New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh commands NAFTA members to tear down their (border) walls.

Comments

James | April 14, 2006, 2:55pm | #

The best article yet on immigration. Don't play the quotas game at all, but simply deny their premises altogether. Incidentally, before Napoleon, there were no passports at all.

John | April 14, 2006, 3:09pm | #

If you had a hard and fast rule that no citizen from one country could take advantage of any welfare or public schools in the other country, this is isn't a bad idea. It is not fair for Mexicans to come here to live on public assistence and send their kids to school anymore than it would be for me to travel to Canada to get free medical care. If you could get absolutely no welfare and could not send your kids to school, then the only reason you would come would be to work, which is fine. The bonus would be that a lot of Americans, more than you would think, would move to Mexico. Mexico has some beautiful places and an American retiree's dollar goes a lot farther there than here. You could definitely see Mexicans setting up well guarded private enclaves in Mexico for American retirees and vacationers, which of course they already do to some degree, get rid of the visa requirement and it would happen a lot more. That would not only put a lot of money into their economy it would also create pressure for reform, you can't attract many Americans if the cops are constantly shaking them down for money and the place is crime ridden and has high taxes.

Lastly, the U.S. would have to loose all of its agricultural subsidies. A lot immigration from Mexico is for labor to grow crops that absent subsidies wouldn't be profitable in the United States. Get rid of the subsidies and let the farms and the packing plants move to the labor in Mexico. That combined with the inability to send their kids to school or collect welfare would mean that a lot fewer Mexicans would come here and those that did would come here to work and leave their families at home, where its cheaper and thier wages go further anyway. It really isn't a bad idea at all.

That said, good luck in selling Mexico's corrupt xenophobic and racist government on letting large numbers of gringos into the country to live.

Another Lurker | April 14, 2006, 3:20pm | #

"for me to travel to Canada to get free medical care"

Try it, my understanding is that you must pay up front if you are not Canadian and they do not accept your insurance.

I agree with what you say about subsidies John but I believe you are incorrect about immigrants coming here for a free ride so to speak.

Most do not want to risk being caught by showing up for these services, though some do. Of course if living 20 in a 1 room apartment and doing work most Americans feel they are too good for is taking advantage of us..........what else can I say.

I think we have more deadbeat Americans than deadbeat immigrants. Our southern neighbors have not been poisoned by the culture of entitlement as we have. They are welcome as far as I am concerned, I leave it to them if they want to become citizens or not.

Warren | April 14, 2006, 3:21pm | #

Tim,
That article was a homerun. Outstanding.

We're all very different people.
We're not Watusi.
We're not Spartans.
We're Americans.
With a capital A, huh?
You know what that means?
Do you? That means
that our forefathers...
...were kicked out of every
decent country in the world.
We are the wretched refuse.
We're the underdog.
We're mutts.

Isaac Bartram | April 14, 2006, 3:25pm | #

A lot immigration from Mexico is for labor to grow crops that absent subsidies wouldn't be profitable in the United States.

Actually I believe most of the Mexican farm labor is used in fruit and vegetable crops which receive little of anything in the way of support subsidies. Now there is the matter of the water subsidies and marketing boards but those are not what we generally mean when we speak of agricultural subsidies.

But that nitpick aside you are certainly on the right track there.

mitch | April 14, 2006, 3:25pm | #

Is that thing about no passports before Bonaparte true? I remember Casanova talking about his passport, but maybe that was a poor translation, or maybe the word was used in the 18th century for something quite different from the passports we all know and love.

John | April 14, 2006, 3:26pm | #

Lurker,

I agree, but if we didn't have a VISA requirement and gave welfare to anyone who showed up, considering that Mexico has no welfare to speak of, we would probably get a lot of folks coming up here to live on welfare.

As far as the Canadians making me pay up front, that is absolutely their right and should remain so. The Canadian taxpayers don't owe Americans or Mexicans or anyone else medical care. The point is that if you have an open border where the only reason to cross it is for economic reasons and not to get government benifits, it can work. If a person can cross a border and get better government benifits by virtue of being there, then it can never work.

Isaac Bartram | April 14, 2006, 3:27pm | #

used in fruit s/b used for fruit

little of anything s/b little if anything

John | April 14, 2006, 3:28pm | #

Isaac,

Good point about the water subsidies and yes those are the main subsidies that these farms get. We are basically pumping the West dry to grow crops that would be cheaper to grow elsewhere. It is nuts.

Alan Vanneman | April 14, 2006, 3:28pm | #

Visaless borders are a good idea for the U.S. and Canada, but not for the U.S. and Mexico. Limitless immigration in the good old days worked for the simple reason that the U.S. was empty. The U.S. is the only large, temperate land mass that was not the site of ancient civilization. That, not entrepreneurship, Lockean ideals, the Protestant ethic, or slavery, has been our ace of aces, even though western European notions about the importance of education, working hard, and obeying the law helped a lot too. (And so did slavery.)

Our immigration policy towards Mexico has always been an exercise in hypocrisy. Congress votes to restrict immigration and then forces the Department of Justice not to enforce the law. The practical result is the recreation of Marx's international proletariat, exploitable people who cannot claim the protection of the law, much less vote to change it to serve their interests.

Some sort of "amnesty" is a moral imperative. But the idea of visaless borders for the U.S. and Mexico is dubious. By American standards, Mexico is staggeringly corrupt. If you send anything through the post office in Mexico that looks like it might contain any item of value, it will be stolen. The economic history of Latin America over the past 20 years strongly suggests that 1) free market reforms will not have the powerful effects that uncritical advocates of free markets have believed would be inevitable; and 2) enactment of such reforms will be fitful and tentative rather than sweeping and consistent.

One can hardly blame Mexicans for being interested in the idea of doubling or tripling their standard of living by traveling a thousand miles north. And one can hardly blame American workers with limited education to be unenthusiastic about the prospect of 20 or 30 million new competitors.

Isaac Bartram | April 14, 2006, 3:31pm | #

An open border North America is a fantastic idea but the trend is in the other direction.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/regional/regional_1170.html

"The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 requires that, by January 1, 2008, travelers to and from the Caribbean, Bermuda, Panama, Mexico and Canada have a passport or other secure, accepted document to enter or re-enter the United States. This is a change from prior travel requirements. The goal is to strengthen border security and facilitate entry into the United States for U.S. citizens and legitimate foreign visitors. The U.S. passport is the document of choice because of the incorporated advanced security features."

Russ 2000 | April 14, 2006, 3:32pm | #

It's a sign of a timid and tired nation that, in a period of economic expansion, we're not even willing to allow such an open system for our immediate neighbors and closest trading partners.

Great piece. I would've said "greedy and paranoid" rather than timid and tired, but that's just me.

kebko | April 14, 2006, 3:36pm | #

"Our southern neighbors have not been poisoned by the culture of entitlement as we have."

