The true issue behind that is managing demand. One way is through substitute goods, another is through complimentary goods. The good news is that demand for illegal workers is highly elastic. An employer doesn't say "today I'm going to hire an illegal", they say "today I'm going to hire the cheapest labor I can find."
You could help by removing the upward push on minimum wage, thereby creating a larger pool of substitute workers.
You could also increase the cost of complimentary goods. If you take the penalty cost of hiring an illegal, and assume that that cost is a good spread across all illegal workers, you can control demand by increasing that cost. Hiring an illegal also means you have to pay that penalty cost on the illegal as well. Raise the cost of one, demand for the complimentary good decreases.
You forget that we could also address the problem by managing supply. If we create an increased chance of waiting a year or two and then immigrating to the US legally for $6/hr, that reduces the number of people willing to hop the fence right now for $2/hr.
Ideally, we'd do both, but managing supply is much, much easier. It consists of writing a couple new laws. Your solution not only requires new laws, not only requires getting it past the business lobbyists, but it requires a serious upgrade in infrastructure to create an enforcement procedure that can actually find illegal immigrants, and can effectively punish the businesses who hire them. We'd need to dramatically increase funding for enforcement of the laws.
Philosophically, I appreciate the idea of enforcing existing laws and going after businesses before fixing quotas. Practically speaking, I think it would be easier to get the relevant parties on board if we slowed the flow of illegals down to a comparative trickle before we yanked the businesses' gravy train out from under them. If we curtail their supply, they'll need to pay more for the same workers. If they're paying more for the same workers, it becomes less lucrative for them to do so, and they're less likely to oppose more draconian labor law enforcement.
I might be convinced of your argument, but I see the supply of cheap labor as nearly infinite (or at least outpacing demand by a large margin). The only way I can see controlling supply is to make Mexico (or insert your nation of choice) into a 1st world nation.
EDIT: This post may not make a whole lot of sense. I'm on a conference call at the moment. A really really really dumb one.
So you're basically saying, Jeff, that the business interests are a more insurmountable political barrier than the cultural conservatives?
I suspect you're right in the short-term of getting a bill passed, but I think that any Republican who really comes out full-throated for increasing legal immigration will get his ass handed to him in his next election.
The way things are going there are plenty of Republicans who are going to get their ass handed to them in the next election, too. Which is why this won't be anywhere near being 'resolved' until '09 at the earliest.
You forget that we could also address the problem by managing supply. If we create an increased chance of waiting a year or two and then immigrating to the US legally for $6/hr, that reduces the number of people willing to hop the fence right now for $2/hr.
Ideally, we'd do both, but managing supply is much, much easier. It consists of writing a couple new laws. Your solution not only requires new laws, not only requires getting it past the business lobbyists, but it requires a serious upgrade in infrastructure to create an enforcement procedure that can actually find illegal immigrants, and can effectively punish the businesses who hire them. We'd need to dramatically increase funding for enforcement of the laws.
Are there other examples of managing supply other than increasing the enforcement of laws?
I haven't seen this brought up yet, but does anyone have information on the correlation of tariffs between US and South/Central America and immigration to the US? I've heard that if our foodstuffs weren't subsidized, then we could promote healthier businesses abroad. Here's to hoping potential immigrants would rather stay home. I haven't seen anything to support this just yet.
Shmoepong on
I don't think I could take a class without sparring. That would be like a class without techniques. Sparring has value not only as an important (necessary) step in applying your techniques to fighting, but also because it provides a rush and feeling of elation, confidence, and joyful exhaustion that can only be matched by ... oh shit, I am describing sex again. Sorry everyone. - Epicurus
From my POV, labor supply is part of the economy, and hence choking it off through military-style enforcement of the border is very much "increasing market regulation."
But, as Will said, my "managing of supply" is basically relaxing restrictions. "Managing" wasn't a very good choice of words, but I was trying to parallel the "managing demand" argument that ryuprecht gave.
Are you disagreeing with me that allowing increased legal immigration would serve as a disincentive towards illegal immigration? I mean, it's closer to open borders than we currently are; I figured it'd make you happy.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I might be convinced of your argument, but I see the supply of cheap labor as nearly infinite (or at least outpacing demand by a large margin). The only way I can see controlling supply is to make Mexico (or insert your nation of choice) into a 1st world nation.
