Cato Institute needs to smell the "open borders" shit they're shoveling.Jeff Jacoby got my blood boiling here, saying it's a bad sign illegals are leaving. My email to ole Jeff is at the end of his piece below.
Mike
III
A bad sign - illegal immigrants are leaving
By Jeff Jacoby
September 6, 2009
WHAT EVER HAPPENED to the furor over illegal immigration?
Two years ago, the denunciation of “crimmigrants’’ was approaching fever pitch, especially in conservative precincts, and woe betide any candidate who appeared before a Republican audience and failed to denounce “amnesty’’ with every ounce of conviction he could muster.
Now, however, the hysteria seems to have cooled a bit. There was no bellowing when President Obama reiterated during a Mexican summit last month that he intends to press for “a pathway to citizenship’’ for the millions of illegal immigrants living in the United States. News stories highlighted instead his acknowledgment that overhauling immigration law would have to wait until next year at the earliest.
Perhaps the brawl over the issue has been upstaged by the brawl over ObamaCare, in which immigration has been reduced to a supporting role. Or maybe the lowering of the decibel level is a reaction to something else: a significant decline in the number of illegal immigrants living in the United States.
For some time now, news reports have been calling attention to the flow of immigrants back to their homelands. Recent headlines tell the story: “Bad economy forcing immigrants to reconsider US’’ (CNN); “More Mexican immigrants returning home’’ (Orange County Register); “Fewer Cubans make crossing to Fla.; economy cited’’ (Associated Press); “Job losses push immigrants out’’ (Chattanooga Times Free Press).
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors sharp immigration restrictions, the population of illegal aliens in the United States declined by almost 14 percent, or 1.7 million people, between the summer of 2007 and the spring of 2009. Analyzing Census Bureau data, researchers Steven Camarota and Karen Jensenius calculate that the number of immigrants entering the country illegally has fallen by one-third, while the number returning home has more than doubled. “Both increased immigration enforcement and the recession seem to explain this decline,’’ they write.
Certainly enforcement is up. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration in its second term, has made a point of tightening the border and punishing employers who hire illegals. “The share of the US border that has a fence has increased significantly in the last three years and the number of Border Patrol agents has more than doubled,’’ the CIS report notes. Removal and deportation of unlawful aliens “has increased dramatically,’’ as federal agents have repeatedly raided workplaces where immigrants are employed.
But as the slew of news stories focusing on the economy suggest, what is primarily driving the immigration outflow is the recession. In good economic times, immigrants pour into the United States; at other times, the influx slows or reverses. It has ever been thus, and - barring the implementation of a border and workplace crackdown more ruthless than anything most Americans would tolerate - ever will be.
During the recent boom, the US economy was creating 400,000 new low-skill jobs per year. Immigrants surged in droves to fill those jobs, most of them illegally since US immigration law provides almost no lawful option for unskilled immigrants with no American relatives. Immigration is a measure of economic robustness, and the news that 1.7 million fewer illegal immigrants live within our borders is a datum to regret, not celebrate.
Research published by the Cato Institute last month debunks the notion that preventing illegal immigrants from entering or working in the United States is good for the economy. “Increased enforcement and reduced low-skill immigration have a significant negative impact on the income of US households,’’ economists Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer write. Whatever savings might be achieved in public expenditures “would be more than offset by losses in economic output and job opportunities for more-skilled American workers.’’
Legalizing low-skilled immigrants, on the other hand, expands the US economy and leads to the creation of new higher-skilled jobs. Result: “significant income gains for American workers and households’’ - gains the authors estimate at $180 billion a year.
The benefits of immigration, a potent growth hormone, have always outweighed the costs. Men and women willing to uproot their lives, to brave daunting obstacles in order to come to America and work hard, are men and women we should welcome with open arms. Calling them “crimmigrants’’ won’t accomplish anything. Letting more of them enter legally would.
Subject: If they're leaving, why don't you tell my next door neighbors, all 23 of them?
