Handling illegal immigration

[NovaKart]

I actually don't see why US and Canada can't have open borders. US-Mexico, that would never work right now but US/Canada I think would be fine. Its not like there a giant hoard of Canadian refugees wanting to come to the US and demographically, Canada may be more white than the USA, so the trumpists shoudn't have much to complain about.

I think the borders are sort of open to citizens in that a visa is not required but I don’t think citizens of either country can automatically work or stay indefinitely in the other country. Not sure how that works really.

 

[luiz]

Immigrants are essentially always a net gain to the economy.

Not true at all. Maybe in the US with its almost complete lack of a welfare system. In Europe they can be a gigantic drag to the economy.

 

[Akka]

Marrying a Trump seems the best path to immigration - we get immigrants willing to do a job that most Americans do not want to do

Okay, that one really made me laugh.

 

[Perfection]

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".

Actually, wage suppression by foreign-born engineers is a thing and is why Google et al want more H1- B visas despite not actually needing them.

I think overall that the goal of 'open borders' is just a distraction that liberals should set aside for the moment. This should in no way be construed as support of anti-immigration policies broadly or as support of anything Trump does specifically. I just feel that the goal of open borders is not something that is widely supported and is a concept that deserves a lot of scrutiny over undesired, unforeseen affects. It should not be used as a blanket rallying cry from the left - particularly when it is used as a bludgeon by the right to suppress any pro-immigration movement.

Basically, it's something that deserves study and shouldn't be advocated as a panacea until that time. Until then, I don't think the left should push for this because it will only generate a huge backlash from the voting public.

I kind of assume I'm about to be called a racist now...

So here are a few thoughts I have on the matter, I have not done that in depth research on the topic, so I might be totally off base but these are what I think are probably true:

1. I am not just competing against electrical engineers in America. I am competing against all electrical engineers. I currently work for a Fortune 500 and right now my workload is pretty heavy, so instead of getting an additional task assigned to me they had a quite talented guy in Pune, India take it up instead.
2. Colocating Engineers increases their value. San Jose is filled with engineers, is that driving down wages? No, they make more money there then pretty much anywhere else. Engineers are very good at making work for other engineers and the more engineers you stick in an area the more productive they are. Minneapolis is a pretty good city for engineering, and as such there are more trade shows and professional organizations available. I have managed to earn a decent living hopping company to comapny doing R&D projects for them, I could not do that if I was in less tech-savvy city. As such, I have learned a whole lot more than engineers with similar years of experience which makes me more valuable.
3. That's not to say I think there's nothing to wage-supression. But I think it's generally more mixed then people think. In my view, firmware engineers coming over to America might compete against other firmware engineers but they drive up demand for my electrical skills so I end up making good on that transaction. I generally think that software engineers probably do worst because of this (because they're in the shortest supply), but I still think that immigration driven tech sector vibrancy probably helps them more in the long run.

Overall, what I really worry about is whether or not in 20 years America will be the tech powerhouse it is now or will it be an isolated backwater. I particularly worry that authoritarian regimes like China will invest sufficiently in science that they become the leaders. I'd like America to win, India winning would be okay whatever but screw Xi Jinping. The only way I can see America still on top is if only if we can continue to attract the best and brightest throughout the world.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Not true at all. Maybe in the US with its almost complete lack of a welfare system. In Europe they can be a gigantic drag to the economy.

I dont see the reasons for that. Given the same welfare rules are applied to everyone, immigrants will have to work the same as any native to have acces to unemployment and such. On the other hand, the Lion's share in welfare systems are old age pensions, and immigrants are young people.

 

[luiz]

I dont see the reasons for that. Given the same welfare rules are applied to everyone, immigrants will have to work the same as any native to have acces to unemployment and such. On the other hand, the Lion's share in welfare systems are old age pensions, and immigrants are young people.

Depends on the country. In France you don't have to ever have worked to receive very generous family allocations, housing allocations, free Healthcare and all sorts of other benefits. You don't even need to be legally here to receive a host of very expensive benefits. Unemployment insurance is but a very tiny part of the French social system.

When unemployment is rampant among some immigrant communities (over 30% among men, and that's just counting those that actually look for work!), and in those same communities virtually no women works and they have very large families, they pose a tremendous cost to the social system. This simply does not happen in the US, because the state will not pick up their tab.

Which is why, I insist, not all immigrants are equal. Some immigrants are quite positive in Europe too, no doubt. Others aren't. Maybe in the US they are almost universally positive, but that's obviously not the case in Europe, at least for the most generous welfare countries.