I agree with your sentiment, but I see immigrant activists who crawled under a fence & through a desert to get here, and then complain about the controversy as if they have no idea that anybody had an issue with them coming here. Maybe we shouldn't have a problem with them being here, but when I see some of them speak, "entitlement" seems like a good description of their attitude.

A great article, that I think has changed my mind in some ways on this subject. And, seeing some comments here, it occurs to me that we could let Mexicans come without VISA's but only make certain government services available to American citizens. It seems like that would fix a lot of concerns that many people have on both sides of the issue.

MikeP | April 14, 2006, 3:36pm | #

That said, good luck in selling Mexico's corrupt xenophobic and racist government on letting large numbers of gringos into the country to live.

Yes, Tim, very good article.

Nonetheless, given comments like John's here, it needs to be said that -- just as is the case with trade -- your society gains by liberalizing its migration policies regardless of whether the other society liberalizes its migration policies.

To hold off opening US borders until Mexico and Canada open theirs is specious, idiotic, and harmful.

Another Lurker | April 14, 2006, 3:38pm | #

"As far as the Canadians making me pay up front, that is absolutely their right and should remain so."

Oh I just merely stated it because I have heard that but don't think a lot of others have. It was mainly posted for the benefit of those who view National Health as a panacea.

I believe in open borders AND I also don't believe in National Health. I would guess your average illegal is NOT getting a free government handout as far as healthcare but probably from private charitable organizations that don't ask for id. That is certainly their peragative and I support it. I don't know for certain so I am merely guessing.

I don't know how ANY could go to a public school as things are currently, anyone shed light on that?

I have a hard time reconciling the shreaking of people saying Americans are denied care, and that illegals are coming here and getting full service. Something doesn't add up. Who is wrong. I really don't know.

I am agreeing with you more than not John. Your comments on the subsidies and water and thier effects are dead on. It's funny that most folks that are "water advocates" do not make this connection. I think it is because many of them are in the "I believe in Government subsidies" camp as well. Must be hard for them to serve two masters.

Anyway.

John | April 14, 2006, 3:40pm | #

"The U.S. is the only large, temperate land mass that was not the site of ancient civilization. That, not entrepreneurship, Lockean ideals, the Protestant ethic, or slavery, has been our ace of aces, even though western European notions about the importance of education, working hard, and obeying the law helped a lot too. (And so did slavery.)"

I disagree with the temperate part. Most of the U.S. is a vast wasteland compared to Europe and much of Latin America. Huge deserts, high mountains, a vast open prairie with horrendously cold winters and hot summers and thunderstorms the likes of which God has never seen. When you really think about what it must have been like to live in most of the United States before air conditioning and electricity and running water you have to stop in wonder at how amazing our ancesters were to build the greatest civilization in history in such an unforgiving place.

As far as Mexicans moving here to up their standard of living, they would not do that if you cut off all the welfare and made employers pay a minimum wage. If the wages are high enough, there wouldn't be any jobs here for unskilled ones and without any welfare or educational benifits there would be no reason to come here. The problem is that I don't think there is any way that this country has the fortitude to tell migrants that they can't have any social benifits. So instead, I fear you might be right that we would just end up with a marxist prolitariat living here on welfare.

Russ 2000 | April 14, 2006, 3:41pm | #

It is not fair for Mexicans to come here to live on public assistence and send their kids to school

That may be a valid point for public assistence, but not for public schools. Until the feds stormed their way in, public schools were paid for almost entirely by property taxes and other consumer-end fees which everybody pays regardless of citizenship status.

Kebko | April 14, 2006, 3:41pm | #

"The U.S. is the only large, temperate land mass that was not the site of ancient civilization. That, not entrepreneurship, Lockean ideals, the Protestant ethic, or slavery, has been our ace of aces, even though western European notions about the importance of education, working hard, and obeying the law helped a lot too. (And so did slavery.)"


Huh?! The Native Americans had everything you list here except Lockean ideals, and, I suppose, a strictly protestant work ethic. So why were they still in the stone age? They had the continent. Seems like it was Locke they were missing.

Kebko

John | April 14, 2006, 3:49pm | #

Russ,

The problem is that Mexico doesn't have anything like the schools the US does. What do you do about the problem of 1 person finding a job and taking his 18 cousins to come and live in his home so that they can go to U.S. schools? The incentive would certainly be there and U.S. schools would be stuck educating large numbers of Mexicans without the tax base to do so.

Another Lurker | April 14, 2006, 3:52pm | #

"It is not fair for Mexicans to come here to live on public assistence and send their kids to school"

Most school stuff here in GA is paid for by the lottery. Don't need to be a "citizen" to pay that tax.

Tonto | April 14, 2006, 3:55pm | #

"Limitless immigration in the good old days worked for the simple reason that the U.S. was empty."

I beg to differ.

Russ 2000 | April 14, 2006, 3:56pm | #

What do you do about the problem of 1 person finding a job and taking his 18 cousins to come and live in his home so that they can go to U.S. schools?

Probably the same thing as I'd do with my Irish-Catholic next-door neighbor with 13 kids.

John | April 14, 2006, 3:59pm | #

Russ,

That is pretty nieve. Wouldn't it be a lot more efficient just to fund schools in Mexico rather than having the children come all the way to the United States? Would you support a nationwide tax increase to build schools in Mexico? Basically by allowing Mexican children to come here and go to school, that is what you are doing.

Russ 2000 | April 14, 2006, 4:34pm | #

That is pretty nieve.

How so?

Wouldn't it be a lot more efficient just to fund schools in Mexico rather than having the children come all the way to the United States?

Probably not. It's not like people emmigrate to the US "because of the schools" in the same way that people move to newly-built suburbs "because of the schools". Mexican schools aren't going to do a damn thing about Mexican government corruption and their essentially feudal society.

Would you support a nationwide tax increase to build schools in Mexico? Basically by allowing Mexican children to come here and go to school, that is what you are doing.

First we constructed a public school system so that the immigrants would assimilate. Now that the immigrants WANT to assimilate, we're pissed off that they're trying to assimilate. Again, most public school funding comes from taxes and fees that legals and illegals alike pay for. You're seem to be trying to say that illegals are trying to reduce their education expenses by living in crowded housing but that sounds like a lame argument.

MikeP | April 14, 2006, 4:42pm | #

That is pretty nieve. Wouldn't it be a lot more efficient just to fund schools in Mexico rather than having the children come all the way to the United States? Would you support a nationwide tax increase to build schools in Mexico? Basically by allowing Mexican children to come here and go to school, that is what you are doing.

Do you think that it would be more efficient just to have the US Department of Education fund schools in Mississippi rather than having the children come all the way to New Jersey? I sure don't think so. I think the DoEd is pretty much a giant efficiency sink.

