by a guest worker program or some other sort of mechanism for allowing Mexican laborers to protect their rights through the legal system. I also believe there are all sorts of environmental problems with building a wall along the border.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
49 billion is still cheaper than paying for their heath care for the next 20 years!
Actually, Mexican citizens are covered by Mexican universal health insurance. Even Mexican citizens in the United States.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Proof? Not on the fence part, because the fence is a spectacularly dumb idea but the GDP and wages part.
If you put economists who have looked into this issue on a spectrum from most anti-immigration to most pro-immigration the person farthest on the anti-immigration side would probably be George Borjas. He estimates that immigration has a modest but positive impact on GDP (about $20 billion or so). He also estimates that in the short run immigration has a modest negative effect on average wages (about -3.4%) but that the long run effect is zero.
Borjas, as I said before, is probably among the most pessimistic of economists about immigration. Other studies, such as those by Ottaviano and Peri, have found a positive effect on wages even in the short term (I’d include links, but the blog would eat this comment).
March 11th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
They’ll just tunnel under it anyway.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
In moral dimensions East Germany’s Wall was a Catskills’ handball court compared to Apartheid Israel’s.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Re Matthew’s comment “U.S. government investigators have indicated that it will cost taxpayers $6.5 billion over the next 20 years to maintain the fencing already in place and the Congressional Research Service estimated in 2007 that building and maintaining a double set of steel fences along 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border would add up to $49 billion over the expected 25-year life span of the fence.”
—————————
Gee, Democrats vote to spend almost $1 Trillion a year on the military and we can’t even defend our borders from unarmed (mostly) invaders?
And Matthew’s indifference to the impact illegal immigration and excessive H visas/legal immigration have on the living standards of poor Americans just illustrates how the Democratic Party is as much a crack whore for Rich interests as are the Republicans.
Of course, maybe Matthew’s calculation is that the poor need some economic pressure to force them into risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan defending Matthew’s fat, civilian, Jewish ass from Al Qaeda.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
The only way to make this wall cost-effective is if you hire Mexicans to build it.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
I’m also unsure why people are giving the convicted felon, G. Gordon Liddy, so much attention.
Because Sin Isn’t Sin If You’re a Republican. Liddy is a a hero and a martyr to conservatives and reasonbly well thought of in the Beltway media, where he turns up regularly.
The analogy holds up because building a wall along a border is something you wind up doing that demonstrates all other policies are failing, on one side or the other or both. It Figures that Liddy is the sort of thug who’d think the Israeli-Palestinian Cold War is a perfectly normal foreign policy situation.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
“I also don’t think it’s been proven that this would lower wages. Matt’s never really addressed that in any rigorous way; it’s just become one of the five or six talking points he repeats ad nauseum.”
But corporate America has always been on the open borders/amnesty side of the debate. They know perfectly well what effect these policies have on wages. It’s not for nothing their stooges Reagan and GW Bush were pro amnesty. And of course Obama, the neoliberal Dem corporate stooge, is also pro amnesty. The tricklenomics brand is bipartisan.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Some people on the Left try to weaken the idea of national sovereignty at every opportunity. They believe that we are one world and should have no borders. They don’t see the breaking of immigration laws as a criminal offense. They push for international governance of states coupled with American enforcement might.
In this world view, it is consistent to believe that income taxes should be progressive and that citizens of poor countries have a right to immigrate and utilize the social services of richer countries.
I disagree. I am enough of a realist to recognize that this is not a sustainable policy. The United States simply can not accommodate everyone in the world. I believe in limited and controlled immigration policies for low-skilled workers. That is not currently the condition along our southern border. A state’s primary responsibility to it’s citizens has always been to secure the border.
See: Great Wall of China, Hadrian’s Wall
March 11th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
The “build it all the way along the border” people always show a very limited geographical understanding of their own fucking country, which seems to be based upon thinking every point on the southern border is like Tijuana.
The actual analogy here is to the China-North Korea border, which is less half the length of the US-Mexico border and presents far fewer topographical challenges.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Re Just Karl at 24: “Some people on the Left try to weaken the idea of national sovereignty at every opportunity. They believe that we are one world and should have no borders.”
———–
Well, they do until they feel their own asses are threatened.
Then it’s time to wave the flag and make speechs about “We few. We happy few. We Band of Brothers…”
The only time the Democratic Party shows that it gives a shit about the enlisted poor in the Army is after something like Sept 11 — when the Rich suddenly realize they need some cannon fodder.