 

[EgonSpengler]

"A country without borders isn't a country." - Jeff Sessions, U.S. Attorney General, 26 June 2018

No [duh], Sherlock. Remind me again, what does 2+2 equal? See, these coneheads don't even want to have a reasonable conversation about immigration. I was smarter than this when I was 9. This is 2nd-grade 'social studies' crap.

---

Anyway... yeah, comparing Europe and the United States isn't quite "apples to oranges", but maybe they're two different kinds of apples. According to a quick Google search...

Area of the EU: ~4.5m sq km
Area of the US: ~9.8m sq km

Population of the EU: ~510 million
Population of the US: ~325 million

GDP of the EU: $17 trillion USD in 2017
GDP of the US: $19 trillion USD in 2017

And of course the EU isn't a nation. When making comparisons between Europe and the US, I think it's more accurate in a lot of ways to think of both of them as unions rather than as nations, and in that sense, the United States has a 200-year head-start on Europe.

 

[Akka]

And of course the EU isn't a nation. When making comparisons between Europe and the US, I think it's more accurate in a lot of ways to think of both of them as unions rather than as nations, and in that sense, the United States has a 200-year head-start on Europe.

If we forget that Europe had a 1800 years head-start on the USA, and as such it changes quite a bit of things about the perception of the "nation" and "culture" concepts, sure.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Another way to contrast Europe and the US is in the ethnic diversity of its cities. It's hard to measure precisely, every website seems to show a different list, but London, Paris, Amsterdam and Brussels are always way up there in terms of the variety of recent immigrant populations, measured by things like country of origin and spoken language. Among US cities, I think only Los Angeles and New York can compete on a global list. (The BBC rates Toronto as the most "cosmopolitan" city in the world, in a combination of spoken languages, percentage of foreign-born residents, and the number of different countries those residents are from.)

If we forget that Europe had a 1800 years head-start on the USA, and as such it changes quite a bit of things about the perception of the "nation" and "culture" concepts, sure.

Right, if you don't want to think of the US and Europe as unions, but rather as nations and cultures, the comparison gets a lot fuzzier and more difficult. There are Europeans who strenuously resist the notion of being in a union, to a degree that no one in the US does. For all of our (Americans') frustration with each other, imagine if Massachusetts and Louisiana were like Germany and Greece and Illinois had just voted to secede.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, here's one example that just came up today: President Trump was explicit about his travel ban being a "Muslim ban." He wasn't even trying to obfuscate. Also, the distinction between illegal and legal immigration is a little bit of a misdirect, because we decide who's legal and who isn't, and why. Trump, for one (and, by extension, everyone who supports his policy position on this issue), is saying that we need to redefine who's legal and who isn't, and he's specified Muslims and people from "[stuff]hole countries" as people who should be deemed illegal, and people from Norway as who should be legal.

Yes but as far as I'm aware, the current laws aren't "Norway good, brown people bad". The current laws are what's relevant, not what you fear they might become based on scaremongering news stories.

Also, even if immigration laws in a particular country are unfair and unjust, then that's something for the citizens of that nation to vote against, protest, etc. It doesn't mean citizens of other nations can just waltz over the borders.

 

[warpus]

so...there you go native americans

I mean, it's not like the native americans had one big country here before Europeans arrived. Or any country really

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I suppose it depends on the company. I have heard what you're talking about, but google engineers already make tons of money. My company and the companies I know around here pay exactly the same whether you are an h1b or not, it's just all based on experience and job title. We frankly don't get anyone local to apply cus there aren't many computer engineers in our area.

Yes it depends on the company and good for yours for paying the prevailing wage to immigrants. This is not the case universally and H1B's are used heavily by companies in areas that already have lots of engineers precisely because they can pay the immigrants a lot less.

There is often talk of a 'worker shortage' but I find that's basically a lie. Yes, some areas might have a lack of skilled workers but overall the biggest issue is that companies want to continue driving down wages as they have done for 3 decades. Offering rock-bottom pay and advertising job openings with stupidly unrealistic qualifications (entry-level that requires 5 years of experience is a common trope) is how they play this game. They offer crap pay and demand unrealistic qualifications so that no one will apply or those that do apply can be plausibly rejected. Then they immediately claim they need H1B visas to bring in workers to fill these 'gaps'.

The Trump organization is notorious for this and they are only looking (generally) for unskilled laborers to staff their hotels and play this game to bring in immigrants to work for less than they would pay citizens.

Corporations have manipulated the hell out of our immigration policies to their own benefit. Just because you personally aren't seeing the negative effects at your office doesn't mean it isn't happening. And it may very well be happening at your place of business, it's just invisible. How do you really tell if the prevailing wages state- or nation-wide have been driven down by visa abuse by large corporations?

