Hey there! I was really hoping you, shabinka, or martian687 would take some time to help me out on this, I'm really glad you posted. I'm still pretty ignorant on this topic despite efforts to educate myself, which is part of why I'm asking for help figuring it out.
> You realize there is essentially NO way for an unskilled or > low skilled laborer to enter the country legally
Okay, I dispute this. First, some gigantic fraction (half?) of the 12 million illegal immigrants already here are illegal exactly because they did 'wait in line', got proper visas, but then decided to overstay them. Over a million people were naturalized as citizens last year, and Mexico was the #1 nation of origin for those people. Maybe those half-million-plus Mexican-American immigrants are all skilled, I guess, but I really doubt it. The U.S. offers naturalization to tens of (hundreds of?) thousands of low-skilled Mexican-American immigrants annually.
But second, while you're right that lack of an adequate guest worker program for low-skilled immigrants to come to this country in the quantity and seasonality that is economically desirable is a serious issue. There's nothing like a $20.00 avocado to get the legislature off their asses to pass another Bracero Program, but until they do, I can't see how deciding to use state resources to enforce state copies of existing federal laws is really that outrageous.
If you want more, legal immigration (and I do), or if you want a more flexible skills mix (and I do), let's call our Congresswoman and let's get on it. But I for one still will support enforcement and some documentation of who's who.
> Also, the law is predicated on a complete falsehood, namely > that illegal immigrants cause crime and steal jobs.
100% of illegal immigrants violate federal law, which, last I checked, is a crime. And, while they do on aggregate improve the economy, they also distort it by dragging the labor market underground and creating black markets, while depressing wages overall. Now, I'm completely anti-price-controls, so I think the economy benefits from people being willing to work for below minimum wage, but last I checked, you were equally vociferously opposed to that, too, because it's exploitative. The first step towards protecting ALL citizens is establishing just who exactly are the citizens, which I still feel like this law is trying to do in the face of much criticism.
Finally, Arizona, one of the seven states that take the brunt of the costs associated with supporting large numbers of illegal immigrants, does not enjoy the many benefits of immigration nearly as disproportionately.
> But the best argument against it is it essentially requires > everyone in Arizona to carry ID on them at all times lest the[y] > be unable to prove they are a citizen or legal resident and get
Immigrants have always been required by federal law to carry their proof of legal presence. This law merely adds "Arizona state crime" to the already-existing federal crime of not carrying documentation. "Internal passports for brown people" deliberately over-states (mis-states?) the motivations for this law (I hope).
> There is also the [] constitutional issue
Yeah, I agree, that issue is going to have to get figured out by the courts.
> In addition the law will likely make it significantly more > difficult for police to function in the immigrant community > since illegal immigrants will now understandably fear interacting > with the police more than they already do. Which is why most actual > law enforcement groups oppose laws like this.
This is the trade-off all states have to make. If your border state is having major problems attributed to illegal immigration, maybe net-net it is worth it to you to risk losing the cooperaton of legal immigrants in order to more strictly account for who's living in your state legally and who's not. Maybe the trade's not worth it in our state. But you're wrong that law enforcement groups uniformly oppose the law, many are actually in favor of it.
100% of illegal immigrants violate federal law, which, last I checked, is a crime. And, while they do on aggregate improve the economy, they also distort it by dragging the labor market underground and creating black markets, while depressing wages overall. Now, I'm completely anti-price-controls, so I think the economy benefits from people being willing to work for below minimum wage, but last I checked, you were equally vociferously opposed to that, too, because it's exploitative. The first step towards protecting ALL citizens is establishing just who exactly are the citizens, which I still feel like this law is trying to do in the face of much criticism.
Finally, Arizona, one of the seven states that take the brunt of the costs associated with supporting large numbers of illegal immigrants, does not enjoy the many benefits of immigration nearly as disproportionately.
Perhaps I should have specified crimes with an actual victim. But pick any particular genre of crime you wish(property theft, violent crime, etc..) and the story is the same. Except perhaps immigration crimes, that ones sort of tautological, and pretty uninteresting.