During His Administration, Bill Clinton was throwing hundreds of thousands of them out on the unemployment lines — and telling the remaining enlisted families to apply for Food Stamps.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Re Pseudo at 25: “The “build it all the way along the border” people always show a very limited geographical understanding of their own fucking country, which seems to be based upon thinking every point on the southern border is like Tijuana.”
Not really. The fences should just be there to slow invaders down long enough for the Apache helicopter to strafe their ass.
PS Apaches have night vision –to preempt another objection.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Some people on the Left try to weaken the idea of national sovereignty at every opportunity.
Some people on the Right fuck goats.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
They believe that we are one world and should have no borders.
Except of course when it comes to capital, in which case the borders should be free and open (ie: the kind of “free trade” that sucks the jobs out of America).
It’s a curious inconsistency in the conservative argument – borders only matter when
xenophobiaimmigration is involved. If it’s shipping jobs of to China – no problem.March 11th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Why not just mine the area between the walls? Or dig a giant ditch and fill it piranhas or something?
That’s what the criminal Liddy wants, he’s just to big of a pussy to say so.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Re Pat at 28: “Some people on the Right fuck goats.”
Yeah –but the Right doesn’t then ask the goats to VOTE for them and to go door to door working to get out the vote.
That’s a uniquely Democratic brand of hypocrisy.
Or should I say, a uniquely Democratic contempt for the intelligence of the constituents??
March 11th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Re scathew at 29: “Except of course when it comes to capital, in which case the borders should be free and open (ie: the kind of “free trade” that sucks the jobs out of America).
It’s a curious inconsistency in the conservative argument – borders only matter when xenophobia immigration is involved. If it’s shipping jobs of to China – no problem.”
—————-
Yes — and we all remember how violently President Bill Clinton, Larry Summers and Robert Rubin opposed shipping jobs overseas, don’t we?
LIKE I said –we have two crack whores competing for the affections of the Rich Johns.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
I like his “We’ve got boots on the ground” to catch the Browns moving between the two walls.
How long is our Southern border again?
March 11th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
The economic benefit of liberalized immigration has been addressed before. But this post highlights yet another negative side effect of restrictionist policy. That is, enforcement.
Effectively keeping the country’s economy free from the influence of illegal immigrants would demand resources rivaling or exceeding the war on drugs, accompanied by a corresponding increase in government intrusions. All in the name of forbidding activity that does no actual harm, and contributes to the economy.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Re Pat at 28: “Some people on the Right fuck goats.”
Yeah –but the Right doesn’t then ask the goats to VOTE for them and to go door to door working to get out the vote.
Some do!
See what I did there?
March 11th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Borjas, as I said before, is probably among the most pessimistic of economists about immigration.
Is that looking at immigration as a whole? As a whole, I don’t doubt it has a positive effect on GDP and wages. But in terms of whether we should fence the Mexican border, the issue is not immigration as a whole, but illegal immigration from Mexico. Is there any reputable study that shows illegal immigration from Mexico raised U.S. wages? There may well be–it just seems counterintuitive to me and I’m not going to take Matt’s word for it.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
It’s important to be skeptical about economic assumptions. Even experts get overwhelmed, and move of us simply rely on ideology for the gray areas.
Unfortunately, political points are frequently made on the basis of very simplistic and entirely faulty premises. The classic example is the comparison of the national economy to one’s household budget.
With immigration, the story is no less complex. It might seem reasonable to imagine that illegal immigrants, willing to work for less, push wages down. But it is just as reasonable to imagine that this increased productivity pushes other wages up – if a dishwasher can be had for less, more might be spent on the chef, etc.
In the end, all we really have (those of us lacking a serious background in economics), is our philosophical judgment and where it finds adherence among credible experts in the field. Per #17, this always presents a range, but is at least a reasonable hook upon which to hang our hat.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
It has already been stated several times, but the East German analogy is awful. The Berlin Wall is analgous to the wall of a prison, designed to keep people inside the wall. The key difference, of course, is which side of the wall your guards are on. Like Israel, our guards would be on the far side of the wall, the side that people are trying to get to. With East Germany and prisons, the guards are on the near side of the wall, the side that people are trying to get away from. So if we were trying to find an example to learn from, Israel would be far superioer than East Germany. For the record, I think a huge, expensive wall keeping out Mexicans is an AWFUL idea; I favor better enforcement of penalties on employers who don’t pay taxes on their illegal labor, it is a market based solution, a wage equalizer and a revenue generator. But even if Matt’s primary point is valid (wall = fail), his analogy still sucks ass.
So MattY, another poor post. On top of that poor effort saying that the media only cares about Democratic sex scandals. I hope that party you went to last night was fun, because we are all paying the price for your hangover.
Also, is it just me, or did the comments suddenly become centered instead of left justified? And I don’t mean politically!!!!