But perhaps federal spending is the only thing keeping one Mississippian from coming to New Jersey, getting a job, and then having his 18 cousins join him in his house so they can enjoy the $9700 spending per pupil school system rather than the $4000 spending per pupil where they're from.

TJIT | April 14, 2006, 4:48pm | #

If US entrepreneurs and established businesses could go to Mexico and buy property and start a business the problem would fix itself.

However, the Mexican government makes this difficult if not flat out illegal to do. Something like this would jump start Mexico's economy and until Mexico has a functioning economy the bulk of the population movement is going to be towards countries that have functioning governments and economies.

Sheena Easton | April 14, 2006, 4:59pm | #

Tear down ... my sugarrr wallllls ...

Sam Houston | April 14, 2006, 5:03pm | #

Of course you kinda have to see the mexican govt's POV. Look what happened the last time they let gringoes move freely into their territory.

EUman | April 14, 2006, 5:04pm | #

We need like an EU for the hemisphere no doubt

John | April 14, 2006, 5:13pm | #

Mike and Russ,

What you guys are saying would make perfect sense if Mexico were like Mississipi. It is not. Damn straight people would move from Mexico for the schools, by the millions. As far as your point that "well we already have schools here, so what is the cost?", we don't have enough schools to educate our children and the children of Mexico as well. We can't educate the illegals that are here now. The L.A. school district is stuck spending something like 12 billion dollars on new infrastructure due to the influx of illegals and their children. That tax burden falls primarily on the people who were already there. That is not fair. The people of the United States do not owe Mexican children an education anymore than Mexicans owe Americans and education.

Open borders are a nice concept, but you have to be realistic about the conditions in both countries.

John | April 14, 2006, 5:16pm | #

TJIT,

You are absolutely right. If you could get Mexico to open up its economy to Americans, Mexico would boom. The problem is that once it did the racist, theiving pieces of shit who run the place would no longer be in power. Consiquently, the leaders of Mexico would never allow the economy to open up regardless of all of the good it would do.

Herrick and His Balls | April 14, 2006, 5:17pm | #

Would the answer to this public schools dilemma be then to have continent-wide agencies that fund public education. This scares me.

Although I would love to see the entire western hemisphere in a common market with open borders. Hell, after some time, we could merge that with Australia and the EU while we're at it. Maybe Africa if they get their shit together. Gotta build up the world free trade regime one region at a time no doubt.

Carter | April 14, 2006, 5:23pm | #

How is the US would be better off if every poor person in Mexico moves here? Mr. Cavanagh never explains.

"Since all parties to this debate draw a line between legal and illegal immigration, we should note that visaless borders would greatly increase the former and virtually eliminate the latter. Is that a problem? I don't think so, and people who oppose the idea need to explain why they think it would be"

Because, as Milton Freidman aptly put it, you can't have free immigration and a welfare state. Becuase flooding the United States with non-citizens transforms who we are as a nation.

(to place it in a context for Libertarianoids: how do you know the people you let in won't decide to increase the penalties for smoking pot? You don't. So what are you taking that chance for?)

"It's a sign of a timid and tired nation that, in a period of economic expansion, we're not even willing to allow such an open system for our immediate neighbors and closest trading partners"

You're correct, Mexico is geographically close to us. Why this obligates the United States to accept all her poor escapes me. I do commend you for being honest enough not claim Mexico is an ally or friend of the United States.

SR | April 14, 2006, 5:26pm | #

"So why were they still in the stone age? They had the continent. Seems like it was Locke they were missing."

Well that and advanced metal working skills and reliable riding animals.

Jim Walsh | April 14, 2006, 6:16pm | #

I can hear it now:

Mister Tancredo, tear down this wall.

I'm with ya, Tim.

Steven Crane | April 14, 2006, 6:36pm | #

I've held this comment in for months, and I'm finally going to let it out.

John, as terribly as you write, how can you be a lawyer?

Tim Cavanaugh | April 14, 2006, 6:54pm | #

How is the US would be better off if every poor person in Mexico moves here?

Because a) "every poor person in Mexico" won't move here—a portion of motivated people, mostly poor, will move here legally and will be better able to come and go between the two countries—and b) immigration has always been good for the United States and there's no evidence that that is no longer the case?

Ruthless | April 14, 2006, 7:55pm | #

Way to go, Tim!
Borders are the obsession of the same retards obsessing about "certain" drugs.

I've been meaning to insert this historical fact:
Around 1900, folks would come and cheer new immigrants from Ellis Island.

I'd be the first to insist some people need killing, but to piss on immigrants is as stupid as refusing to stoop over and pick up a loose one hundred dollar bill: Many here and elsewhere, gripped by hysteria, claim they would not stoop, but, in private, one-on-one, they would.

bob | April 14, 2006, 8:04pm | #

"However, the Mexican government makes this difficult if not flat out illegal to do."

Actually it's the Mexican constitution that makes this illegal. I have no idea what the process for changing their constitution but perhaps the promise of open borders would be an enticement.

Carter | April 14, 2006, 8:44pm | #

"every poor person in Mexico" won't move here—a portion of motivated people, mostly poor, will move here legally"

How big will this portion be? I wonder how many of them will be pregnant women.

"immigration has always been good for the United States"

I'm not sure why you reference the past, the results of what you are proposing would be unprecedented, but (to name only one difference) in the past we've had pauses in immigration to allow assimilation.

"and there's no evidence that that is no longer the case"

Sure there is. Sovereignty issues aside, low skill immigrants do not provide any net economic benefits to this country, they impose costs, directly, from government services they use, and indirectly, because natives are forced to pay more to live in areas immigrants aren't.

Surely opening the border even more would only increase the public appetite for more police, more regulations, and more government, things I thought libertarians were opposed to.

happyjuggler0 | April 14, 2006, 9:08pm | #

Immigrants in our K-12 system are not liabilities, they are assets. If they are liabilities, then so are kids born in the US too.

Ruthless | April 14, 2006, 9:15pm | #

Carter,
When you stoop to pick up a one hundred dollar bill, I will be there to kick you in the ass.

Peace and love up there in your colon with your head.

Tim Cavanaugh | April 14, 2006, 9:20pm | #

I wonder how many of them will be pregnant women.

Huh?

the results of what you are proposing would be unprecedented

Read a book, dude. The border with Mexico was open until the 30s.

Sovereignty issues aside, low skill immigrants do not provide any net economic benefits to this country

Yeah, just look at how the Irish and the Poles ruined this country.

Surely opening the border even more would only increase the public appetite for more police, more regulations, and more government

How does having more Mexicans in this country increase the "public appetite" for more police and regulations? I'd ask you to explain the cause and effect, but I'm not sure I want to know.

Ken Shultz | April 14, 2006, 9:30pm | #

Because, as Milton Freidman aptly put it, you can't have free immigration and a welfare state.

I agree that we should put the screws on the welfare state, but I'm skeptical that the immigrants comin' here for jobs are a bigger burden than the average American is on me as a taxpayer.

