Handling illegal immigration

[Synobun]

Makes no sense at all. If you're alone in America, with a family in who-knows-where, then all you need to pay in "American value" is a small apartment that you can sleep in and food for yourself while all of the rest is paid where your money has higher relative value.

Except the people best positioned to "take your job" aren't in an income bracket where this is feasible, and those welcomed on specialty visas have their work conditions closely inspected so as to combat undercutting.

Someone working minimum wage, or just above it, isn't going to have much to send back home even with the strong dollar. Someone working a specialized job wouldn't need to send anything back home, and if they did, it would be useless to worry about anyways because their income is already taxed by the IRS.

 

[innonimatu]

If borders were open, the situation would be basically identical to what it is now, except that the West wouldn't be callously allowing immigrants to die while reaching it, or creating legal classes of "undocumented immigrants" who can be abused and exploited at will because they have no legal protections.

This is plainly untrue. "The west" is paying other countries to put up barriers to immigration, in addition to those it erects both in its borders and within (such as the relative lack of legal protection). The numbers would be much different in the absence of such barriers.

Open borders is a beautiful idea that my humanist heart wants to be true some day, along with the world state. But if the borders would suddenly be open to everyone, wouldn't that create a huge housing shortage in the West, essentially propping up the propertied classes through rent seeking behaviour, while driving wages down for the lower and middle classes and putting stress on the welfare system?

I have observed such consequences already, and suspect that immigrants get the blame. But to be honest present housing shortages owe more to central bank policies and wealth inequality than to pressure from new population. Much housing stock remains empty and prices are kept high due to "investment" by funds.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I would have open borders.

I might keep some basic health screenings for highly contagious diseases, as well as background checks to screen out those fleeing justice and those who are known to be violent criminals or terrorists. The level of evidence needed to keep someone out would be pretty much the same as that for arresting a citizen though. I would not want to infringe upon anyone's natural right to freedom of movement without good reason to believe they posed a significant risk to the lives of others.

I might allow for deportation/exile as a punishment for some crimes, but that would apply to citizens as well as newcomers.

I would not require any sort of passport, visas, or work permits. I would not place any numerical limits on how many of what sort of people could come from where.

I would eliminate natural born citizenship. No one should have to be a citizen in order to live and work here in peace, but those seeking duties and privileges like voting or jury service should have to sign a contract after passing the same tests to ensure they are granting informed consent. Being born here or being related to others who are citizens should never be a relevant factor in determining citizenship. No one should ever be given any special legal privileges based on happenstance of birth.


In an ideal world I would use land value taxes and Pigouvian pollution fees to fund a Residents' Dividend that would be available to immigrants too, but until our neighbors adopt a similar policy it would be more prudent to keep it a Citizens' Dividend. I might allow non-citizen residents to take out special loans in an equivalent amount, which would be forgiven if and when they become citizens. This would mostly be for the purpose of funding the level of education required in order to pass the citizenship tests, and might only be granted to those who can show they are seeking such an education.

 

[uppi]

If borders were open, the situation would be basically identical to what it is now, except that the West wouldn't be callously allowing immigrants to die while reaching it, or creating legal classes of "undocumented immigrants" who can be abused and exploited at will because they have no legal protections.

The abuse exploitation issue could be easily solved by severely punishing that while offering legal protections to those reporting their occurrence. If there was a severe punishment for people employing people without a work permit as well as citizenship for those who were employed, very few people would dare to employ undocumented immigrants below minimum wage.

Not that there are many people who really want to solve that issue, of course.

 

[innonimatu]

In an ideal world people would be free to stay where they were, where they would probably rather stay if they could...

If most migration is undertaken under economic hardship, why should I buy into the idea (promoted out by magazines such as The Economist linked to here already) that the best solution is to open all borders? As if that were the fix for economic hardship, instead of a method to provide cheap labor in some places where "the market" allegedly calls for it? The ability to abuse immigrants is a feature of this "open borders solution", it seems to me.

Would not the best solution be to change the economic structure of the world in order to allow better living standards to people where they are? To cease brutally exploiting populations around world to increase the fortunes of a handful of people?

 

[Ryika]

Except the people best positioned to "take your job" aren't in an income bracket where this is feasible, and those welcomed on specialty visas have their work conditions closely inspected so as to combat undercutting.

Someone working minimum wage, or just above it, isn't going to have much to send back home even with the strong dollar. Someone working a specialized job wouldn't need to send anything back home, and if they did, it would be useless to worry about anyways because their income is already taxed by the IRS.

Except that people do exactly that.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexico-remittances-billions-central-bank

Not that I think it's a particularly big issue in the USA currently, at least not the big issue that some people make it out to be, but it is a "competitive advantage" that immigrants - or maybe, "foreign workers" - have over people who have a family that must survive in the USA.

 

[Synobun]

What is that link supposed to prove? Are illegal immigrants and low-income immigrants doing this?

 

[NovaKart]

Probably. If there are 12 people living to a house eating rice and beans and working 80 hours a week and their families are back at home it cuts down on expenses and they could save.