March 11th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Effectively keeping the country’s economy free from the influence of illegal immigrants would demand resources rivaling or exceeding the war on drugs
That’s another huge issue. Mexican pot sucks because it’s grown outdoors and bricked. In that sense, fencing the border is only going to hurt high school kids who can’t get good American kind bud, although curtailing Mexican dirt weed would lead to an across the board price increase. I’m kind of worried about the cocaine supply, though. People would have to go back to the old 1980’s Caribbean routes.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Beck and Liddy, by contrast, are talking about a wall to keep out Mexicans who want to reach voluntary agreements to perform work in exchange for money.
Well, let’s at least make it accurate: Mexicans who want to reach voluntary agreements to perform work in exchange for money, in open and knowing violation of existing US law that does not allow them to do so.
I mean, hey, I’d love to just decide to go to any country in the world without bothering to get a visa from their consulates or obeying their entry and exit requirements. It would be great if just because I want to do something I don’t have to obey the laws that tell me I can’t. But does that mean I should, and that everyone else should just turn a blind eye?
March 11th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Paulie FTW! I am a huge fan today, buddy!
March 11th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Paulie FTW! I am a huge fan today, buddy!
Thanks, man.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Re Don Williams at 32: “LIKE I said –we have two crack whores competing for the affections of the Rich Johns.“
No argument. However you will note that I didn’t say I was a “Democrat” – I am a liberal, which Democrats at a “leadership” level are not any longer.
I vote Democrat because the alternative is worse, but would not willingly call myself a Democrat. Those would be “fightin’ words”.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
What about the cultural effect of having 100 million immigrants whose educational attainment over the long haul will subpar compared to native born americans. Or does having America become a version of Brazil not concern Yglesias. Typical for someone born into an upper-middle class family who has never really dealt with the middle class and what life is like for the other half.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Re Blackadder at 17: “the person farthest on the anti-immigration side would probably be George Borjas. He estimates that immigration has a modest but positive impact on GDP (about $20 billion or so). He also estimates that in the short run immigration has a modest negative effect on average wages (about -3.4%) but that the long run effect is zero. ”
——————
Bullshit.
From Borjas’s paper “The Analytics of the Wage Effect of Immigration” at
http://www.borjas.com/
“The analysis reveals that the short‐run wage effect of immigration is negative in a wide array of possible
scenarios, and that even the long run effect of immigration may be negative if the impact of immigration on the potential size of the consumer base is smaller than its impact on the
size of the workforce….
Consider, for example, the case where immigration does not expand the size of the consumer base as rapidly as it expands
the size of the workforce (i.e., φ 1 and the immigrants are
“conspicuous consumers” of the domestic product.15
The wage consequences of even slight deviations from product market neutrality can be sizable….”
—————-
So , the issue is: Do illegal immigrants uplift the US Economy by buying Cadillacs and McMansions — or do they
send US money back to Mexico?
Well, Carlos Slim certainly bailed the New York Times’s ass out of impending bankruptcy, but I ain’t seen Carlos climbing over any fences lately.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
It’s a curious inconsistency in the conservative argument – borders only matter when xenophobia immigration is involved. If it’s shipping jobs of to China – no problem.
Because those involve the concept of Chinese people taking union jobs away, and nothing triggers a republican ejaculation like a union worker getting his ass kicked to street.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Gee — I have an idea. Maybe Carlos Slim — the RICHEST MOTHERFUCKER IN THE WORLD — could do something about reforming his deeply corrupt government in order to create employment for his fellow countrymen, find them employment, and relieve their misery.
But somehow I don’t think ole Carlos got rich by having a strong sense of civic duty. He seems to like to export his problems …along with ,,.er..other things.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
It’s posts like this that make me wonder whether Matt has any clue at all. With East Germany, people were clamoring to get out, and the fence was built by the East Germans to keep them in.
Slight difference being that Israel’s fence is keeping terrorists out, and the proposed fence here would be keeping people out, not in.
It’s really not difficult. What I’d like to see is a streamlined system for legal immigration, and as close to instant as we can get for deportation of illegals.
We’re trying to fix the wrong problem. Instead of allowing floods of illegals for years, then regularizing their status, and being stunned when the process repeats, we should just make the legal system easy enough to deal with so that people will do that instead.
Sort of like how iTunes and various other services have made legal purchasing of music easy and painless enough that the incentive to grab music illegally has been greatly reduced.