I think it's reasonable to look at the current illegal immigration numbers as sort of a theoretical maximum. It's trivially easy to get into this nation, it's trivially easy to stay, and there's no realistic legal alternative. We couldn't create conditions more conducive to illegal immigration if we tried. As such, it's hard to conceive of a situation in which more people would come over here illegally.
Any increased incentive to do things the legal way would help the situation. And I think you're going to have to do better than simply say, "Oh, hey, infinite illegal immigrant pool" to convince me that it's fundamentally impossible to decrease the labor flow.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I might be convinced of your argument, but I see the supply of cheap labor as nearly infinite (or at least outpacing demand by a large margin). The only way I can see controlling supply is to make Mexico (or insert your nation of choice) into a 1st world nation.
I think it's reasonable to look at the current illegal immigration numbers as sort of a theoretical maximum. It's trivially easy to get into this nation, it's trivially easy to stay, and there's no realistic legal alternative. We couldn't create conditions more conducive to illegal immigration if we tried. As such, it's hard to conceive of a situation in which more people would come over here illegally.
Any increased incentive to do things the legal way would help the situation. And I think you're going to have to do better than simply say, "Oh, hey, infinite illegal immigrant pool" to convince me that it's fundamentally impossible to decrease the labor flow.
I was referring more to your comment that 6 years vs 2 years will make a difference. The supply of those who say "2 years is still too long" is, for this purpose, infinite in my mind. In fact, it may even drive it up more. Who is to say that more people won't move within arms reach of the border because of the decreased wait, then come across.
I also have to say that I disagree with the statement that "it's hard to conceive of a situation in which more people would come over here illegally." You can reduce the penalties. You can remove the fear of deportation. You can grant amnesty without teeth for further management (see 1986). You can add water fountains in the desert...
I was referring more to your comment that 6 years vs 2 years will make a difference. The supply of those who say "2 years is still too long" is, for this purpose, infinite in my mind. In fact, it may even drive it up more. Who is to say that more people won't move within arms reach of the border because of the decreased wait, then come across.
The wait currently isn't simply 6 years. It's actually more like 10+, and that's assuming you don't get denied or delayed because of some random i you forgot to dot, or t you forgot to cross, or because your paperwork was lost. And don't forget that simply getting here often involves a slog through the desert, where many people just up and die. When I said that crossing the border was easy, I meant that we, the US, don't really place much in the way of added barriers. Short of walking up to a border patrol dude and saying, "Hello, I would like to illegally cross into your country - can you point me in the right direction?" a determined person will get in, provided he survives the attempt. After getting through that, what's the prize? A job for a small fraction of minimum wage, no government protection, and the lifelong specter of imminent deportation lingering over your head.
Now, compare that with a waiting list of a couple years, followed by legal status, government-granted benefits, and a job earning 2-3 times as much. C'mon, I don't see how you can say with a straight face that the latter isn't going to win anyone over.
And if they move to within arm's-reach of the border... yeah, so? I don't care if they physically form a line from the Pacific the the Gulf, as long as they're not illegally entering.
I also have to say that I disagree with the statement that "it's hard to conceive of a situation in which more people would come over here illegally." You can reduce the penalties. You can remove the fear of deportation. You can grant amnesty without teeth for further management (see 1986). You can add water fountains in the desert...
Okay, it's hard to conceive of a plausible situation in which more people would come over. Deportation is exceedingly infrequent. I mean, the threat is always there, just because yeah, it happens, but it couldn't be less of a thread without just plain not existing at all.
And I'm growing less convinced that amnesty in 1986 had a significant effect on illegal immigration numbers. I understand the argument, but I've yet to see anything in the way of support other than, "Hey, c'mon, it totally makes sense!"
So yes, I stand by my claim that illegally immigration could not reasonably get any worse than it is now.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I might be convinced of your argument, but I see the supply of cheap labor as nearly infinite (or at least outpacing demand by a large margin). The only way I can see controlling supply is to make Mexico (or insert your nation of choice) into a 1st world nation.