...but then when I talk about the welfare state, I'm talkin' about the free loaders who want me to pay for their children's education, their unemployment insurance, medical care in their old age and, for goodness sake, their retirement too!

Little engines of economic activity, that's what immigrants are. When our problems include too many hard workin' entrepreneurial types in our midst, maybe we should start turinin' 'em away at the border. Til then, I'll take three immigrants for every...

Ken | April 14, 2006, 9:30pm | #

Uhh, Tim.
I teach a class actually about diversity, and we went to the census web site and we found something very interesting:
2 out of 5 Hispanics are foreign born.
And 2 out of 5 Hispanic Americans do not have a high school education.
Assuming there is some overlap (and I think it safe to assume a great deal of overlap, I can supply stats if you want) we have a vast amount of unskilled labor coming to the US.
Do these unskilled laborers have a great respect for the rule of law? Do they have a great respect for freedom of religion and minority rights?
OF COURSE NOT! Let us not make abstract principles so important they blind us to empirical reality. A great percentage of immigrants will cost us in social services more than they bring. And they will especially hurt the "least of us".

MikeP | April 14, 2006, 9:31pm | #

low skill immigrants do not provide any net economic benefits to this country

Do you have any evidence for this statement? Not only does it fly in the face of economic theory, but the numbers I last heard had illegal immigrants providing a net benefit of a bit under 1% to the average American even after government services were factored in.

I can buy that low skill immigrants do not provide _much_ economic benefit, simply because the lower wage implies a lower potential producer surplus for both employee and employer. But the producer surplus must be positive, or the immigrant would not have the job. And the contribution of the immigrant's labor to his employer must be a benefit to the economy, or the employer would simply fire him.

Ruthless | April 14, 2006, 9:34pm | #

I just discovered that the carpet humper has crossed our (Reasonoid) borders, and continues to do his disgusting schtick over at the Drudge Report.

OH! The humanity!

Can't we seal cyber borders?
Help, Rummie!

Rummie preggers?
Halp! Moses! son of Gwyneth, Halp!

Herrick's Balls... halp.

Ken | April 14, 2006, 9:36pm | #

Economics without Sociology
Economics has so much information to inform us, only fools would ignore it. But sociology has something to add. Culture matters. Central and latin america have cultures that give less than impressive approval to free markets, limited government, and civil rights.
Libertarianism always ignores culture. And then they sit and wonder, why doesn't Russia embrace markets? WHy doesnt Iraq embrace our liberal beauty? Why does not Rothbard and Rockwell's utopias spring up in places? Culture matters my friends. The institutional economists like Douglass North realize it. Maybe you can to?

Ken Shultz | April 14, 2006, 9:53pm | #

low skill immigrants do not provide any net economic benefits to this country

How do you feel about the benefits of free trade? ...If the economy benefits when consumers can buy imports for less, why wouldn't it benefit the economy when consumers can buy domestic for less? Who says you can't import a haircut?

Cavanaugh wrote, "If there's one thing about NAFTA/WTO-style free trade that has always driven labor activists nuts, it's that modern trade agreements allow "free flow of capital" but not "free flow of people."

I've often wondered aloud why anti-immigrant types aren't also free trade champions--and they usually aren't. I've ascribed ugly motives to that in the past, but maybe y'all just don't get it? ..Maybe I'm missin' something? Maybe they just don't "get" the whole free trade thingy?

Ken Shultz | April 14, 2006, 10:17pm | #

I think your perception's off on a few things, Ken.

Central and latin america have cultures that give less than impressive approval to free markets, limited government, and civil rights.

...and it seems to me that immigrants, illegal and otherwise, are comin' here to escape that. They come here with few expectations of government services or legal protection. ...and they work their asses off, like our pioneering ancestors did. ...in contrast to what I perceive as the entitlement culture of the average, native-born American.

Libertarianism always ignores culture.

...and it seems to me that this website is filled with the posts of some of the best journalists, critics, etc. there are. ...and their posts are all about culture. Take a stroll through the archives, take a scroll down the main page--it's all about culture. Ours, other people's... You're talking to libertarians who spend many of their waking hours reading, writing and thinking about culture.

WHy doesnt Iraq embrace our liberal beauty?

Again, search through the archives and you'll find half a zillion objections to the Iraq War, all flavored with observations about our culture, their culture, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Gamito | April 14, 2006, 11:42pm | #

Limitless immigration in the good old days worked for the simple reason that the U.S. was empty.

Right... The same way limitless number of babies born in the good ol' days worked because the US was empty. NOW that it is NOT, and for the sake of consistency, maybe the government should start a program of mass sterilizations so no more babies are born to a non-empty U.S.

Good argument, bud.

gamito | April 14, 2006, 11:57pm | #

If US entrepreneurs and established businesses could go to Mexico and buy property and start a business the problem would fix itself.

American companies have been doing that for years.


However, the Mexican government makes this difficult if not flat out illegal to do.

Well, 30 or 40 years ago, maybe. After the NAFTA, American companies can be owned whole inside Mexico.


[...]and until Mexico has a functioning economy the bulk of the population movement is going to be towards countries that have functioning governments and economies.

Uh-huh... Actually, the yearly GDP growth in Mexico is much better than many European countries - last year it was 3% The key of why Mexicans are still crossing the border is because people are FREE to do so! Even if Mexico had the wealth of Hong Kong, people would still try to migrate to the States, because the market there is much bigger - thus the opportunities greater. People CHOOSE to migrate, guys.

On the "functioning government" point, people are not migrating to the States because it has a "functioning" government - that is ludicrous.

Carter | April 15, 2006, 12:07am | #

"Read a book, dude. The border with Mexico was open until the 30s."

America (or Mexico, for that matter) now is not the way it was in the 30's. We have a welfare state, for one.

"Yeah, just look at how the Irish and the Poles ruined this country."

Yeah, that really supports erasing the border with Mexico today.

"How does having more Mexicans in this country increase the "public appetite" for more police and regulations? I'd ask you to explain the cause and effect, but I'm not sure I want to know."

Well, we agree on one thing: you don't want to know.

MikeP:

That's the net benefit of all immigrants. Just low skill:

"The net benefit is even smaller when immigrants are relatively unskilled. For instance, suppose that all immigrants have the skill level of those who came in the late seventies. Lifetime welfare costs per household would then be $13,600, and the immigrant population would add $87 billion to welfare costs. These less skilled immigrants only earn $313,000 over their working lives, so that total earnings are about $2.4 trillion. They would then pay about $960 billion in taxes, of which $29 billion is allocated to funding cash benefit programs. The immigrants would drain the U.S. Treasury by about $58 billion over their lifetime, for a net loss of about $3.2 billion per year. Because national income increases by somewhat more, immigration is still beneficial. Note, however, that these calculations do not include the costs of other components of the welfare state, particularly health care. The introduction of these additional programs would further reduce the meager economic benefits associated with the immigration of less skilled workers."

http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Immigration.html

Then add in Medicare fraud, cost of crimes (both to victims and incarceration), higher real estate costs, and the costs of family reunification.

