Let's Talk Immigration

[Bootstoots]

The economy may rely on immigrants to do the "dirty work" but does it rely on illegal immigrants to do the dirty work?

Immigration policy in the United States and much of Europe has made legally immigrating to those countries difficult for poor people to afford. If our policy was that everyone could immigrate and work provided they pass a background check and fill out some paperwork for a visa, then immigrating illegally would be hard to justify - it would likely mean the person was a felon, evading taxes, etc. But that isn't how the system is set up.

Secondly, as far as doing the "dirty work", is that such a bad thing for someone newly immigrating to a country? Should we instead immediately elevate them to be millionaires when they arrive and let them lord themselves over us instead? I know this may sound harsh but what is the alternative?

I don't think very many people have a problem with poorer immigrants doing a disproportionate share of the "dirty work". Nobody is suggesting they be automatically elevated to the middle class or something.

 

[emzie]

I certainly didn't immigrate to Canada to pick crops or clean McDonald's restaurants.

 

[Gary Childress]

Immigration policy in the United States and much of Europe has made legally immigrating to those countries difficult for poor people to afford. If our policy was that everyone could immigrate and work provided they pass a background check and fill out some paperwork for a visa, then immigrating illegally would be hard to justify - it would likely mean the person was a felon, evading taxes, etc. But that isn't how the system is set up.

OK. As far as legal immigration being hard. Don't we as a people have the right to make immigration as easy or difficult as we want? Are we obligated to take everyone or even anyone in? Isn't it our decision as a group how we want to handle immigration? If we chose not to let anyone in that might be impractical but wouldn't it be up to us? Again, I apologize if this sounds harsh but I am curious.

 

[Gary Childress]

I certainly didn't immigrate to Canada to pick crops or clean McDonald's restaurants.

OK. Devil's advocate: I didn't get born in the us to pick crops or clean fast food restaurants. Suppose that's what I end up having to do? Tough luck. Why should immigrants be special? What do you want, everything served to you on a silver platter? And if you don't get that why should anyone else care?

 

[Bootstoots]

OK. As far as legal immigration being hard. Don't we as a people have the right to make immigration as easy or difficult as we want? Are we obligated to take everyone or even anyone in? Isn't it our decision as a group how we want to handle immigration? If we chose not to let anyone in that might be impractical but wouldn't it be up to us? Again, I apologize if this sounds harsh but I am curious.

We certainly have the capability to make immigration difficult, just like any sovereign country. I don't think it's something we should do though. Immigrants are generally a net positive for their country's economy. In the US, for instance, large portions of our agricultural sector would collapse overnight if all illegal immigrants are deported. We simply don't have a way for enough poor immigrants to immigrate legally. Our demand for immigrants exceeds the supply of legal immigrants that our immigration policy allows. Some more work is now being done to grant more temporary work visas, but we still don't have an immigration system that handles our need for immigrants.

 

[Cutlass]

OK. As far as legal immigration being hard. Don't we as a people have the right to make immigration as easy or difficult as we want? Are we obligated to take everyone or even anyone in? Isn't it our decision as a group how we want to handle immigration? If we chose not to let anyone in that might be impractical but wouldn't it be up to us? Again, I apologize if this sounds harsh but I am curious.

The problem is that the policies are contradictory. The illegal immigrants in the US today were tacitly invited in by the government. It was the policy of the US government to allow illegals to stay here and set down roots. Now we change our mind, and families that are rooted here are being forced out. Children who have never known living in another nation are being punished because their parents choose to follow the defacto rules instead of the formal ones.

 

[Gary Childress]

The problem is that the policies are contradictory. The illegal immigrants in the US today were tacitly invited in by the government. It was the policy of the US government to allow illegals to stay here and set down roots. Now we change our mind, and families that are rooted here are being forced out. Children who have never known living in another nation are being punished because their parents choose to follow the defacto rules instead of the formal ones.

How did we "tacitly" "invite" illegals? Did we post a sign somewhere that said, "immigrate to the US illegally!"? Isn't illegal, illegal? If something is illegal then it's pretty much understood that you aren't supposed to do it. We issue temporary work visas with the intention that they are temporary. Overstaying them is clearly a violation of the agreement, is it not?