Also, economic studies have shown not just the US economy as a whole, but local economies are not hindered by illegal immigration. There is no evidence that illegal immigrants suppress wages or decrease employement for legal workers. To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of minimum wages. The tend to be bad for exactly the people they're supposed the help by making it more difficult for the young or unskilled to get jobs.
Also, you're statistics on immigration don't seem quite right. Here is what I found. It only goes up to 2004 but I'm guessing the trends still hold. Of the 500k naturalizations that occured in 2004, 40% were from Asia, and only 11%, or 63k where from Mexico. I would guess most of those from Mexico had relatives in the states that helped them get in. Without a high level of skill, relatives already here, or lots of cash reserves, it is extremely difficult to immigrate legally. Actually, the studies I have seen have indicated all the recent focus on border defense have increased the number of illegal immigrants in the country. Since crossing are more difficult, illegals who used to come for a couple years then go home are no staying longer.
This is the trade-off all states have to make. If your border state is having major problems attributed to illegal immigration, maybe net-net it is worth it to you to risk losing the cooperaton of legal immigrants in order to more strictly account for who's living in your state legally and who's not. Maybe the trade's not worth it in our state. But you're wrong that law enforcement groups uniformly oppose the law, many are actually in favor of it.
Again, the "problems" of illegal immigration, i.e. increased crime, higher unemployment, etc.. are largely imagined and racially motivated. Crime has not increased as a result of illegal immigration nor has unemployment. There are certainly logistical issues and it's certainly a problem to have so many people essentially living outside the law, but those are not the issues that motivate people to pass laws like this.
(some thoughts, since I've had some time to take this in)
The DHS says "In 2009, the total number of persons naturalizing was 743,715 (see Table 1 and Figure 1). The leading countries of birth of new citizens were Mexico (111,630), India (52,889), the Philippines (38,934), the People’s Republic of China (37,130), and Vietnam (31,168). The largest number of persons naturalizing lived in California (179,754), New York (88,733), and Florida (82,788)" and "The number of persons naturalizing in the United States declined to 743,715 in 2009 from 1,046,539 in 2008.", which is where I got my mistaken 1,000,000+ figure.
So, you're far closer to being right on that point than I was, so I'm sorry about that. Mexico was the leading nation of origin, though I was wildly off on the number of Mexicans being naturalized annually (though if you include Central and Latin American Hispaniola and Brazil, the number goes up to ~200k, and I doubt that they're immune to being discriminated against by virtue of simply not being Mexican, so it's still a big number).
I don't doubt when you say that those who are wealthy, skilled, or are related to American citizens by blood make up the bulk, though I will point out that a) 50K or so spots appear to be given out by random lottery every year, and b) we treat Mexican immigrants very similarly to (the same as?) every other nation of origin w/r/t naturalization, and we have good reasons for preferring skilled immigrants over the unskilled much like every other nation (try to emigrate to New Zealand, for example), and c) the solution to this process being too cumbersome is still not to just look the other way while the law is being flagrantly ignored, but rather to refine the law.
Next, it's wrong to claim that "There is no evidence that illegal immigrants suppress wages". Especially among groups that actually compete for the same jobs, there is ample evidence that illegal immigration suppresses wages and increases competition for jobs among those groups. But I'm certain that at least one credible study could be found claiming to look at the entire economy and finding wage suppression due to people living here illegally. I agree that the consensus opinion seems to be a slight net wage increase across the board, however, but I doubt the capacity for anybody to be able to accurately measure effects like these.
Finally, without knowing what motivated the people involved, I should mention that when I was talking about the costs and burdens of illegally-resident people, I meant more from a social services (fire, medical, schooling, police, welfare, second-hand effects like urban crowding, etc.), and a hidden-costs-of-living-outside-the-law standpoint, moreso than a "crime and unemployment" standpoint. But you make a compelling argument that illegal immigrants might well be zero-cost, or even negative-cost (net benefit), which re-frames my mental model quite a bit. So, thanks for that too.
A 2007 report by Gans, based on 2004 information, indicated that legal and illegal immigrants in Arizona contributed $2.36 billion in taxes, or $942 million more than the $1.41 billion in direct fiscal costs associated with them. "This claim that immigrants are somehow using services and not paying taxes is just not accurate," she said. "There's a lot of political hyperbole there."