Date: 9/6/2009 1:30:32 P.M. Central Daylight Time
From: GeorgeMason1776
To: jacoby@globe.com
Mr. Jacoby,
I am a Minuteman, or was, when I worked the border in October, 2005 in New Mexico and saw first hand the terror under which people who live there suffer day by day. I also saw how the coyetes exploit the illegals, including rape and murder.
I don't object to legal immigration. But the problem with those effete libertarians at Cato is that they are so obsessed with the way things ought to work that they don't pay a damn bit of attention to how they DO work.
And how do they work?
A. Anchor babies lead to welfare entitlement.
B. EMTALA -- the mandating of treatment for, among others, illegals, has helped to wreck our health care system, putting hospitals out of business. Subtract the millions of illegals from that equation, and the Obamanoids wouldn't have half a leg to stand on when they bleat about the plight of the "uninsured," which by the way, they are using to jam more government control down our throats. How's that working out, Cato, you libertarian loons?
C. The Democrats (the other half of the illegal conspiracy after the industry-arse-licking GOP -- and don't you DARE misuse the name "republican" when you refer to those sell-out for money pukes) want as many illegals as they can here so they can:
1. push their racial identity politics (there is no one more obsessed with race as a Nazi Gauleiter of Lower Silesia than a modern day "liberal") and
2. pack the voting booths with amnestied millions. And what will they vote for? Why more welfare benefits and bigger, more oppressive government. They will dance with the collectivist party what brung 'em.
Now, if you want to set up a system whereby everybody leaves, and I mean everybody who isn't already legally in line, and then reregister at the border to work, and work only. No more anchor babies. No more bogus SSNs. It is not necessary to deport them -- just throw some high-profile millionaires in prison, doing hard time, for a decade or so. Everybody else will find it expedient to quit exploiting these people. Cut off the exploitation of the cracks in the welfare system. The border folk will get to have a break in the terror they suffer, and we might actually be able to save the Republic from the collectivist assholes and their GOP enablers before they permanently wreck it.
Now, I'll throw a sop to Cato, and cancel the drug war at the same time. It's not worth spit in the wind, and is a greater threat to our liberties than illegal immigration, but not by much. But it's time Cato woke up and smelled what they are shoveling on open borders -- tyranny wrapped in soft dulcet lies and smelling like the collectivist shit it actually is.
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126.
21 comments:
a border is a contract between two and only two property owners. in a civil society, a "national border" would require some way to gauge the impact of each immigrant crossing it.
switzerland does this well by allowing cantons to set the rules. obviously texas has a slightly greater incentive to be in control of immigration rules than oklahoma.
but this also works on the local level: the swiss require you to go door to door to your neighbors' homes and introduce yourself and bring up the subject of your citizenship. your neighbors vouch for you, not some bureaucrat's dossier.
clearly, an open border is a ridiculous thing. but it is equally ridiculous to think that one size fits all for such a massive country as ours, for to have a central government establish its borders is to relinquish property ownership to that same organization.
i figure border states ought to immediately be given complete authority over those borders. only thereafter can we discover whether any incentives for interior states to influence the rules even exists, and to what extent those are legitimate.
Perhaps in the spirit of "never interrupt your enemies when they're making a mistake", it might be a good idea to let millions get citizenship, sign up for free (insert government provided 'service' here), and help speed up the seemingly inevitable bankrupting of the welfare system. If it happens more quickly, it might work as a big bucket of cold water in the face.
Thoughts?
Back when I considered myself a Libertarian I was registered as such and lived just 3 blocks away from the mighty Cato on Mass. Ave. I became convinced they were more interested in being invited to the Beltway parties and CNN interviews versus sticking to principle.
Open borders may be fine if the contributors are not being forced to pay for all of the socialist bullshit handouts, but we are a long way from that.
This anarcho-capitalist definitely thinks that the border policy is designed to help certain corporate interests as well as help the ever increasing shit bag nanny state with ever more voters.
Would like to hear more about the terror no the borders sometime....