 

[Cutlass]

How did we "tacitly" "invite" illegals? Did we post a sign somewhere that said, "immigrate to the US illegally!"? Isn't illegal, illegal? If something is illegal then it's pretty much understood that you aren't supposed to do it. We issue temporary work visas with the intention that they are temporary. Overstaying them is clearly a violation of the agreement, is it not?

For 20 years there was no enforcement of the law, and we gave them jobs, knowing that they were undocumented. That is a tacit invitation.

 

[Gary Childress]

For 20 years there was no enforcement of the law, and we gave them jobs, knowing that they were undocumented. That is a tacit invitation.

who is "we"? I never gave anyone a job knowing they were undocumented. Because some unscrupulous employer did does that mean the rest of us are obligated to allow illegals to stay? The illegals knew they weren't supposed to be here. THe employers knew they weren't supposed to hire them. How is it the fault of any of the rest of us? The same logic could be applied to almost any illegal activity.

"Well the police didn't crack down on that drug dealer so it was a tacit invitation for him to sell drugs. Therefore we shouldn't prosecute him or try to reform his customers."

 

[Cutlass]

who is "we"? I never gave anyone a job knowing they were undocumented. Because some unscrupulous employer did does that mean the rest of us are obligated to allow illegals to stay? The illegals knew they weren't supposed to be here. THe employers knew they weren't supposed to hire them. How is it the fault of any of the rest of us? The same logic could be applied to almost any illegal activity.

"Well the police didn't crack down on that drug dealer so it was a tacit invitation for him to sell drugs. Therefore we shouldn't prosecute him or try to reform his customers."

There are laws on the books in some states against oral sex. They are not enforced. People do it, and have no fear of being arrested. How is this different? For 20 years the government told everyone that was paying attention that there were no consequences to being in the country undocumented. It does not make any difference if there is a law, if everyone knows the law will not be enforced.

There is a fundamental unfairness in telling people for 20 years that they can live and work and raise their families here, and then changing our minds.

 

[Gary Childress]

There are laws on the books in some states against oral sex. They are not enforced. People do it, and have no fear of being arrested. How is this different? For 20 years the government told everyone that was paying attention that there were no consequences to being in the country undocumented. It does not make any difference if there is a law, if everyone knows the law will not be enforced.

There is a fundamental unfairness in telling people for 20 years that they can live and work and raise their families here, and then changing our minds.

Well no one else seems to be supplying any opposing views so I'll bite:

I still don't see how anyone "told" anyone they could live and work and raise their families here as an illegal immigrant? Are people that stupid that they don't know what illegal means? You keep saying "we invited them" but I just don't see it as being true. Who "invited" them? How were they "invited"? I've never told anyone to come to the US illegally. Just because some unscrupulous person did doesn't mean the rest of us have to live up to their promise. If I promised you I would make you a millionaire and then didnt' live up to that promise, is it the responsibility of anyone else to make sure my promise is fulfilled to you?

 

[warpus]

The economy may rely on immigrants to do the "dirty work" but does it rely on illegal immigrants to do the dirty work?

Ask your government. They turned a blind eye to illegals working in your country..

Even my dad took advantage of this at one point. The stories he told me! Entire companies made up of illegals (illegal immigrants and illegal workers from other countries like my dad), and the government? They didn't care.. They allowed this to snowball into what it is now.

 

[Cutlass]

Well no one else seems to be supplying any opposing views so I'll bite:

I still don't see how anyone "told" anyone they could live and work and raise their families here as an illegal immigrant? Are people that stupid that they don't know what illegal means? You keep saying "we invited them" but I just don't see it as being true. Who "invited" them? How were they "invited"? I've never told anyone to come to the US illegally. Just because some unscrupulous person did doesn't mean the rest of us have to live up to their promise. If I promised you I would make you a millionaire and then didnt' live up to that promise, is it the responsibility of anyone else to make sure my promise is fulfilled to you?

Then maybe you should have gotten the government to do something about it back when Reagan was president. Or GHW Bush. Or Clinton. It's a little late to change your mind now.