Based on earlier posts, it’s clear that Matt actually gets that. Why he can’t apply the same thinking to this is beyond me.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
This post was obviously written by someone who lives on the East Coast, with no clue how illegal immigration actually affects life in the border states.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Well, let’s at least make it accurate: Mexicans who want to reach voluntary agreements to perform work in exchange for money, in open and knowing violation of existing US law that does not allow them to do so.
I mean, hey, I’d love to just decide to go to any country in the world without bothering to get a visa from their consulates or obeying their entry and exit requirements. It would be great if just because I want to do something I don’t have to obey the laws that tell me I can’t. But does that mean I should, and that everyone else should just turn a blind eye?
Well… yes.
The problem I have with this is that these immigration crimes are crimes which have no real victim, involve willing participants, cause no actual harm to persons or property. As such, we should ask ourselves if they should be crimes at all.
This argument falls back on the idea that illegal immigration is against the law, and we’re a nation of laws, therefore we should make serious effort to stamp out illegal immigration. Yet, there’s no accounting for the reasonableness of the law. This is akin to things like prostitution and pot smoking. Is the public welfare really well served by prosecuting persons involved in such activities?
The fundamental problem is that US immigration rules make it virtually impossible for anyone to simply decide to relocate to the US. Instead, it’s a years long process that is too costly and complex, discouraging average unconnected people from even considering such a endeavor. The government, in it’s wisdom in determining the labor market, cannot see the demand that encourages people to simply ignore the law. Recognize this pattern?
March 11th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Blackadder @ #17:
“Borjas, as I said before, is probably among the most pessimistic of economists about immigration. Other studies, such as those by Ottaviano and Peri, have found a positive effect on wages even in the short term (I’d include links, but the blog would eat this comment).”
So if all of the undocumented workers were to go home for whatever reason, and if US citizens were to replace them in the applicable jobs, US citizens would actually do these jobs for lower wages? And as the supply of labor thinned from this occupational shift, those in the rest of the labor market would work for less also?
March 11th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Per Matt: That’s a lot of money to spend on an enterprise that, if successful, would reduce GDP and lower wages for most native-born Americans.
Matt has written about this before. It would have been nice if he linked back to posts backing this contention.
It would make about a million times more sense to just spend an extra $2-3 billion a year on providing enhanced services or lower taxes to low-income Americans.
Their taxes are already low, unless Matt is proposing that they pay no FICA/Medicare. Services? Of what sort? Flat out dole? Not going to happen. Retraining?
What would really make sense is to implement E-verify (just ask Dr. Borjas), so that employers no longer had any excuses regarding who they hire. It doesn’t address who you might have working on your lawn, but who really cares?
March 11th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
The liberal argument around here against liberalizing immigration seems to be summarized as “I got mine, fuck you”. Funny how that works.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Steve Sailor –who comments here occasionally — has an interesting 2007 article on how Carlos Slim made his fortune, how the American political class helped him create his monopoly, how that monopoly impoverishs Mexico — and why ole Carlos has a big business investment in keeping illegal immigration continuing.
See http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070708_slim.htm
March 11th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Re shecky at 50: “The problem I have with this is that these immigration crimes are crimes which have no real victim, involve willing participants, cause no actual harm to persons or property. As such, we should ask ourselves if they should be crimes at all. ”
————
Shorter Shecky: The citizens who fight this country’s wars –and whose sweat created this nation’s wealth –should aspire to the living standards of Bangladesh.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
I never would have thought Don Williams was a Steve Sailor fan. What’s next? Me recommending abb1 or Trevor on the subject of Israel?
March 11th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
So if all of the undocumented workers were to go home for whatever reason, and if US citizens were to replace them in the applicable jobs, US citizens would actually do these jobs for lower wages? And as the supply of labor thinned from this occupational shift, those in the rest of the labor market would work for less also?
There are a few different scenarios. One, the labor supply shrinks, raising wages. But this also raises costs, making the businesses less viable. So much so that some jobs will simply disappear.
It’s also not clear that the increasingly skilled American worker is willing to go back to unskilled work, which most illegal immigrants are drawn to. These are parts of the labor market that don’t overlap all that much. The unemployed programmer probably doesn’t want to pick strawberries, and the salary that would entice him into the fields would translate into strawberries so costly that could not compete with imports.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Their taxes are already low, unless Matt is proposing that they pay no FICA/Medicare. Services? Of what sort? Flat out dole? Not going to happen. Retraining?
Is that what Matt is asking? As it is, illegal immigrants often already pay taxes and have all the deductions. Without anticipating ever benefiting from the programs those deductions fund. Just to show you how cynical the process is, it’s entirely possible to be an illegal immigrant, be legitimately employed using a ITIN, allowing all the taxes and deductions to be made. Tossing their money into the national pot with no expectation of ever seeing it again. This situation, if anything, makes employing illegal immigrants look like a positive thing for the country.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
This post was obviously written by someone who lives on the East Coast, with no clue how illegal immigration actually affects life in the border states.