Cory
"it might be a good idea to let millions get citizenship, sign up for free (insert government provided 'service' here), and help speed up the seemingly inevitable bankrupting of the welfare system."
You'll get to a three-sided race war before that happens. we're almost there now.
And Cory, if you want to know about what it's like to live down there, buy the documentary Border by Chris Burgard. (I'm in it in a couple of places. So is my buddy Bob Wright, who has the best line in the movie. "Secure the borders, Mr. Bush. Crawl out from under Vincente Fox's desk, wipe your mouth and do your job.")
You have a way with words. Hope your novel is proceeding well.
The swiss model works because a Swiss is first a citizen of his town, then the Kanton; only by virtue of THAT citizenship is he deemed a "Swiss" citizen. Maybe we need to go back to that here - a person is a citizen of, say, Arizona, first and foremost, and then a citizen of the US....
tyranny wrapped in soft dulcet lies and smelling like the collectivist shit it actually is.
Well, I've got no great love for the Cato Institute, or any other beltway libertarian. And you make a good point about buying votes and how forcing hospitals to serve the unpaying has damaged the health care system. I'm not sure I buy your solution, though.
"Now, if you want to set up a system whereby everybody leaves, and I mean everybody who isn't already legally in line, and then reregister at the border to work, and work only. No more anchor babies. No more bogus SSNs. It is not necessary to deport them -- just throw some high-profile millionaires in prison, doing hard time, for a decade or so."
Mike, the only way to absolutely ensure that nobody is in this country illegally would be to brand the rest of us. We've gone way too far toward having to check in with our wardens as it is - to go as far as you'd have to go in order to ensure there's no uninventoried people running around would have to involve implanted chips and Identity Police. As for anchor babies - nobody would give a shit about them if you did away with the public dole, which shouldn't exist in the first place: Problem solved. And do you really want to jail businessmen for hiring whoever they found best for the job in their own company? 'Cause if you do - Mike, I don't want to be in your revolution.
jon, Article I, Section 9. of the United States Constitution gives authority to the Federal Government to control immigration. Article I, Section 10. prohibits states from entering into treaties, alliance or confederations. States can't be given authority over their national borders without Amending the United States Constitution.
If we are to be an Constitutional Republic, we must abide by the Constitution ratified by the Republic.
There are a number of you on both sides of this post who are going to be pissed that I didn't put your comments up. Tough shit.
NO, I don't want to execute drug dealers without trial, as some of you do.
No, I don't think we need a police state to enforce the border, nor do we need to submit to National ID, chips or frigging brain implants.
I said: Imprison fatcats who break the law, and the demand for illegal labor will go away. Eliminate anchor babies and welfare and they will go home.
I said: have a system where there is a means to allow people to come to work, but not vote, become citizens, or dip into taxpayer funds.
The border is a hellish place to live when you can't even control who is on your property. Is that the libertarianism you are advocating?!? That people have to walk around with blinders on lest they piss some smuggler off and get their cattle killed, their water tanks holed, their barns burned or their wives raped?
These people -- the victims -- are Americans -- your fellow citizens and most of them are Hispanic. What, you don't give a shit about them because they're in the way of your ideological purity?
Well, screw you too, and the open borders horse YOU rode in on.
You don't have to be a tyrant to want this functional collectivism and terrorism stopped. If you think so, fine. Just don't expect me to post such horseshit on MY blog.
Why don't you go explain why we can't get a handle on this problem to some poor bastard rancher who's just loading up his dead calves at $1500 a head for the twentieth-fricking time? Explain it to his wife who used to take long walks on their OWN FRIGGING LAND THAT'S BEEN IN THEIR FAMILY FOR GENERATIONS only now she can't because criminals of all varities run all over at all hours of the day and night. Explain it to THEM, not to me.
I'm done here.