It's also notable that many of the Trump voting states, which are presumably the ones most caught up in anti-migrant sentiment, have quite low numbers of foreigners.

This speaks to a common theme I ran into as a young adult. Growing up in North Carolina, there was racism for sure. But overall it's wasn't virulent, in-your-face, kick black people out of stores racism. People had to learn to get along together because there were obviously a lot of black people in NC. Then I moved to the rural Midwest (Southern Illinois and Missouri) and holy crap was the racism out of control. The racists were out and proud and vocally enforcing the racial hierarchy. There were hardly any black people in these areas. It's almost like living in a diverse area actually made people temper their worst instincts or something. The least diverse areas of the country tend to be the worst off when it comes to racism in my experience.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I mean, it's not like the native americans had one big country here before Europeans arrived. Or any country really

The Haudenosaunee confederacy had a sophisticated representative government centuries before the advent of the English parliament. Arguably better example of a modern state than what the Europeans had when North American colonization began.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Yes but as far as I'm aware, the current laws aren't "Norway good, brown people bad". The current laws are what's relevant, not what you fear they might become based on scaremongering news stories.

Yeah, there's a question, philosophical I guess, about whether to take into account things that are said or written by the parties involved, but outside the actual law/ruling/document under debate. I'm pretty angry with the US Supreme Court right now for its inconsistency on that issue in recent rulings: In the Colorado cake shop case a couple of weeks ago, the ruling took into account something the lower court judge had said outside the actual ruling, that the Court felt demonstrated a bias against people of faith (personally, I didn't think the comment did indicate any bias, but whatevs). Then, yesterday, the Court decided that Trump's unambiguous statements about a "Muslim ban" were not to be considered in ruling on the actual law. So it's clear that the Court extends its gaze beyond the specific ruling/law when Christian values are on the docket, but when it comes to Muslims they suddenly decide to narrow their scope. Two caveats, which I haven't resolved yet: I haven't read the decisions myself, only about them, and the majority opinion on the Colorado cake shop case didn't actually rule on the merits of the plaintiff's case, per se, but merely scolded the lower court on technical grounds (Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion that did come down firmly on the baker's side, I think on freedom of speech grounds rather than freedom of religion).

Anyway, I do kind of think that if someone can make a reasonable argument, their unreasonable motives or opinions shouldn't be held against them. For example, religious dogma isn't supposed to be used in writing or enforcing laws, but if a person of faith can make a good, secular argument in support of something they believe in, I think we have to listen to it. So opposition to same-sex marriage in the legal or public policy spheres cannot be "because the Bible says 'Adam and Eve', not 'Adam and Steve'"; a person opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds is obliged - again, in law and public policy - to find a reason that doesn't rest on their religion. They tried, for example, to show that same-sex couples aren't capable of raising healthy children. The claim was poop, of course, but it wasn't a religious argument, and in the end, there was no sensible argument against same-sex marriage opponents could make.

I'm not firm on that, though. I think racism, religious intolerance, homophobia and xenophobia are not values I want this country to represent or even tolerate, and laws exist to define and defend a nation's or people's values. If our laws are being used by racists and religious zealots to promote their values, I think our laws need to be amended accordingly... where possible. It's frequently tricky, but not because "everybody's entitled to their opinion" (again, in law and public policy - privately, sure, whatever blows your skirt up). The reason National Socialist Party of America v Skokie, IL is a tricky First Amendment case isn't because Nazis have a valid philosophical or political position that they should be allowed to voice in the public square, it's because laws have to apply to everybody (Rawls' "veil of ignorance"), and when we deny one group we have to consider future denials of other groups. If we say Nazis can't march peacefully, don't we also have to allow a municipality to prevent Black Lives Matter or a gay pride parade? If we can figure out how prevent to Nazis from marching, and also prevent a town from blocking a Black Lives Matter rally, I say let's do it. A burning cross and a rainbow flag are not the same thing.

Also, even if immigration laws in a particular country are unfair and unjust, then that's something for the citizens of that nation to vote against, protest, etc. It doesn't mean citizens of other nations can just waltz over the borders.

True, although the scope of the problem is deliberately overstated by the people trying to stoke fear and promote ignorance. I don't have a lot of patience with that, I admit.

 

[warpus]

The Haudenosaunee confederacy had a sophisticated representative government centuries before the advent of the English parliament. Arguably better example of a modern state than what the Europeans had when North American colonization began.