Funny how this accusation if often made. Yet as someone who lives in a border State, in a city with a high number of immigrants, legal and illegal, there doesn’t seem to be much trouble at all relating to immigration. There wasn’t much when unemployment was in the mid single digits, and not now when it’s significantly higher. If anything, it may even contribute to a low violent crime rate.
No, it seems this accusation is usually made by folks who have problem with brown skinned folks speaking Spanish at the checkout stand of the local supermarket. Because the other attributes often blamed on immigration don’t actually seem to exist.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
This argument falls back on the idea that illegal immigration is against the law, and we’re a nation of laws, therefore we should make serious effort to stamp out illegal immigration. Yet, there’s no accounting for the reasonableness of the law. This is akin to things like prostitution and pot smoking. Is the public welfare really well served by prosecuting persons involved in such activities?
Definitely not. But I wouldn’t be so quick to put illegal immigration in that category. At the most basic level, it doesn’t matter how many immigrants you want to allow into the country (personally, I would allow a lot more.) Even advocates of expanded immigration have to admit that they don’t want to allow literally everyone in the country. You’re still going to want to keep out criminals, terrorists, people with communicable diseases, etc. So you need some method of border enforcement. Having large numbers of people crossing the border without going through customs makes that impossible. So, while I don’t fault anyone simply for wanting to come here and work, there’s still good reason to prohibit people from entering the country outside of approved channels. In that sense, illegal immigrants are violating reasonable laws.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Re Shecky at 57: “It’s also not clear that the increasingly skilled American worker is willing to go back to unskilled work, which most illegal immigrants are drawn to. These are parts of the labor market that don’t overlap all that much. The unemployed programmer probably doesn’t want to pick strawberries, and the salary that would entice him into the fields would translate into strawberries so costly that could not compete with imports.”
Oh — so that is what makes up our poor communities? Millions of unemployed programmers?
Then why does Microsoft, Hewlett Packard etc want all those hundreds of thousands of H1B visas?
March 11th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
I’m glad we agree. But customs laws are not the same as immigration law. I think ideally, it should be no more difficult to immigrate than it is for me to cross into Tijuana (or back into the US). Perhaps use a passport showing who you are, cross reference with the lost of suspicious characters like we do when we buy a plane ticket. And welcome to the USA.
March 11th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Why are Utopian leftist douche nozzles always on about the joys of subsistence farming? The work isn’t “ennobling”, it’s just back-breaking, life shortening suck with no margins and a good chance of death or dismemberment.
Border fence? It’s crazy expensive and ineffective. Why drag Israel or the GDR into it?
March 11th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Re shecky at 59: “No, it seems this accusation is usually made by folks who have problem with brown skinned folks speaking Spanish at the checkout stand of the local supermarket. ”
No — this accusation is made by a white person who thinks we owe a debt to our fellow countrymen — whether they are white, black or brown — and who therefore objects when whores for the Rich stabs our poor in the back. Oh — and who claims criticism of that backstabbing is based on racism.
Poor Hispanic Americans get their wages and living standards fucked by illegal immigration along with AfroAmericans and poor whites.
We have almost 15 million unemployed in this country. 1.35 Million Americans declared bankruptcy last year.
Wages for the bottom 50 percent have been FLAT for the past 40 years while the share of national income going to the richest 1 percent has soared from 10 percent to 23 percent.
We are paying through the nose for prisons because we incarcerate out citizens at a rate far HIGHER than any other nation on this planet. 4 TIMES higher than even totalitarian China.
If some unemployed American blew skecky’s head off and grabbed his wallet, I wouldn’t convict the mugger if I was on the jury.
Because you kill more people with corrupt, malign policies than you do with guns.
March 11th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
No, it seems this accusation is usually made by folks who have problem with brown skinned folks speaking Spanish at the checkout stand of the local supermarket.
I have a big problem with people not using English, as a common language is necessary for a democratic polity. Fortunately, Mexican immigrants seem to be learning English just fine.
March 11th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
shecky,
The Developed nations control the value of labor in 2 related ways. 1) Staple good costs are devalued with subsidies. 2) This devaluing displaces peasants and subsistence farmers who then flood the labor markets. The global labor market is thereby kept in a constant state of oversupply. This causes a migration to where labor has the highest value. This allows the advanced nations to avoid competition between employers and employees in those occupations which were once filled with slave labor and for the same reason. These are the occupations that citizens in a wealthy nation will not do for low wages. And because so many of these occupations have influence on the cost of staple goods; and because staple good costs have a very significant influence on the cost of all other labor, the cost of the subsidies is more than offset by the related savings.
