Some random thoughts on the immigration issue - as you will see, it's all over the map, so have fun:
The late, great Harry Browne used to say that a truly free and prosperous society had nothing to fear from immigration, but that a welfare state
had everything to fear - fear of too many poor people trying to get in, and fear of a lot of rich people trying to get out. His statement has been borne out, it would seem. So his conclusion was to rid ourselves of the welfare state, and we will no longer need immigration quotas. No free lunch would discourage a lot of "guests" from dropping in uninvited.
Economist David Friedman (son of Milton), offers up a slightly different view. While also opposed to the welfare state, he nevertheless sees massive illegal immigration as a great opportunity to force government at all levels to rethink their welfare-state policies, as the additional drain on the system renders them less and less tenable. Most free market, Austrian School supporters already believe the welfare state in the US will collapse of its own weight sooner or later, so to a guy like Friedman, all those Mexicans streaming across the border actually serve a valuable function by hastening that day - so he says, "bring it on!".
But that, I believe, is the bottom line of the entire "illegal" immigrant equation - do their economic contributions to Yanqui culture outweigh the additional drain on taxpayer funded "services", like fire and police protection, health care, education, and dozens of other "entitlements"? Have their incredible influx, over the past two decades, since our previous clearly-failed attempt at immigration reform, depressed working class wages and further limited opportunities for the least educated and/or forgotten among our own
people? (I would offer a qualified "no" to the first question and a qualified "yes" to the second.)
75% of the immigrants in the last decade or so - legal and illegal - are from Latin America. The overwhelming majority of them speak no English, and most have only basic working skills. This limits them to low-level construction jobs, domestic service, food harvesting and processing, and light manufacturing. Those ambitious enough to gain some basic English can plug themselves into fast food, auto repair, and other work.
The State Department
describes a labyrinthine quota system for those wanting to enter the US legally. If I deciphered the charts correctly, the capitation is maxed at 700,000 people, but the average is just a little over 300,000 annually. Plus, there's a long waiting list, depending on the country one is attempting to emigrate from
. Interestingly, European caucasians get the shortest shrift, despite the fact that they are from more developed countries, are generally better educated, already speak English, have "middle-class" job skills that are in demand, and understand the culture and traditions of this country and therefore would have little trouble fitting in. But, of course, it's considered politically incorrect to accept this glaring fact and adjust our quotas accordingly.
One example on the wage argument: According to the Center for Immigration Studies
, wages in the meatpacking industry, before the advent of mass illegal immigrant labor, averaged $18 per hour. Today it's around $9 per hour.
Large corporations involved in the food processing and service trades in particular have found that illegal immigrants are willing work for a lower wage than American Citizens or immigrants who have arrived earlier, will accept a reduced standard of working conditions, accept less in the form of benefits, are less likely to join unions and are generally more docile. And naturally, they get away with it, as current laws are rarely enforced. Since "illegals" have no health insurance, they and their families show up with their hands out at local hospital emergency rooms and clinics. The local school districts are filled to bursting, as well, and resources are stretched thin.
So the argument has been made that granting illegals "rights" would actually drive wages back up
, as these corporations would no longer be able to threaten them with expulsion. The workers could organize without fear, and demand better benefits and working conditions. Of course, without a comprehensive immigration plan, including a system of immigration control that is actually effective
, how can that possibly work? Without such reforms, there's nothing to stop the corporations from laying off all those "amnestied" shit disturbers and hiring a new bunch of "new" illegals fresh from our porous border. And the abuse continues...
Before someone tries to label me a protectionist, like many who champion the artificial propping up of American wages, all I really advocate is an absolutely level and competitive playing field. Government turning a blind eye to hiring practices in certain industries sets up a de facto two-tiered employment system in this country, which hurts everyone. There are laws on the books governing wages and hours, benefits, and occupational health and safety standards - these should be enforced uniformly, across the board, regardless of industry or an individual worker's legal status. Separating those two issues might help break down the overall problem into more manageable pieces.Harvard economist George Borjas
has calculated that immigration drives down wages in the U.S. by $ 152 Billion a year. That hurts state and local governments the most, as the tax revenue base drops, and unlike the Feds, they don't have the option of printing up money to make up the shortfall.
Our current policy of accepting children of illegals who are born here as full citizens results in what is known as "chain immigration", where immediate family can be granted residency status - and they in turn can sponsor other family members, who come here and have children, who...well, you get the picture. Perhaps this policy needs to be revisited, as Borjas suggests in his book.
The concept of "multiculturalism" originated around the same time as the reformulation of immigration quotas greatly favoring latinos, asians, and africans over europeans. I hate to say it, but all "cultures" are not created equal. And while many decry the historical abuses of the evil "white devils", europeans and anglo-saxons also invented the concept of "fundamental human rights" - something no one else, it seems, could be bothered with. Then they spent the next eight centuries fighting for those rights. The results of that struggle is enshrined in English Common Law, the Declaration of Independence, and the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. This country was the only country in the history of the world that was founded from scratch on the basis of certain defined moral and legal principles - so this is why many of us insist that potential immigrants be able to defend their reasons
for wanting in - just showing up isn't enough.
And while on the subject, any blanket "amnesty" is not only a slap in the face for those who went through the legal process, it's a real
slap for those who risked life and limb to make it here for honest political asylum, specifically Vietnamese and Cuban "boat people". The mother of Elian Gonzales literally sacrificed her life so her son could grow up someplace not under the bootheel of Fidel. Our caring government snatched him up and gave him back. One day I fully expect to see on the news that an adult Elian also risked life and limb to make the trip again, this time to stay. I hope he makes it.
My one question to the "amnesty" advocates is this: If your first act upon entering my country is to violate its border and laws, how can you possibly be trusted in any other way? How could I really count on you to help me run my business profitably? How can I count on you to behave properly in my local community and not violate other laws? How can I know you are here because you really want to be here, and not just because the wages are better, and you intend to suck as much out of us as possible before going home again with the loot?
The real amusing part of this isn't "illegals" demanding "rights" - the funny part is why America puts up with this nonsense to begin with. Americans emigrate to Mexico all the time - there are good land values, and local prices enable for a more abundant retirement. The laws are simple and the pace of life is much more relaxed. But there are no illusions. Mexico's immigration policy is pretty straightforward: Citizenship? Forget it. Not in your lifetime. No one who wasn't born there will ever have a say in how the place is run. Plus, political activism is, again, limited only to Mexican citizens - any Gringo who's rounded up at a protest march will be deported, simple as that, and good luck trying to get back. Bought a house? Que lastima
So yesterday, seeing that the office cafeteria (which is run by an independent contractor) was all but shut down due to large latino absenteeism, I wandered my neighborhood in search of lunch. I found a fast-food franchise where the dusky immigrant staff retained their work ethic and a willingness to serve with a smile, in English, no less. I rewarded them with my business. The cafeteria, however, will have to wait a couple of weeks to regain my trust, while I get over my feelings of abandonment. The only thing I missed yesterday was the customary opportunity to practice my Spanish...well...perhaps not...