Ken said:

"How do you feel about the benefits of free trade?"

I'm for free trade.

"If the economy benefits when consumers can buy imports for less, why wouldn't it benefit the economy when consumers can buy domestic for less?"

Florida spends about $155 million a year just on incarceration of illegals. How many cheap haircuts is that?

NML | April 15, 2006, 1:08am | #

"One in six students in California are children of illegal immigrants though many are born in the United States and therefore are U.S. citizens. Education for children of illegal immigrants costs Golden State taxpayers almost $8 billion a year. The state ranks 48th in student achievement; nearly 50 percent can't read at grade level, 40 percent underperform in math and 30 percent drop out. Schools that repeatedly fail state proficiency tests lose millions of dollars in state and federal aid."

"Last year, Los Angeles County spent $340 million to treat the uninsured; that's roughly $1,000 for every taxpayer." "Sixty percent of the county's uninsured patients are not U.S. citizens. More than half are here illegally. About 2 million undocumented aliens in Los Angeles County alone are crowding emergency rooms because they can't afford to see a doctor."
Fox News-sorry the only quick check that I found that talked about money.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150750,00.html

I'd be a complete fan of open borders if we had no welfare state that I am paying for. The libertarian theory: no borders & no welfare.
Cheap labor benefits corporations, owners of companies-it sure doesn't benefit lower class/middle class who pay higher taxes for welfare to illegal immigrants.

Ken Shultz | April 15, 2006, 1:17am | #

Florida spends about $155 million a year just on incarceration of illegals. How many cheap haircuts is that?

The point about them being good just like free trade stands, but, wow, that's a big number! ...Out of a $5,000,000,000 budget, it doesn't seem as big, though, does it? I mean, on a percentage basis.

http://www.ebudget.state.fl.us/Highlights/crime/crime_home.aspx

Are you suggesting that immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than the average native born American? ...because the data I've seen suggests the opposite. What I saw suggested that the institutionalization rate for immigrants is much lower than it is for the average native born American. What I saw suggested that the institutionalization rate for immigrants rises to that of the average American in step with assimilation.

With regard to the former, Butcher and Piehl (1998a), by using Census data on institutionalized individuals show that immigrant men, despite their lower education levels, have lower institutionalization rates than native-born men. Butcher and Piehl also find that early immigrant cohorts are more likely to be institutionalized than recent immigrants, so although all immigrants assimilate to higher native crime rates over time, recent immigrants appear to do so more slowly.

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/papers/2003/wp0303.pdf

I saw another report that attributed immigration as a significant factor in explaining our reduced crime rate over the last decade or so.

...Indeed, the first-generation immigrants (those born outside the United States) in our study were 45 percent less likely to commit violence than were third-generation Americans, adjusting for family and neighborhood background. Second-generation immigrants were 22 percent less likely to commit violence than the third generation. ...our study found that immigrants appear in general to be less violent than people born in America, particularly when they live in neighborhoods with high numbers of other immigrants.

Regardless, don't you think having legal status in the United States, as Cavanaugh suggested, would make illegal aliens less likely to commit a crime?

Ken Shultz | April 15, 2006, 1:43am | #

Cheap labor benefits corporations, owners of companies-it sure doesn't benefit lower class/middle class who pay higher taxes for welfare to illegal immigrants.

I remain unconvinced that illegal aliens, engines of economic vitality that they are, are much more of a burden to me as a tax payer than the average American. Really, when you steal my money to pay for--let's say--public schools, do you think I console myself with the idea that at least it goes to pay for American deadbeats?

What kind of marginal increase are we talking about here when we add in the illegal aliens anyway? Let's see we've got 11 million of 'em or so, and that's divided by--what?--300 million Americans? Assuming they use SSA and Medicare and public schools and all the rest of it at the same rate the average American does, they're not even a drop in the welfare bucket.

coarsetad | April 15, 2006, 2:02am | #

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most local governments funded by sales taxes?
So unless these mexicans are going back to Mexico to make all there purchases, aren' they paying as much local taxes as any other citizens?
Honestly, I don't think whether or not these people are citizens will make a hill of beans difference as to whether LA, San Diego, Phoenix, or whereever is going to have fiancial difficulties funding large scale social welfare projects.

MikeP | April 15, 2006, 2:13am | #

Carter,

That econlib.org piece you quote completely supports the point I made above that the benefits to natives due to unskilled illegal immigrant labor are small, but still positive.

Then add in Medicare fraud, cost of crimes (both to victims and incarceration), higher real estate costs, and the costs of family reunification.

Then you reach for some wacky things that you presume the economists haven't already accounted for -- probably for good reason. Medicare fraud? Most of these illegals pay medicare taxes, yet they will never use medicare services. Higher real estate costs? That's zero-sum of course. It may be more expensive for a new owner to buy, but that higher price went to the current owner, resulting in no net impact to total natives' wealth.

I am no fan of the welfare state. But you are resorting to some extremely ticky-tack reasons to violate the natural rights of migration and labor of people who happen to have had the misfortune of being born on the wrong side of a line on a map.

Pig Mannix | April 15, 2006, 2:25am | #

First, as Jesse James DeConto demonstrated in Reason's February issue, even a fully functioning guest worker program creates cruelties for the people who are actually participating in it.

Is participation in these programs voluntary or not? Are we now snatching workers out of Mexico and forcing them to participate in our "cruel" guest worker programs?

UFW's "Ag Jobs" initiative, explains spokesman Marc Grossman, "is not retroactive. You can't come into the country and then take advantage of it... But if they've been brought into this country, we want to protect them."

So where does that leave a Mexican citizen who hopes to make it to the United States someday? "Out of luck," Grossman says.

Since when is assisting Mexican citizens in realizing their aspirations a designated function of the United States government? And if the United States is now responsible for the well-being of citizens of foreign countries, why aren't wars to bring democracy to the middle-east an equally legitimate function? My understanding was that the citizens of the United States established the Federal government to secure the interests of - surprise! - the citizens of the United States.

The solution to the immigration crisis, if there is such a crisis, does not rest in guest worker programs or higher visa quotas, but in the one possibility nobody is mentioning: eliminating visas altogether within the NAFTA countries, and allowing Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans with legitimate passports to travel freely among our three countries for any reason or for no reason.

I noticed you avoided proposing simply throwing open the borders to the whole wide world. I can understand why. Considering it's pretty well known at this point there are plenty of folks in the world hostile to the US, that idea would be a political non-starter. Small problem - North America is not a closed system. Canada and Mexico not only interface with the US, but with the rest of the world as well. We have no control over who our neighbors let in to their countries. If you're not going to do any border control at Canada and Mexico, then you effectively have opened the borders to the whole world.