 

[Synobun]

Probably. If there are 12 people living to a house eating rice and beans and working 80 hours a week and their families are back at home it cuts down on expenses and they could save.

Oh cool. So that's a threat to the average American how?

 

[Lexicus]

Oh cool. So that's a threat to the average American how?

It's not. I mean, look at the scenario that they're talking about here: Mohamed the engineer decides to work, what, third-world wages and it's driving down native-born American engineers' wages?
That's just nonsense. Where I grew up, New Jersey, there are lots of immigrant-heavy fields like pharmaceuticals that require lots of education. Those people aren't getting paid third-world wages because they're sending remittances home to mom and dad.

Undocumented immigrants drive wages down, no question, but the right is dead-set against any solution to that "problem" that involves recognizing the basic human rights of undocumented people, referring to it derisively as "amnesty".

 

[Ryika]

Oh cool. So that's a threat to the average American how?

It isn't, but that's because the amount of people who are doing this is not that significant compared to the overall population.

Remember that my original post was made as a response to a post that, ironically of course, stated that if people out-compete you that's a "you-problem", not a societal problem. My point was to show that it is not a "you-problem", simply because these people have an advantage over you that allows them to out-compete you. Being an immigrant who wants to live in the country and found a family there, and being an immigrant who lives in the country to send money to his family that lives elsewhere, are two very different things economically.

 

[Archbob]

You could just tax the crap out of remittences as well, that would be a strong deterrent.

 

[JollyRoger]

Moderator Action: <snip> inapropriate post deleted, user warned. -ori
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Azem.Ocram]

Remittances are fueling Africa's industrialization/economic development even though in some of the success stories combined remittances+foreign aid are less than before. It pretty much proves that foreign aid doesn't help much, if at all and that freedom of movement plus untaxed remittances (taxing them would be like taxing twice) are the most powerful way to improve the least developed nations.

 

[Archbob]

But how does it help America, that's the question.

 

[NovaKart]

Oh cool. So that's a threat to the average American how?

You were suggesting illegal immigrants working low wage jobs were not making enough to send to their families, right? Or are we talking about theoretical illegal immigrant engineers ?

 

[Azem.Ocram]

But how does it help America, that's the question.

Immigrants work in the USA. They bolster the economy where they work. They send remittances to their family, bolstering the economy of destination (their origin) and decreasing demand for Foreign Aid from the USA. It's a win-win situation for everyone! Both parties benefit economically, and the benefit to the foreign nation might be equal to the decrease in expenditures the USA spends to send them Foreign Aid.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The problem cannot be solved until you know what you are trying to achieve.

There are lots of options:

• No immigration
• Some immigration
• Needed skills only immigration
• Agriculture worker immigration
• Immigration by quota
• Open borders
• Green Cards only
• Work Permits only
• Citizenship path
• Deportation for existing illegals
• Amnesty for current Illegals
• Prosecute employers
• Ignore employers hiring illegals
• Benefits for illegals
• No benefits for illegals
• Some benefits for illegals

Until you know what success looks like, you cannot actually make a coherent plan.

 

[Archbob]

Immigrants work in the USA. They bolster the economy where they work. They send remittances to their family, bolstering the economy of destination (their origin) and decreasing demand for Foreign Aid from the USA. It's a win-win situation for everyone! Both parties benefit economically, and the benefit to the foreign nation might be equal to the decrease in expenditures the USA spends to send them Foreign Aid.

That's an overly simplistic view of things and not how it actually works. We don't increase our foreign aid just because we decrease the number of immigrants we allow. Just because foreign nations ask for aid doesn't mean we always give it to them. Them sending remittances generally just takes money out of the USA.

 

[luiz]

There's a lot of hypocrisy surrounding the subject, as the OP correctly stated. The vast majority of the population in any country does not want mass immigration. Be this country Switzerland or Bhutan or South Africa. As long as we are somewhat democratic, we have to respect this clear will of the majority. Their will is to restrict immigration not because they are meanies and racists and such, but because mass immigration does undeniably have large effects over society, it changes society, and most people don't like those changes. It also usually places an unequal burden on the rich and the poor: while the rich get cheap maids and cooks and construction workers, the poor get competition and a downward pressure on their salaries and social benefits. Those hundreds of thousands of people that Italy rescued from the sea in the last years alone are not "Mohamed the brain surgeon". They are "Mohamed the waiter from Algiers" or "Mamadou from Mali who can't read". Italy has double digits unemployment and does not need, want or would benefit from them.

People are dying to cross the sea to get to Europe because they know they have a very high chance of staying. Europe does not deport anyone (unlike the US). The vast majority of those who take a dangerous raft in Libya are not only rescued but eventually allowed to stay forever in Europe. So they will keep coming. To change this, you need to change the incentives. Deport quickly everyone who does not have a valid asylum claim (so something like 95% of migrants). They are rational people, if 95% are being sent back they will stop risking their lives, because it would be for nothing.

As for human rights: being able to emigrate is a human right, being able to immigrate to your country of choice isn't. No society is forced to take on you.