But, like Hector suggested above, it is disingenuous to play the compassion card in regards to immigration, without recognizing that we are causing these people to leave their homes and families in the first place.
And undocumented workers do not have a “positive effect” on wages, they have a positive effect of ‘profits’. Undocumented workers benefit the wealthy at the expense of those who work for wages, although, in some cases it is a wash because at the high end of the wage scale the amount of disposable income is little changed. This also affects some occupations much differently than others. 30 years ago for example carpenters earned considerably more than what truck drivers did, which is logical because carpentry requires more skill and it is much harder work. But now, in the Southwest, truck drivers and carpenters earn about the same, but of course undocumented workers are not able to get Class A licenses. They do however now do much of the carpentry in this part of the country.
March 11th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
abb1:
Employers who hire illegal immigrants are breaking the law. Send a bunch of them in jail every year, and the problem is solved.
This is America, business people don’t go to jail here. In fact, you can run your company in to the ground, help sink the whole global economy through fraudulent business practices and then get a severance package when they fire your scandalous ass.
So no, I don’t think that Congresspeople are going to be putting their main campaign contributors in jail for hiring undocumented workers anytime soon.
March 11th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
We’re trying to fix the wrong problem. Instead of allowing floods of illegals for years, then regularizing their status, and being stunned when the process repeats, we should just make the legal system easy enough to deal with so that people will do that instead.
I’m actually somewhat sympathetic to Don’s point about Carlos Slim. Mexico’s right-wing government (and its corporate masters) holds power by tacitly encouraging the departure of people who would vote it out. Both main US parties seem somewhat nervous at the thought of a left-wing Mexican government, because it would be made up of people who have more in common with Lula than, say, Dianne Feinstein.
But it’s silly for Americans to pretend that arbitrage doesn’t exist on both sides of the border, and has done so for a long time.
March 11th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
pseudonymous (#68): Mexico’s right-wing government (and its corporate masters) holds power by tacitly encouraging the departure of people who would vote it out.
I agree that the Mexican government counts on the US job market as a pressure relief valve. As for voters, expatriates can vote, and can get documents to do so via Mexican consulates(*). However, being employed, they aren’t going to be as pissed off as they would be if stuck at home.
(*) You may recall some conservative radio stink about this a few years back.
March 11th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
I did not read every last word on this thread, so I may wrong about this, but it seems that one very important point may have been overlooked. Employers who hire undocumented workers have an advantage over those employers who abide by our laws. This is obviously an incentive for corruption.
The only genuinely honest and unselfish argument for allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in this country, must include 2 provisions. The ag subsidies must be removed so as to provide opportunities in agriculture, opportunities not just here but in all places. And, immigrants must receive equal wages, anything less is simply exploitive considering the displacement caused by the ag subsidies.
March 11th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
I have a big problem with people not using English, as a common language is necessary for a democratic polity. Fortunately, Mexican immigrants seem to be learning English just fine.
I’ll disagree with that. Common languages are necessary, except when they aren’t. But your second point is true. Language isn’t a real issue here. It’s the perception of language that’s a larger driver of the immigration controversy.
March 11th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
I’ll disagree with that. Common languages are necessary, except when they aren’t.
Yeah, I should have said desirable. There’s Switzerland, for example. There’s also Belgium, but we’ll see how that works out.
March 11th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
I did not read every last word on this thread, so I may wrong about this, but it seems that one very important point may have been overlooked. Employers who hire undocumented workers have an advantage over those employers who abide by our laws. This is obviously an incentive for corruption.
The only genuinely honest and unselfish argument for allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in this country, must include 2 provisions. The ag subsidies must be removed so as to provide opportunities in agriculture, opportunities not just here but in all places. And, immigrants must receive equal wages, anything less is simply exploitive considering the displacement caused by the ag subsidies.
There are some advantages to hiring people to work under the table. there are also some serious disadvantages. But except in the cases of actual harm being done, my instinct would be for the authorities to not bother with it. There are fewer advantages to hiring illegal immigrants above board, which is certainly possible and happens all the time.
I’m not sure why ag subsidies and equal wages must be linked with liberalizing immigration. Ag subsidies should probably all end regardless of immigration. And it seems the best way to ensure equal wages would be to legalize currently undocumented workers, encouraging immigrants and employers to not hire under the table. Which means a minimum wage is in effect and enforceable.