The guest worker compromise is unrealistic because it has nothing to do with economic reality on this continent.

And the economic argument is unrealistic for reasons I've pointed out here before: people are not merely interchangeable economic components, they also carry political, social, religious and cultural baggage. See Iraq, Serbia, Israel and France, to name but a few, for recent examples. If economics were the only consideration, you wouldn't be hearing tales of riots, civil war and ethnic cleansing coming from those countries.

Since all parties to this debate draw a line between legal and illegal immigration, we should note that visaless borders would greatly increase the former and virtually eliminate the latter.

And legalizing drunk driving would greatly increase legal drunken behavior, and greatly decrease illegal drunken behavior. Hello? Laws regulating immigration allow us to distinguish between desirable and undesirable immigrants. You write as if we had immigration regulations simply because Congress just woke up one morning and arbitrarily decided it would be a good day to regulate immigration.

Is that a problem? I don't think so, and people who oppose the idea need to explain why they think it would be.

Well, Tim, if you're looking for opposing views, there's this blog called "Hit and Run" where people have been expressing them for at least the last two weeks. Actually, they've stated some pretty good arguments for their position, a good number of which remain unaddressed. Oddly, the pro-immigration people who keep demanding explanations from the anti-immigration folks have mostly advanced variations of the same argument in support of their position:

a.) My Illustrious Ancestors were immigrants!
b.) My Illustrious Ancestors were Truly Peachy Keen!
c.) Therefore, immigration must be Truly Peachy Keen!
d.) If you don't think immigration is Truly Peachy Keen, you must be some kind of an [rac, fac, elit, national, nativ, *]ist!

Given that the champions of unrestricted immigration are overwhelmingly in the minority, I'd say it's incumbent on them to explain why they want to put the majority of their fellow citizens in a position they've made clear they don't want to be in. Not the other way around.

Because a) "every poor person in Mexico" won't move here�a portion of motivated people, mostly poor, will move here legally and will be better able to come and go between the two countries

Since you're proposing removing the barriers that serve as the disincentive for the less motivated, what makes you think they won't come? Why wouldn't they?

immigration has always been good for the United States and there's no evidence that that is no longer the case?

How are you quantifying "good"? By a pretty overwhelming margin, most Americans aren't finding it good, and apparently, the greater their direct experience with immigrants, the less good they find it. Any explanations for that?

How does having more Mexicans in this country increase the "public appetite" for more police and regulations? I'd ask you to explain the cause and effect, but I'm not sure I want to know.

Doesn't have to be Mexicans. Pick up a map and find the most densely populated areas. Now find the areas that are most heavily regulated. Notice a correlation?

Since, over time, libertarians are going to have to deal with increasing population working against their interests anyway, why would they want to encourage policies that contribute to unnecessary population growth?



@Ken Shultz
..and it seems to me that immigrants, illegal and otherwise, are comin' here to escape that.

And it seems to me that after fighting a long and bloody war to free themselves from British law and government, the last thing those American colonists would want to do is recreate a government based on the British model and implement a legal system based on British common law.

Oh wait...

That one's a non-starter, buddy. There are so many examples, both historical and current, of populations recreating political institutions almost identical to the ones they've rebelled against or seceded from, I'm surprised anyone even attempts to make that argument anymore.

Pig Mannix | April 15, 2006, 2:33am | #

But you are resorting to some extremely ticky-tack reasons to violate the natural rights of migration and labor of people who happen to have had the misfortune of being born on the wrong side of a line on a map.

You keep refering to this "natural right of migration". When has any such right ever existed or been recognized? Even before the advent of the nation-state, even the most primitive tribal organizations of human beings have exercised territorial claims, and exercised the right to exclude interlopers from their territories.

This "natural right of migration" doesn't exist. Never has.

cynic | April 15, 2006, 4:22am | #

This "natural right of migration" doesn't exist. Never has.

Comment by: Pig Mannix at April 15, 2006 02:33 AM

----------------

Pig Mannix,

I agree with you, but he must be refering to something that one of the Popes said. I'm not sure if it was John Paul II or one of his predecessors in the 1970's that proclaimed the "right" of free immigration for all peoples. Essentially he gave all his subjects and presumably anyone else his blessing to invade any country they so desired, when they so desired. I thought it was real big of the ruler of one of the tiniest countries to be so generous with everyone else's. Typical Liberal type generousity.

Realist | April 15, 2006, 8:30am | #

Sounds like California has imported Canada's health system, waiting lists and all:

"According to the State Association of Hospitals (search), California's public health system is "on the brink of collapse." In Los Angeles County, patients can wait four days for a hospital bed and up to two years for gallbladder surgery."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150750,00.html

___________________________

Of course the legislation that mandates ER treatment of anyone must be repealed too. This is a classic libertarian fantasyland topic. Americans are never going to agree to these changes, especially the politicians who are most directly pandering for the illegal alien vote. These pols never met a program to expand the welfare state they didn't like.

MikeP | April 15, 2006, 10:19am | #

Pig Mannix, cynic,

If you don't believe in the primacy of individual rights over state powers, I'm not going to convince you here. Suffice it to say that I believe that individuals have the right to do whatever they wish provided they do not infringe on the same right of others. Rights are not defined by any state, ruler, or pope. Whether derived from natural law or simply useful abstractions, they do exist outside of -- and even in the face of -- state recognition and powers.

I actually considered noting that I believe that the state has as much legitimacy to round up everyone whose last name starts with 'B' and ship them out of the country as they do to round up and deport every illegal immigrant. But I gather from your notions of government and rights that you believe the same thing.

Ken | April 15, 2006, 11:22am | #

I'm not sure that immigrants are leaving South America for the US in order to escape their anti-market, anti-rights cultures. Maybe some are. But culture tends to be very tricky. Look at the work by Tom Sowell that shows that some ethnic groups, wherever they are in the world, do very good and others do not. People bring their cultures with them as much as they 'escape' them. So ask yourself, do you like Mexico? Would you like to live in Mexico? Because the US is gonna be a lot like Mexico if immigration patterns continue.
Yes, yes, we are a nation of immigrants. But until recently that immigration has been largely all European, and despite the cultural differences between Europeans there are some shared features of Western Culture that I, and most folks in the US, think are mighty fine (this implies no 'superiority'; if we were blogging centuries ago I would have preferred Moorish lands to Europe).
Has immigration been a 'good' to this nation. I should think that is a qualified and complex question. For every Einstein there is a Lucky Luciano...
K. Shultz, you are correct, Reason writes a lot about culture. I apologize for being so imprecise. I should say that Reason and libertarians often assume that while culture is interesting it does not really matter, in the sense that what matters is that folks everywhere are rational bargainers. I guess they are so, but they are within strong cultural mindsets, and these cultural mindsets must be taken into account. I submit that 'American' culture and Hispanic culture simply do not coincide well (and this is not to be taken racist, one can trace it all the way back to Spain where the people are very white and their culture, in my opinion, is very crappy.)
SO arguments against immigration come down to two simple principles:
1. We think much immigration hurts us economically (low skill/education)
2. We don't like Hispanic culture and don't want to live in a Hispanicized nation. If we did we would move to Mexico.
It's that simple.