 

[innonimatu]

It is fundamentally unjust to limit immigration beyond what is necessary for public safety.
[...]
I also oppose all forms of birthright citizenship. Ius Solis is only marginally less abhorrent than Ius Sanguinis. I don't think anyone should ever be granted citizenship without informed consent. Citizenship should be an actual signed contract, not some nebulous implied social contract.

The problem with this is that the modern democratic political institutions in place can't work within that model. It's no accident that nationalism, the idea of passports, and representative democracy all developed together...

I'm not saying that you cannot come up with alternative institutions. There are alternatives. But I think that when defending such changes you should point out which alternatives you'd have go with them.

The US should have a population that's rising at a rate sufficient to prevent demographic problems with pensions and other aging issues down the road. That isn't going to happen with domestic birth rates.

That's just a bogeyman which seems to get invoked in every discussion about migrations. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence of such a real "demographic problem" happening in the modern world. Doomsayers have been talking for decades, and there's none to see. Higher productivity alone has negated it so far, just as substitution has negated the doomsayers of the Club of Rome in their predictions about resource depletion.
We're not seeing over the world any lack of able-bodied people to support retirees. We're seeing rising youth unemployment all over the world!

But we also need the agricultural laborers, because we can't replace those out of citizens since the pay is so low and the work so miserable.

Doesn't that phase give you any idea about what else you could change? If the work is "miserable" (I suppose you mean hard), it is to be expected that the pay should be high. And it there were no takers at those wages, the pay would have to rise, and product prices along with it. Either pay up or import, what you would not be doing was to do without the food. Do not say that you need immigrants because the pay is so low, say that you need immigrants so that the pay can remain so low.

I support the liberalisation of global trade: the free movement of goods, capital, labour and services. When we allow goods, capital, labour and services to move to where they are most productive, everybody wins. As has been said up-thread, that's how capitalism works. Any argument against opening borders to the free movement of labour is an argument against capitalism itself.

Ricardian economics applied to population! As if most people are eager to pack up and move for the sake of "productivity". Across national borders! At least Ricardo only wanted the workers to reproduce cheaper by letting them eat cheaper corn, not to become another trade commodity - he still saw them as slowly-changing factors of production. Perhaps it was because back then the era of workers as actual movable trade commodities (slavery) was just coming to an end. But yes, I can see how that may be the pinnacle of an ideal capitalism... everybody won when the savages were brought from the jungle to the plantation, too. Even the savages, because they became more productive. How grateful they must have been to their masters for their improvement!

My point is: this just never happens fast enough to work, economically, when people are doing it of their own free will and not coerced. When the industry in the northern UK was killed, how long did those regions kept having high unemployment? Why didn't the people all move away? It's a slow process, even where it happens, where the personal barriers to movement (never mind borders or bureaucracy or culture) are low. You can make it faster, of course: just make people move or starve! But how far are you willing to go for the sake of productivity? "Everybody wins" if people are pushed around? Really? It will depend on whom you ask, and perhaps even when.

Beware of chasing ideal ideas which are "good for everyone" - the path to Hell is paved with (seemingly) good intentions, they say. I'm not trying to defend any particular position on transnational migrations, only pointing out that there is no "good for everyone" scenario, there are always winners and losers to consider.

 

[Gary Childress]

Ask your government. They turned a blind eye to illegals working in your country..

Even my dad took advantage of this at one point. The stories he told me! Entire companies made up of illegals (illegal immigrants and illegal workers from other countries like my dad), and the government? They didn't care.. They allowed this to snowball into what it is now.

Yes. It's the government's fault for what your dad and others illegally did. Isn't that convenient? Big investment companies doctored the books during the housing boom and eventually the economy tanked. But the government looked the other way. Therefore Occupy Wallstreet is wrong. In fact "we" invited the investors to tank the economy by our looking the other way. So we have no right to be angry and demand justice.

Does that make sense?

 

[Gary Childress]

Then maybe you should have gotten the government to do something about it back when Reagan was president. Or GHW Bush. Or Clinton. It's a little late to change your mind now.

What if my mind has never changed? What if I thought that all along? Suddenly it's my fault that Reagan or Bush et al were corrupt or lax on the job?