Vanderboegh
I do think that it is unfair to charicarize all immigrants as wellfare entitlement voters, though it is likely, its only because the democratic party and its ilk, spends more time, money and propaghanda trying to organize them. Many immigrants, both legal and illegal, i know, are extremely conservative, as are most people who understand the value of hard work, and not being given any handouts just for being born in one country or another, as so many fat overindulgent americans have become. If the border situation was normalized (and the responsibility of the current immigration situation lies wholly on growth based debt fuel economic policy) those immigrants who remained would only vote for a welfare state, if they continue to be so marginalized and neglected by the "conservative" members of the political community. I think the message, far more, should be more like the open letter you recently released to be translated, and reaching out to these people, who have the same right to live in a free country (even if that right isnt to the same country we live in) as anyone else, and the message of liberty is the only truely universal one, and its battle must be fought on all fronts, in a completely inclusive fashion, not a divisive one.
You can tell that the folks at CATO have never had to clean up the mess made by the Crimmigrants.
I like that term it sums up the problem.
Your solution to what you see as oppression is...more oppression, just of somebody else. I can't buy that.
I don't doubt for a moment that the idiotic immigration policies of this government have created a hellhole at the border. But rather than look at why people are paying to be smuggled over the border in the first place, you want to give the government MORE authority so it can try to hold them back with force. Any force strong enough to hold them all out is plenty strong enough to hold us all in - which it's already trying to do.
You haven't thought it through, Mike. Is a hellishly strong central government a fine thing - as long as it's only oppressing the people YOU don't approve of? That's not the way government works. As long as you've had to think about it, there's not a lot of point trying to convince you now.
Your solution to what you see as oppression is...more oppression, just of somebody else. I can't buy that. I don't doubt for a moment that the idiotic immigration policies of this government have created a hellhole at the border. But rather than look at why people are paying to be smuggled over the border in the first place, you want to give the government MORE authority so it can try to hold them back with force. Any force strong enough to hold them all out is plenty strong enough to hold us all in - which it's already trying to do. You haven't thought it through, Mike. Is a hellishly strong central government a fine thing - as long as it's only oppressing the people YOU don't approve of? That's not the way government works."
NO. NO. NO. NO! NO!!!
No additional government is necessary. Indeed, a country without illegal immigration needs a lot less government. All that needs be done is to enforce existing law at the right point: the fornicating employers who break the law for profit. That and repeal EMTALA, anchor babies and the welfare state as is currently available to illegals.
I support the extension of political asylum to people who need it. But this is NOT political asylum. This is on one level ideologically driven and solicited invasion for both economic and political reasons. On another, it is simple desire for the good life but without any desire to become AMERICAN.
And I tell you this, the corrosion of the rule of law, where there is one set for illegals (to their advantange) and one for the native-born and naturalized can only lead to resentment, riot and race war.
You guys act like the enforcement of any law is oppression. It is not. You also act as if borders mean nothing, and I assure you most sincerely that they do.
Mark my words. When the system comes crashing down and tyranny raises its ugly head, the new tyrants are going to use the bottled up resentment at illegals to oppress us all. This will consume us unless we get a handle on it.
Heck, maybe fighting against this tide of lawlessness is a fool's errand. Maybe this is what God has in mind for us because of our accumulated sins. In the days that I allow myself to despair, this is what I despair of. That Americans can no longer see the forest for the trees, and will cooperate in their own bondage.
And everyone will say, after they are all enslaved according to well-worn tyrannical pathways, "well, don't blame me, you weren't principled enough to see that it had to be done my way."
I'm a (small l) libertarian, and I believe that protecting the borders is one of the few legitimate functions of government. THis is an invasion we're suffering, not immigration.
It seems to me that if the welfare state were dismantled, the perverse incentives that drive illegal immigration would go with it. In time, more open borders might be possible. If a body wanted to come here, work without offering aggression or fraud to anyone, and then go back across the border, it would scarcely matter. Because the other positive effect of dismantling the welfare state would be the revitalization of private enterprise, there would be more than enough work.
While the government-run welfare state persists, though, open borders is a mug's game.
You guys act like the enforcement of any law is oppression. It is not. You also act as if borders mean nothing, and I assure you most sincerely that they do.