I think it's reasonable to look at the current illegal immigration numbers as sort of a theoretical maximum. It's trivially easy to get into this nation, it's trivially easy to stay, and there's no realistic legal alternative. We couldn't create conditions more conducive to illegal immigration if we tried. As such, it's hard to conceive of a situation in which more people would come over here illegally.
Any increased incentive to do things the legal way would help the situation. And I think you're going to have to do better than simply say, "Oh, hey, infinite illegal immigrant pool" to convince me that it's fundamentally impossible to decrease the labor flow.
The way the dollar is fallin the primary incentive to come here will vanish soon enough
I might be convinced of your argument, but I see the supply of cheap labor as nearly infinite (or at least outpacing demand by a large margin). The only way I can see controlling supply is to make Mexico (or insert your nation of choice) into a 1st world nation.
I think it's reasonable to look at the current illegal immigration numbers as sort of a theoretical maximum. It's trivially easy to get into this nation, it's trivially easy to stay, and there's no realistic legal alternative. We couldn't create conditions more conducive to illegal immigration if we tried. As such, it's hard to conceive of a situation in which more people would come over here illegally.
Any increased incentive to do things the legal way would help the situation. And I think you're going to have to do better than simply say, "Oh, hey, infinite illegal immigrant pool" to convince me that it's fundamentally impossible to decrease the labor flow.
The way the dollar is fallin the primary incentive to come here will vanish soon enough
We aren't going to become a 3rd world country anytime soon, and there's an ocean between Mexico and other developed nations. So, unless England scraps that plan for a sea-wall...
I might be convinced of your argument, but I see the supply of cheap labor as nearly infinite (or at least outpacing demand by a large margin). The only way I can see controlling supply is to make Mexico (or insert your nation of choice) into a 1st world nation.
I think it's reasonable to look at the current illegal immigration numbers as sort of a theoretical maximum. It's trivially easy to get into this nation, it's trivially easy to stay, and there's no realistic legal alternative. We couldn't create conditions more conducive to illegal immigration if we tried. As such, it's hard to conceive of a situation in which more people would come over here illegally.
Any increased incentive to do things the legal way would help the situation. And I think you're going to have to do better than simply say, "Oh, hey, infinite illegal immigrant pool" to convince me that it's fundamentally impossible to decrease the labor flow.
The way the dollar is fallin the primary incentive to come here will vanish soon enough
We aren't going to become a 3rd world country anytime soon, and there's an ocean between Mexico and other developed nations. So, unless England scraps that plan for a sea-wall...
That's what we need to do. Fuck the wall, we need to build an ocean. Mexico has been sponging off the structural integrity of our continental mass for too long.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
After getting through that, what's the prize? A job for a small fraction of minimum wage, no government protection, and the lifelong specter of imminent deportation lingering over your head.
And yet we still have millions of illegals, despite the very real challenges involved in being illegal. My argument is that by relaxing it, and making it easier, you don't curtail supply, you would in effect increase it.
Now, compare that with a waiting list of a couple years, followed by legal status, government-granted benefits, and a job earning 2-3 times as much. C'mon, I don't see how you can say with a straight face that the latter isn't going to win anyone over.
It will, most certainly. So let's say you have 10 million illegals. The new rules convince some part of the population to come over, say 9 million. There will still be a market for illegality. I just don't think you can control that effectively enough to make it worthwhile. Add to that even if you make it easy to be legal, those that will take the bait are the law-abiding ones who want to be here, leaving those that can't make it through the process, or don't give a shit, left to fill that demand.
And if they move to within arm's-reach of the border... yeah, so? I don't care if they physically form a line from the Pacific the the Gulf, as long as they're not illegally entering.
My point was that physical proximity to the border increases the ability to cross it. If the demand still exists, people will be more likely to cross it.
And I'm growing less convinced that amnesty in 1986 had a significant effect on illegal immigration numbers. I understand the argument, but I've yet to see anything in the way of support other than, "Hey, c'mon, it totally makes sense!"
So yes, I stand by my claim that illegally immigration could not reasonably get any worse than it is now.
I'm not sure what you are looking for then. The data clearly shows that the numbers of illegals has increased dramatically since then, outpacing population growth. It's established that there is a demand for illegal immigrants to work in this country. Amnesty removes barriers to illegality by forgiving past illegal activities. These things I think everyone can agree upon. It seems the conclusion is pretty straight forward.