March 11th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
I understand that most right wingers are blithering retards so expecting common sense is a lot to ask, but just to state what should be obvious, Mexico is not our enemy and the land along the border is not a flat stretch of empty desert. No, Mexicans are in fact our friends and allies and the land along the border is a varied landscape making a continuous fence extremely problematic and costly – all so some micro-dick cunt faced impotent retards like G Gordon Liddy and Bill ‘I went to Harvard and live in New York’ Oriley can feel ’safe.’ Mexican immigrants are on average law-abiding (other than being here ‘illegally’) and good, honest people. Liddy is a liar and and an ex con.
A better solution is to grant citizenship to the Mexicans and deport white trash pedophiles like G Gordon Liddy.
March 11th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
But except in the cases of actual harm being done, my instinct would be for the authorities to not bother with it.
Would you consider tax fraud and identity theft to be actual harm? I guess this is related to my earlier point that I think the current illegal immigration is harmful, but more because of the “illegal” part than the “immigration” part.
March 11th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
shecky,
The thing is, that if we grant amnesty and pay equal wages the “good for the economy argument” no longer applies. Instead of increased profit margins, then we have labor oversupply at a time when we are unable to employ the existing citizenry. Unemployed citizens have a much greater cost than migrant workers (safety net).
In the mid 1930s immigration was shut down completely. That would be the case now too, except that now we rely on immigration to create demand for housing. In the mid 30s the immigrants lived in slums that had value due to the location of the properties and there was no housing glut. Now, and since the Immigration Act of 1965, immigrants, especially the 500,000 a year who are entering legally, are, in fact, indispensable as renters and home-owners. We do therefore have a choice between lower asset values, or lower unemployment. But we can not afford amnesty because that would minimize the benefits of exploitation.
March 11th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Yeah, because look how immigration did so much to boost the economies of the Sand States — California, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida — where 7/8ths of the dollars defaulted on mortgages are found. Thank God we had all those immigrant construction workers flood in to build exurban McMansions for a few dollars cheaper per hour for all the Americans trying to get their kids away from school districts overwhelmed by the children of immigrant construction workers.
March 11th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Yes, East LA is known for it’s peaceful character. Why, so is pretty much every Mexican enclave in America, as is Mexico itself!
Shecky, you are a tool and your little brown pets are on the way out.
March 11th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Well, the border fence would be a stimulus project !
A better solution would be to start building the fence but if the project is over budget or uses any illegal alien labor then all of the proponents get deported. They maybe will get two miles built before they’re all deported.
March 11th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
As for voters, expatriates can vote, and can get documents to do so via Mexican consulates(*).
They can, but generally don’t: that’s a general rule for expats unless efforts are made to get them to vote.
One can speculate on what the wingnut media response might be to a concerted campaign urging Mexican citizens in the US to vote, even if the result of having those extra votes might be a government that actually wants its working class to stay in Mexico.
March 11th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Matt (in Dr. Evil voice):
March 11th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
shecky: “I’m not sure why ag subsidies and equal wages must be linked with liberalizing immigration”.
Because ag subsidies are what limit choices. And choices are what most affect labor values. A farmer with plums ready to pick does not have the luxury of time. This, in a free society, puts the farmer who relies on the labor of others at a disadvantage in labor negotiations if the workers have options. Ag subsidies remove options. It is important to understand though that all advanced countries subsidize nearly all staple goods and this keeps values too low to allow for small scale production. But, historically, if workers are given a choice between doing menial labor or scratching out a meager existence on some worthless patch of land, they choose the second option in such large numbers that labor values are driven up, especially in agriculture. And of course when staple good costs rise so must the cost of labor across the entire economy. So, liberalizing immigration without removing the subsidies, at a time of diminishing opportunities due to increasing automation, and less than competitive labor values globally, would essentially just perpetuate and enlarge our existing disenfranchised class. But when food has its actual value, people have choices and that puts more value into labor.
March 11th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Steve,
I am not sure what you mean here:
“Yeah, because look how immigration did so much to boost the economies of the Sand States — California, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida — where 7/8ths of the dollars defaulted on mortgages are found. Thank God we had all those immigrant construction workers flood in to build exurban McMansions for a few dollars cheaper per hour for all the Americans trying to get their kids away from school districts overwhelmed by the children of immigrant construction workers.”
If this is meant as a response to what I said about the benefits of exploitation, well, you are off of the money trail. The exploitation in question benefited the developers. Their benefiting though has little if anything to do with defaults and foreclosures. I suspect that most developers in the “sand states” are doing just fine.
Like I said though I am not sure what you mean. I do appreciate though the viscous circle aspect of your comment/reply though. I just don’t know if it is a comment or a reply.