NML | April 15, 2006, 11:40am | #

"I remain unconvinced that illegal aliens, engines of economic vitality that they are, are much more of a burden to me as a tax payer than the average American. Really, when you steal my money to pay for--let's say--public schools, do you think I console myself with the idea that at least it goes to pay for American deadbeats?

What kind of marginal increase are we talking about here when we add in the illegal aliens anyway? Let's see we've got 11 million of 'em or so, and that's divided by--what?--300 million Americans? Assuming they use SSA and Medicare and public schools and all the rest of it at the same rate the average American does, they're not even a drop in the welfare bucket.

Comment by: Ken Shultz at April 15, 20"

The costs aren't divided up among 300 million americans-the costs fall more directly on the border states.
The costs of educating non-english students is also much higher than average costs of educating an english speaking student. Hospitals in some of the border states have closed their emergency rooms.

"So unless these mexicans are going back to Mexico to make all there purchases, aren' they paying as much local taxes as any other citizens?"
Illegals can't buy property so aren't paying property taxes,
Illegals aren't making much money and aren't coming close to paying for services. Money is going back to Mexico.

"Money sent back to Mexico from those working in the United States reached a record high last year, $20 billion, making remittances from migrants Mexico's second largest source of income, surpassed only by oil exports."
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14170542.htm

A lot of people arguing for open borders & welfare state-aren't people that live in border states. The problems are escalating and concentrated in certain areas of the US.

happyjuggler0 | April 15, 2006, 12:17pm | #

On the one hand you have people arguing that immigrants don't use welfare (broadly defined to mean all redistribution programs) at the same rate that people born in America. This is a plus for immigration.

On the other hand you have people saying that immigrants are a huge strain on the welfare system. A dramatic increase in this scenario will likely bankrupt the welfare state, thus killing the welfare state. This is also a plus for immigration since it would take the burden of government off of the rest of.

Once again, when economists are saying that on balance immigrants are a plus, small or otherwise, for the US, they are taking into account the use of government services. They alsoa re taking into account things like more entreprenuership. Lower wages for the immigrants means lower prices for everyone. It also means more investment capital is available for businesses to invest, thus more hiring.

Finally, stepping back from the point that it is good for us by a bit, it is a huge plus for the individual immigrants and the families they support, which would be enough of a reason to support it by itself.

P Brooks | April 15, 2006, 12:18pm | #

"Illegals can't buy property so aren't paying property taxes,"

Not so: If the "illegals" are renters rather than owners, it doesn't matter; property taxes are passed along, and included in the rent paid.

--------

"The costs of educating non-english students is also much higher than average costs of educating an english speaking student."

Why? Where does this come from? Please don't say "the NEA."

--------

Here's a fun thought experiment. Suppose the Governor of some American state, like Ohio, decided that it would be a good idea to regulate the flow of goods, services, and people into, out of, or across his State.

What if the State of Ohio set up customs and immigration controls at the state line? Began to impose tariffs on goods entering the state? Protect their wholesome Buckeye Corn from competition- keep that crappy Hoosier Corn off the market?

What if you had to have a VISA just to drive across Ohio on your way to Thanksgiving Dinner at Grandma's house?

Would the result be a net economic or social gain for Ohio? for the region? for the US as a whole?

Take your time, and explain your answers.

Realist | April 15, 2006, 12:58pm | #

The property tax argument is pretty disingenous. The density of these unskilled labor illegal alien rental properties is much higher. The properties are likely to have low assessments and taxes. It is not as if they are paying much for the public education.

Finally, no one should dismiss the enormous costs of legalizing all these illegals in terms of the Earned Income Tax Credit:

http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060412/OPINION/60411008/1049

Q: When we talk about social services and whether illegals pay more in taxes than they get in services, the number $10 billion a year is often used.

A: The $10 billion is what I estimated. They use $10 billion more in services at the federal level than they paid in taxes. ... The kicker for me is, if we legalize illegals and they began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same level of education, the cost would roughly triple. An unskilled illegal immigrant is costly but an unskilled legal immigrant is a fiscal disaster because, although presumably he is being paid on the books and he pays his taxes like he�s supposed to, he is now eligible for everything, or a lot of things, but he still doesn't make any money.

That�s the problem. The reason immigrants create a fiscal cost is not because they are illegal. They create a fiscal cost because they have very little education and people with very little education don�t pay much in taxes, because they don�t make very much. But they tend to use a lot in services. If we legalize them, it makes the problem much worse.

Think about this: every unskilled worker who�s paid on the books mostly gets our $32 billion Earned Income Tax Credit. That means that every unskilled worker comes with a bill. That�s one of the reasons the costs explode so much if you legalize illegal immigrants. Right now, I estimate that illegals are getting one-tenth of what they are entitled to but if they began to get the EIT fee like legal immigrants, with the same level of education, well, the costs would go up 10 fold. That�s a welfare program a lot of conservatives like, but it�s also one that�s very expensive.

P Brooks | April 15, 2006, 1:34pm | #

"The property tax argument is pretty disingenous. The density of these unskilled labor illegal alien rental properties is much higher. The properties are likely to have low assessments and taxes. It is not as if they are paying much for the public education."

I pay ever-increasing property taxes on my home, and I don't have children in the school system. Why don't I get a rebate?

The point is not, "Are the public schools financed in a fair or efficient manner?"

The point is, "I find this fabulously dopey assertion that 'illegal immigrants don't pay property tax due to the fact that they don't actually hold title on their place of residence' to be more irksome every time I hear it."

NML | April 15, 2006, 2:39pm | #

http://www.onenation.org/0105/052301a.htm

Talks about the additional costs of non-english speaking students. Please note that I don't believe all these programs are cost effective but none the less citizens are paying for them.

Carter | April 15, 2006, 2:41pm | #

Ken Shultz:

"Assuming they use SSA and Medicare and public schools and all the rest of it at the same rate the average American does"

Which would be a completely wrong assumption.

Mike P:

Ticky-tack? All the costs I noted were very real, Borjas himself notes "these calculations do not include the costs of other components of the welfare state, particularly health care".

The people you would allow in age. And with no border restrictions instead of young people sneaking in you would have old people arriving legally.

"Most of these illegals pay medicare taxes, yet they will never use medicare services."

In 2002 they used over $2.5 billion in medicaid.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/medicare.htm


"If you don't believe in the primacy of individual rights over state powers, I'm not going to convince you here. Suffice it to say that I believe that individuals have the right to do whatever they wish provided they do not infringe on the same right of others."