Precisely the problem I have with many more into the libertarian quadrant of the grid than I am.
You have tugged at one of the threads that threatens to unravel the liberty movement.
The left has similar divisions but somehow manages to put them aside to advance the greater overall movement.
It's a disadvantage our side has always had and I cannot see a solution for.
I'm sorry to see that you have taken the anti-immigration position. I understand this is a republican (not conservative) position, but it is not a libertarian one.
The opposition to immigration is, at its core, an opposition to capitalism. The only reason we have "illegal immigration" is because our government has, for many decades, stood in opposition to capitalism.
What you seem to fail to realize is that every person has capital they can invest. If they do not have a lot of money, they have their labor. Every immigrant into this country benefits the country, in a capitalist system. Every immigrant increases the wealth of the country.
Opposition to immigration is a socialist position. (And no, I'm not surprised, yet again to find Republicans who are socialists.)
IF you have a problem with these people, who pay taxes, using our socialist programs, then you should go after the socialist programs, and not the people. You want to get rid of coyotes, then oppose the closed borders policy.
Like the War on Drugs (another Republican Socialist program) you cannot stop labor commerce. The closed borders policy is obviously failing because it ignores economic reality.
Embrace economic reality, and you'll find the economy works better, and your blood pressure can remain low.
Embrace capitalism, and stop worrying about "illegals".
Anon said: "Every immigrant increases the wealth of the country."
Define immigrant. Coming here and essentially remaining a member of the country and cuture from whence you came is not immigration.
Particularly if they send most of their earnings back home (note that they never come to think of our society as home) out of our economy.
You assert they pay taxes. How if they're paid under the table?
You make the mistake so many libertartians do of making the perfect the enemy of the good.
"[T]he message of liberty is the only truely universal one, and its battle must be fought on all fronts, in a completely inclusive fashion, not a divisive one."
It seems that many people have not grasped the nature of our polity. It is a constitutionally defined structure--a federated republic.
The "anti-nativists" such as Friar Franz would have us to believe that these United States of America are primarily an idea, a universal abstraction capable of infinite expansion so as to comprehend all people at all times.
To be "inclusive and not divisive"
is their way of saying that there should be no dissent by either the people or the sovereign states when they perceive their rights and immunities to be jeopardized by illicit immigration.
Enough of this.
If liberty is truly a universal message, it can be exported to Mexico more readily than imported from there. Our own country is far bettered structured to assimilate wealthy Europeans with a tradition of political liberty than unemployed Hispanics with a history of welfare dependency.
MALTHUS
Immigration is a measure of economic robustness, and the news that 1.7 million fewer illegal immigrants live within our borders is a datum to regret, not celebrate.--Jeff Jacoby
This is an excellent argument for allowing the Taliban to infiltrate unhindered in vast numbers from Pakistan to Afghanistan.
First, they will blow up the place.
Then, surgeons will be needed to stitch up the wounded. Makers of prosthetic devices will expand orders to sell artificial limbs to the disfigured and crippled. Bomb squad disposal units will enjoy full employment. Munition manufacturers will enjoy robust demand for their product. Road crews will work overtime to replace sections of damaged road. Engineers will be necessary to design new bridges to replace those that have been destroyed.
Afghanistan's GDP will expand exponentially. This robust economic activity will be a datum to celebrate, not regret.
Sheesh!
Note to libertarians: when you allow social libertarianism to trump economic libertarianism,as Jeff Jacoby has done here, it invariably produces garbled nonsense.
MALTHUS
Anonymous September 8, 2009 1:30 AM said...
Opposition to immigration is a socialist position. (And no, I'm not surprised, yet again to find Republicans who are socialists.)
No in socialist countries the people are kept in by force. Google Berlin Wall if you do not believe me. The next person that compares U.S. border walls to the Berlin Wall or immigration policy to socialism should be forced to live in North Korea for a year and then have to cross its border without government permission.
North Korea's border to the south is designed primarily to keep the slaves in.
Has history education got even worse lately?
Post a Comment