March 11th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Dear Shecky,
Since I am brown-skinned, it’s hard for me to understand why you think my post was racist or xenophobic. I’ve seen friends in the contracting business go under because of competition from illegal, unlicensed labor. If you’ve read Fast Food Nation, you see how corporate slaughterhouses fired hundreds of well-paid, unionized workers and replaced them with illegal labor bused in from Mexico. I don’t think illegal immigration is the biggest problem out there, the rich folks are the real problem, but it does not make life here in California better to have so many poor undocumented immigrants driving down wages.
But if you want to argue for a totally open border with no immigration policy, go for it.
March 11th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Existenz,
The Democrats define racism as that which comes between them and the Hispanic vote. And that which forces them to confront the fact that they are not actually doing what is in the best interest of all concerned. They must somehow convince themselves and their regurgitating followers that undocumented workers are better off living in US slums than in places near their families and friends and that is no easy task considering the gang violence and etc.
Then too the Democrats must distort and generalize the economic benefits to be beneficial to all — when of course this is simply not true and obviously so. Then to make their task even more daunting, they must deal with the crime issues. Everyone knows however that Hispanics frequently do not report crimes for fear of reprisals, nor do the authorities hesitate to deport illegal immigrants suspected of crimes, because our systems are overwhelmed, and so the statistics are misleading, so the Democrats must take advantage of this. To make matters even more complicated and difficult, Hispanic neighborhoods don’t receive as much police protection as other areas and so for the Party in power to argue that these neighborhoods have commensurate crime levels is condescending to those whose vote they so desperately need. So, if someone such as yourself, with brown skin, is called a racist now and then, well, you need to understand just how difficult their task actually is. And just be glad that you are not poor white trash and subjected to the same type of crap from the Republicans.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Otis the Sweaty,
The only reason Mexico has a crime problem is because the Hollywood hippies, with more money then morals, can’t seem to keep from stuffing themselves full of illegal psychotropic substances. The blood of innumberable Mexican infants has disappeared right up Lindsey Lohan’s nose. If you want Mexico to be a safe place, then stop doing lines in nightclub restrooms.
Nearly all of Mexico’s problems, to one degree or another, are the fault of the United States. Whether it be the American corn lobby throwing Mexican farmers out of business, the American politicians pressuring Mexico’s government to adopt right-wing policies, or the Santa Monica celebrities creating a demand for illegal drugs, we have a prodigious capacity for creating mayhem south of our border.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
I’m more and more inclined to just say open the borders entirely.
Here’s what I don’t get: why should anyone be entitled to special privileges simply based on whose uterus he came out of?
Seriously. I mean, it sounds like people think illegal immigration is just going to eat our budget alive. But I’m very skeptical of that argument. It may not be the best thing for it, but I think on principle it would be worth some sacrifice.
Shit, I live 2 hours from the Mexican border here in California and feel closer to their culture than a good portion of America! Fuck these hillbillies and their paranoia.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:19 am
Oh you Americans, such pussies with your wall that looks like Israel’s or East Germany’s wall. Do the damn thing properly!
Back in the good old days of apartheid, South Africa had an electrified fence at 3500V on its borders with Zimbabwe and Mozambique. That sucker killed between 30 and 200 people people a year, depending on whose numbers you believe (to compare, the Berlin wall killed 80 people over its 26year run). As far as I know the fence is mostly still in place, but no longer electrified. (I suspect it’s only a matter of time before the South African government decides its time to reinstate the thing, with higher voltage, at least along the Zim border, given the impending collapse in Zimbabwe.)
March 12th, 2010 at 12:44 am
Shit, I live 2 hours from the Mexican border here in California and feel closer to their culture than a good portion of America! Fuck these hillbillies and their paranoia.
So go live in Mexico. What’s stopping you?
Except of course when it comes to capital, in which case the borders should be free and open (ie: the kind of “free trade” that sucks the jobs out of America).
I agree 100%, but the answer is not to allow unlimited immigration in the face of “free trade,” but to tactically restrict both capital and labor movement in order to maximize the growth of both economies. “Fair trade” and “Fair Immigration.”
March 12th, 2010 at 2:30 am
So go live in Mexico. What’s stopping you?
I’m not sure how to respond to the absurdity of that statement. I like it here. I like the immigrants here. I see no special reason that anyone should have a birthright to a country other than pure economic convenience, which I am skeptical of on the merits.
What’s more, you’re “love it or leave it” hokum is the height of anti-American rhetorical irony. But we may just have different opinions of what America should stand for.
March 12th, 2010 at 2:35 am
[...] Yglesias does not want a double wall on the Mexican border to counter illegal immigration: My colleague Andrea Nill notes [...]