Since when do you and others who favor open borders don't compensate everyone else for the externalities imposed on the rest of us by illegals?

"violate the natural rights of migration and labor of people who happen to have had the misfortune of being born on the wrong side of a line on a man"

Immigration policy should be based on reality, not fantasy. But say your pathetic fantasy were made real. What is it you and your fellow libertarianoids would do, exactly, in the event hundreds of millions of these 'arbitrarily misfortunate' people excercised their 'right' to come here and once here decided they really didn't care about your rights or your property?

Tim Cavanaugh | April 15, 2006, 2:48pm | #

Open immigration means foreign workers will be working on the books and paying taxes. So to everybody who's calculating the costs of public schools, Medicare, Social Security, and all the other programs you seem to love, thank you for making my point for me.

Herrick and His Balls | April 15, 2006, 2:53pm | #

Right on Tim. It also means that if the governments of Mexico or other countries (I'd like to see the whole hemisphere in on this, and if you call right now, we should also throw in Oceania) want citizens to stay, they'll have to practice some good governance for once. The same competition arguments that apply to school choice also apply to governments, and if governments have to compete for tax paying citizens, they'll have to get better if they want them.

thoreau | April 15, 2006, 4:29pm | #

1) The argument isn't just that my illustrious ancestors were immigrants so all immigration must be OK. Rather, the argument is that my illustrious ancestors had a remarkable amount in common with today's Latino immigrants, including cultural, religious, and linguistic roots in the Mediterranean. If my immigrant ancestors didn't ruin this country, why do you think the Mexicans will?

2) The existence of publicly provided services can be used to argue against any number of liberal reforms. For instance, one could argue that as long as there is a public safety net drugs should remain illegal, since drug abusers can become reliant on handouts.

3) I agree that culture is important, as is economics. Reason has spent the past few years talking about what free minds can accomplish and contribute to culture, and the ways that cultural innovators can even thrive in spite of illiberal political climates. Ironically, this greater emphasis on culture ("free minds") at the expense of economics ("free markets") has led some people to complain that Reason is going to hell in a handbasket ever since Virginia Postrel left.

4) If you really believe that growing up in an illiberal environment makes a person a net liability to America, perhaps the Free State Project, once they've turned New Hampshire into Galt's Gulch, will want to limit migration from Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, etc. After all, those states tend to be net recipients of federal aid, they have a lot of religious fundamentalists, etc.

Of course, that would be absurd. Leaving aside the obvious legal problems with limiting inter-state movement of people, there's the fact that people are individuals, migrants might not be representative of the folks they grew up around, and a state's political elite (the ones who bring back all the pork and pass all the illiberal laws) might not be representative of the population at large. (Would anybody here want to be judged by the actions of George Bush, Ted Stevens, Robert Byrd, Tom DeLay, James Trafficant, etc.? I didn't think so. Then why judge your typical Latino based on the fact that the politicians of his home country are an illiberal bunch?)

Carter | April 15, 2006, 4:45pm | #

You should put the bong down Tim, and look at who actually pays taxes. Aren't there any economists at Reason anymore who can explain it to you?

dead_elvis | April 15, 2006, 4:47pm | #

Regarding the property tax debate, I think the idea that renters don't pay property taxes is a commonly held misconception. Of course taxes get figured into the rent, since it is a cost for the landlord. It gets mixed in with a lot of other factors that determine rents so it's not always evident, but it's in there.

I think it's a really good article. An important part of what made this country so successful was to attract from all over the world the people who's entrepeneurial spirit and creativity were either unappreciated or actively stifled. Immigration reform needs to acknowledge that, and work to be sure that that continues into the future.

Realist | April 15, 2006, 4:49pm | #

"Open immigration means foreign workers will be working on the books and paying taxes. So to everybody who's calculating the costs of public schools, Medicare, Social Security, and all the other programs you seem to love, thank you for making my point for me."

And it also means greater eligibility for all the government programs that poor Americans use. Legal immigrants use these programs in greater pecentages than native Americans because most are unskilled. The EITC alone would balloon enormously.

If you advocate an open labor system where Mexicans freely come from and return to Mexico as part of working in the USA than that is one thing. They would be ineligible for any US government assistance, education, etc. and tax remitances would be made to the Mexican government for payroll taxes, etc.

But to advocate unlimited unskilled labor immigration with citizenship in the presence of a welfare state makes no sense.

thoreau | April 15, 2006, 4:50pm | #

Somebody help me out here: Does Reason pay too much attention to economics, or not enough attention to economics?

Another thing that people can help me out with: If terrorists in Iraq kidnap a journalist, should this evil deed be widely reported to remind people why we fight, or should it receive minimal to no coverage to avoid giving the impression that things are going badly?

If the conservatarians can't get their stories straight, how are we wimpy libertarians supposed to figure out what party line to adhere to?

Carter | April 15, 2006, 4:56pm | #

I find it curious my most recent comment went through, when a lengthy, non-insulting response to a number of different comments. Are comments that include links to vdare prohibited?

Ken Shultz | April 15, 2006, 5:40pm | #

Florida spends about $155 million a year just on incarceration of illegals. How many cheap haircuts is that?

It looks like my comment in response to this got stuck in the filter, too many links I suspect... It was brilliant though.

...and it showed a couple of studies suggesting that the incarceration rate among immigrants is lower than that of native born Americans. In fact, both studies suggested that a major factor in dropping crime rates is immigration.

I'll split the links up in the hope that it gets through.

"With regard to the former, Butcher and Piehl (1998a), by using Census data on institutionalized individuals show that immigrant men, despite
their lower education levels, have lower institutionalization rates than native-born men. Butcher and Piehl also find that early immigrant cohorts are more likely to be institutionalized than recent immigrants, so although all immigrants assimilate to higher native crime rates over time, recent immigrants appear to do so more slowly."

----The Impact of Illegal Immigration and Enforcement on Border Crime Rates, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

Ken Shultz | April 15, 2006, 5:46pm | #

"Indeed, the first-generation immigrants (those born outside the United States) in our study were 45 percent less likely to commit violence than were third-generation Americans, adjusting for family and neighborhood background. Second-generation immigrants were 22 percent less likely to commit violence than the third generation. This "protective" pattern among immigrants holds true for non-Hispanic whites and blacks as well. Our study further showed that living in a neighborhood of concentrated immigration is directly associated with lower violence..."

The New York Times piece is in their archive now--you have to pay for it. ...but this link quotes the pertinent bits.

Ken Shultz | April 15, 2006, 5:56pm | #

Florida spends about $155 million a year just on incarceration of illegals. How many cheap haircuts is that?

Wow! A hundred and fifty-five million--that's a big number! ...it looks even bigger when you write it out too. I wish I had that much!

...but when you consider that the Florida budget calls for at least $5 billion--that's a "5" with nine zeros behind it!--it doesn't seem like a