There was also the Iroquois confederacy, which is frequently cited in this context.

However, it's not like any Europeans were actually immigrating and joining these societies. That's where the comparison breaks down.

 

[Akka]

Yes it depends on the company and good for yours for paying the prevailing wage to immigrants. This is not the case universally and H1B's are used heavily by companies in areas that already have lots of engineers precisely because they can pay the immigrants a lot less.

There is often talk of a 'worker shortage' but I find that's basically a lie. Yes, some areas might have a lack of skilled workers but overall the biggest issue is that companies want to continue driving down wages as they have done for 3 decades. Offering rock-bottom pay and advertising job openings with stupidly unrealistic qualifications (entry-level that requires 5 years of experience is a common trope) is how they play this game. They offer crap pay and demand unrealistic qualifications so that no one will apply or those that do apply can be plausibly rejected. Then they immediately claim they need H1B visas to bring in workers to fill these 'gaps'.

Yep, sounds more like what I've lived through during my work life.

For software engineering, we have in France the added fun of having a lot of SSII (basically, companies lending developpers to others companies). It works by having a regular company which needs some software job to be done. So it informs the SSII it has worked with ("we need two guys to do this") and suddenly you see fifteen SSII offering two jobs. Obviously, only one of them get the contract.
Result ? 15 x 2 = 30 offers published. 1 x 2 offers filled. 28 supposed offers unfilled. Conclusion : "we lack people". Reality : there was only 2 actual jobs to begin with.

So we have high unemployment in the domain, and at the same time SSII whine about how they "can't find people to fill position", which allows the software domain to be kept into what is called "en tension", and as such allows to import cheaper labor from foreign countries.
Another fun fact : software engineers are among the worst paid of all engineers. A lot of them leave for the US, in which they can be paid between two to three times more.

One thing that is certain : the entire corporate world is very much for abolishing borders. Should be a hint.

 

[civvver]

Because Earth population is too small ?
We can't run on an infinite growth model forever. At some time we'll need to deal with shrinking population. Better start early.

Also, you're going to have a tough sell about "we need more worker" when going outside the USA, with Europe n°1 problem being unemployment.
"let's import a ton of people ready to work slave wage when we already have whole generations unable to find work" isn't going to flew very well in these parts.

Why do they need to work slave wages? I'm not saying we import so much labor that things get imbalanced. It's a numbers game. But isn't replacement level offspring like 2.1 kids per couple? We're getting close to that. These immigrants will also buy more stuff which in turn creates more jobs which creates competition for labor which raises wages. It's kind of a chicken and the egg problem but consumer demand creates jobs, not supply side economics.

 

[Akka]

Why do they need to work slave wages? I'm not saying we import so much labor that things get imbalanced.

When you got around 10 % unemployment, you don't need to import a lot for things to become unbalanced. And they'll accept much lower wages because they don't have a choice, obviously.

It's a numbers game. But isn't replacement level offspring like 2.1 kids per couple? We're getting close to that. These immigrants will also buy more stuff which in turn creates more jobs which creates competition for labor which raises wages. It's kind of a chicken and the egg problem but consumer demand creates jobs, not supply side economics.

It only creates jobs if they're buying things made locally, and it only is an improvement if it creates more jobs (if you have 10000 more people, and they buy enough stuff to give to 5000 guys, you're still adding 5000 unemployed people to the tally).

I'm pretty wary of the studies about "immigration increases wealth". Because :
First, they tend to simply ignore the secondary effects of immigration, only focusing on pure economics (while said secondary effects, which are about social cohesion, culture shocks, identity politics, reduced solidarity, strain on social services and so on, are the ones which affect people much more than GNP increase).
Second, because "wealth created" doesn't mean jack if it's just rushing to the top. I certainly can easily imagine that paying people less allows for producing more, but if the difference just goes into the shareholder pockets, it's just a net drain, or a wash, for the actual vast majority of people (I'd like to see the Gini index of all these successful societies which got tons of migrants).
And third, because they tend to just focus on the USA, and as much as our resident young college students tend to forget it, the USA aren't the world, and their geographical position means that most of the immigrants not coming from Mexico are obviously wealthy and educated. Also, the USA is very much a "communities-based" society, which is just not the model I want for my country.

 

[civvver]

Unemployment in the US is under 4%.

The EU shouldn't be importing tons of labor. I am talking about the US.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Not true at all. Maybe in the US with its almost complete lack of a welfare system. In Europe they can be a gigantic drag to the economy.

Mostly because of harsh protectionist measures which prevent immigrants from working and thus force them to either turn to crime or government handouts.