But Gans' report was criticized as an incomplete look at costs, and in early 2008, a study by George Borjas, a Harvard labor economist, concluded Arizonans lost a minimum $1.4 billion in 2005 due to reduced wages related to illegal workers.
Gans agreed that immigrants do lower wages, at least for those low-skilled and less-educated workers who compete with them for jobs where speaking English is not necessary.)
> You realize there is essentially NO way for an unskilled or
> low skilled laborer to enter the country legally
Okay, I dispute this. First, some gigantic fraction (half?) of the 12 million illegal immigrants already here are illegal exactly because they did 'wait in line', got proper visas, but then decided to overstay them. Over a million people were naturalized as citizens last year, and Mexico was the #1 nation of origin for those people. Maybe those half-million-plus Mexican-American immigrants are all skilled, I guess, but I really doubt it. The U.S. offers naturalization to tens of (hundreds of?) thousands of low-skilled Mexican-American immigrants annually.
But second, while you're right that lack of an adequate guest worker program for low-skilled immigrants to come to this country in the quantity and seasonality that is economically desirable is a serious issue. There's nothing like a $20.00 avocado to get the legislature off their asses to pass another Bracero Program, but until they do, I can't see how deciding to use state resources to enforce state copies of existing federal laws is really that outrageous.
If you want more, legal immigration (and I do), or if you want a more flexible skills mix (and I do), let's call our Congresswoman and let's get on it. But I for one still will support enforcement and some documentation of who's who.
> Also, the law is predicated on a complete falsehood, namely
> that illegal immigrants cause crime and steal jobs.
100% of illegal immigrants violate federal law, which, last I checked, is a crime. And, while they do on aggregate improve the economy, they also distort it by dragging the labor market underground and creating black markets, while depressing wages overall. Now, I'm completely anti-price-controls, so I think the economy benefits from people being willing to work for below minimum wage, but last I checked, you were equally vociferously opposed to that, too, because it's exploitative. The first step towards protecting ALL citizens is establishing just who exactly are the citizens, which I still feel like this law is trying to do in the face of much criticism.
Finally, Arizona, one of the seven states that take the brunt of the costs associated with supporting large numbers of illegal immigrants, does not enjoy the many benefits of immigration nearly as disproportionately.
> But the best argument against it is it essentially requires
> everyone in Arizona to carry ID on them at all times lest the[y]
> be unable to prove they are a citizen or legal resident and get
Immigrants have always been required by federal law to carry their proof of legal presence. This law merely adds "Arizona state crime" to the already-existing federal crime of not carrying documentation. "Internal passports for brown people" deliberately over-states (mis-states?) the motivations for this law (I hope).
> There is also the [] constitutional issue
Yeah, I agree, that issue is going to have to get figured out by the courts.
> In addition the law will likely make it significantly more
> difficult for police to function in the immigrant community
> since illegal immigrants will now understandably fear interacting
> with the police more than they already do. Which is why most actual
> law enforcement groups oppose laws like this.
This is the trade-off all states have to make. If your border state is having major problems attributed to illegal immigration, maybe net-net it is worth it to you to risk losing the cooperaton of legal immigrants in order to more strictly account for who's living in your state legally and who's not. Maybe the trade's not worth it in our state. But you're wrong that law enforcement groups uniformly oppose the law, many are actually in favor of it.
Reply
Finally, Arizona, one of the seven states that take the brunt of the costs associated with supporting large numbers of illegal immigrants, does not enjoy the many benefits of immigration nearly as disproportionately.
Perhaps I should have specified crimes with an actual victim. But pick any particular genre of crime you wish(property theft, violent crime, etc..) and the story is the same. Except perhaps immigration crimes, that ones sort of tautological, and pretty uninteresting.
Also, economic studies have shown not just the US economy as a whole, but local economies are not hindered by illegal immigration. There is no evidence that illegal immigrants suppress wages or decrease employement for legal workers. To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of minimum wages. The tend to be bad for exactly the people they're supposed the help by making it more difficult for the young or unskilled to get jobs.