 

[Cutlass]

What if my mind has never changed? What if I thought that all along? Suddenly it's my fault that Reagan or Bush et al were corrupt or lax on the job?

Reagan and Bush did not enforce immigration regulations because American businesses wanted the workers. They were defacto guest workers, but without the documentation. Why punish them now for doing what we paid them to do?

 

[Gary Childress]

Reagan and Bush did not enforce immigration regulations because American businesses wanted the workers. They were defacto guest workers, but without the documentation. Why punish them now for doing what we paid them to do?

Well let's go ahead then and say that Occupy Wallstreet should not demand justice for those who messed up the economy while the government looked the other way during the housing boom. We'll call it even. The rich get to keep their loot and "we" get to feel guilty for letting them do it. How does that sound?

EDIT: Woops, I should say "The rich get to keep their loot and "we" get to feel guilty for inviting them to do it." Would it be fair to demand justice after basically telling Wall Street to mess up the economy?

 

[Mise]

Ricardian economics applied to population! As if most people are eager to pack up and move for the sake of "productivity". Across national borders! At least Ricardo only wanted the workers to reproduce cheaper by letting them eat cheaper corn, not to become another trade commodity - he still saw them as slowly-changing factors of production. Perhaps it was because back then the era of workers as actual movable trade commodities (slavery) was just coming to an end. But yes, I can see how that may be the pinnacle of an ideal capitalism... everybody won when the savages were brought from the jungle to the plantation, too. Even the savages, because they became more productive. How grateful they must have been to their masters for their improvement!

Slavery? Really? When people emigrate, it's because they think they can have a better life somewhere else. Nobody is talking about human trafficking or slavery...

My point is: this just never happens fast enough to work, economically, when people are doing it of their own free will and not coerced. When the industry in the northern UK was killed, how long did those regions kept having high unemployment? Why didn't the people all move away? It's a slow process, even where it happens, where the personal barriers to movement (never mind borders or bureaucracy or culture) are low. You can make it faster, of course: just make people move or starve! But how far are you willing to go for the sake of productivity? "Everybody wins" if people are pushed around? Really? It will depend on whom you ask, and perhaps even when.

Yes - if it were quicker and easier for people to move around in response to a changing job market, it would be better for those people. So by making migration easier, people are more likely to move to places where wages are higher and there are more jobs. That's a good thing... As you correctly note, migration is a long and difficult process. Why make it harder?

 

[wolfigor]

Ask your government. They turned a blind eye to illegals working in your country..

Even my dad took advantage of this at one point. The stories he told me! Entire companies made up of illegals (illegal immigrants and illegal workers from other countries like my dad), and the government? They didn't care.. They allowed this to snowball into what it is now.

This is something that happened in Europe too, especially in the south (Spain, Italy, etc.)
Governments did not explicitly invite illegal immigrants, but immigration was part of the "strategy".

Illegal immigrants tends to have very little options regarding jobs: they don't have a family network to rely on, they don't have awareness of their rights, and little legal possibilities to make them stick with employers.
That's why they have almost no negotiation power and they must accept jobs at a wage level that nobody else will ever accept.

Large scale illegal immigration helped to keep wages artificially low in specific sectors (e.g. agriculture) and, indirectly, reduced negotiation power for salaries for the locals.
This was the unwritten strategy of several countries.

The governments made its part by not applying the existing laws and blunting all legal tools to reduce illegal immigration.
Employers were de-facto stimulated to hire illegal immigrants because they were forced to accept wages well below the minimum, they couldn't complain for unsafe work conditions, and they could hired and fired at will.

Spain was probably the most active implementer of such strategy, that was implemented without thinking at the long term consequences.

How to support for these people in the future when they have a family and need housing, schools, pension, etc?
Whatever gain the country had in the short term, it will be paid back with interest in the next years.

Uncontrolled illegal immigration is highly detrimental for the well being of the country and the people already living there.
As it happened uncontrolled immigration led to a lot of problems for both immigrants and local workers... without even counting the assimilation/integration issues connected with a foreign underclass that cannot access the same support as the locals.