Also, you're statistics on immigration don't seem quite right. Here is what I found. It only goes up to 2004 but I'm guessing the trends still hold. Of the 500k naturalizations that occured in 2004, 40% were from Asia, and only 11%, or 63k where from Mexico. I would guess most of those from Mexico had relatives in the states that helped them get in. Without a high level of skill, relatives already here, or lots of cash reserves, it is extremely difficult to immigrate legally. Actually, the studies I have seen have indicated all the recent focus on border defense have increased the number of illegal immigrants in the country. Since crossing are more difficult, illegals who used to come for a couple years then go home are no staying longer.
This is the trade-off all states have to make. If your border state is having major problems attributed to illegal immigration, maybe net-net it is worth it to you to risk losing the cooperaton of legal immigrants in order to more strictly account for who's living in your state legally and who's not. Maybe the trade's not worth it in our state. But you're wrong that law enforcement groups uniformly oppose the law, many are actually in favor of it.
Again, the "problems" of illegal immigration, i.e. increased crime, higher unemployment, etc.. are largely imagined and racially motivated. Crime has not increased as a result of illegal immigration nor has unemployment. There are certainly logistical issues and it's certainly a problem to have so many people essentially living outside the law, but those are not the issues that motivate people to pass laws like this.
Reply
The DHS says "In 2009, the total number of persons naturalizing was 743,715 (see Table 1 and Figure 1). The leading countries of birth of new citizens were Mexico (111,630), India (52,889), the Philippines (38,934), the People’s Republic of China (37,130), and Vietnam (31,168). The largest number of persons naturalizing lived in California (179,754), New York (88,733), and Florida (82,788)" and "The number of persons naturalizing in the United States declined to 743,715 in 2009 from 1,046,539 in 2008.", which is where I got my mistaken 1,000,000+ figure.
So, you're far closer to being right on that point than I was, so I'm sorry about that. Mexico was the leading nation of origin, though I was wildly off on the number of Mexicans being naturalized annually (though if you include Central and Latin American Hispaniola and Brazil, the number goes up to ~200k, and I doubt that they're immune to being discriminated against by virtue of simply not being Mexican, so it's still a big number).
I don't doubt when you say that those who are wealthy, skilled, or are related to American citizens by blood make up the bulk, though I will point out that a) 50K or so spots appear to be given out by random lottery every year, and b) we treat Mexican immigrants very similarly to (the same as?) every other nation of origin w/r/t naturalization, and we have good reasons for preferring skilled immigrants over the unskilled much like every other nation (try to emigrate to New Zealand, for example), and c) the solution to this process being too cumbersome is still not to just look the other way while the law is being flagrantly ignored, but rather to refine the law.
Next, it's wrong to claim that "There is no evidence that illegal immigrants suppress wages". Especially among groups that actually compete for the same jobs, there is ample evidence that illegal immigration suppresses wages and increases competition for jobs among those groups. But I'm certain that at least one credible study could be found claiming to look at the entire economy and finding wage suppression due to people living here illegally. I agree that the consensus opinion seems to be a slight net wage increase across the board, however, but I doubt the capacity for anybody to be able to accurately measure effects like these.
Finally, without knowing what motivated the people involved, I should mention that when I was talking about the costs and burdens of illegally-resident people, I meant more from a social services (fire, medical, schooling, police, welfare, second-hand effects like urban crowding, etc.), and a hidden-costs-of-living-outside-the-law standpoint, moreso than a "crime and unemployment" standpoint. But you make a compelling argument that illegal immigrants might well be zero-cost, or even negative-cost (net benefit), which re-frames my mental model quite a bit. So, thanks for that too.
Reply
A 2007 report by Gans, based on 2004 information, indicated that legal and illegal immigrants in Arizona contributed $2.36 billion in taxes, or $942 million more than the $1.41 billion in direct fiscal costs associated with them. "This claim that immigrants are somehow using services and not paying taxes is just not accurate," she said. "There's a lot of political hyperbole there."
But Gans' report was criticized as an incomplete look at costs, and in early 2008, a study by George Borjas, a Harvard labor economist, concluded Arizonans lost a minimum $1.4 billion in 2005 due to reduced wages related to illegal workers.
Gans agreed that immigrants do lower wages, at least for those low-skilled and less-educated workers who compete with them for jobs where speaking English is not necessary.)
Reply
Leave a comment