I'll grant it's not a full reckoning of the variables, but I'm having a hard time doubting the connection.
After getting through that, what's the prize? A job for a small fraction of minimum wage, no government protection, and the lifelong specter of imminent deportation lingering over your head.
And yet we still have millions of illegals, despite the very real challenges involved in becoming legal. My argument is that by relaxing it, and making it easier, you don't curtail supply, you would in effect increase it.
Despite? I'm fairly sure it's directly because of.
After getting through that, what's the prize? A job for a small fraction of minimum wage, no government protection, and the lifelong specter of imminent deportation lingering over your head.
And yet we still have millions of illegals, despite the very real challenges involved in becoming legal. My argument is that by relaxing it, and making it easier, you don't curtail supply, you would in effect increase it.
Despite? I'm fairly sure it's directly because of.
After getting through that, what's the prize? A job for a small fraction of minimum wage, no government protection, and the lifelong specter of imminent deportation lingering over your head.
And yet we still have millions of illegals, despite the very real challenges involved in becoming legal. My argument is that by relaxing it, and making it easier, you don't curtail supply, you would in effect increase it.
Despite? I'm fairly sure it's directly because of.
My bad. That should have read "illegal", not legal. I will edit.
I'm not sure what you are looking for then. The data clearly shows that the numbers of illegals has increased dramatically since then, outpacing population growth. It's established that there is a demand for illegal immigrants to work in this country. Amnesty removes barriers to illegality by forgiving past illegal activities. These things I think everyone can agree upon. It seems the conclusion is pretty straight forward.
I'll grant it's not a full reckoning of the variables, but I'm having a hard time doubting the connection.
Well, I was looking for something like this:
Because I like pretty pictures. That there shows the overall number of illegal immigrants in our nation from 1980-present. Yes, it's been increasing since 1980; however, there's something sort of interesting going on. Illegal immigrants increased in number a little bit between 1980 and 1990 - the period during which the amnesty happened. A little bit. By about half a million.
Between 1990 and 2000, they doubled. Now, if we're to believe that amnesty is the boogie man behind all this illegal immigration, we would have to assert that the effects of this amnesty lagged by almost half a decade. I know that Mexico isn't a paragon of communications technology, but come on.
Meanwhile, is there anything conspicuous that happened during the 90s? Like, oh, I dunno - one of the biggest economic expansions in decades? Huge fucking market bubble? Anything like that?
No, no, I'm certain that the 1986 amnesty is the more likely explanation.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
But, as Will said, my "managing of supply" is basically relaxing restrictions. "Managing" wasn't a very good choice of words, but I was trying to parallel the "managing demand" argument that ryuprecht gave.
Are you disagreeing with me that allowing increased legal immigration would serve as a disincentive towards illegal immigration? I mean, it's closer to open borders than we currently are; I figured it'd make you happy.
Only totally open borders with thousands of moving walkways will make me happy, Jeff!!!!
Or not. Sure, increased legal immigration blah blah. My point is that legal immigration ought to be as much as the market would like to have. The market will do a much better job than the government of deciding how much low-skill labor we should be importing.
I'm not sure what you are looking for then. The data clearly shows that the numbers of illegals has increased dramatically since then, outpacing population growth. It's established that there is a demand for illegal immigrants to work in this country. Amnesty removes barriers to illegality by forgiving past illegal activities. These things I think everyone can agree upon. It seems the conclusion is pretty straight forward.
I'll grant it's not a full reckoning of the variables, but I'm having a hard time doubting the connection.
Well, I was looking for something like this:
Because I like pretty pictures. That there shows the overall number of illegal immigrants in our nation from 1980-present. Yes, it's been increasing since 1980; however, there's something sort of interesting going on. Illegal immigrants increased in number a little bit between 1980 and 1990 - the period during which the amnesty happened. A little bit. By about half a million.
Between 1990 and 2000, they doubled. Now, if we're to believe that amnesty is the boogie man behind all this illegal immigration, we would have to assert that the effects of this amnesty lagged by almost half a decade. I know that Mexico isn't a paragon of communications technology, but come on.
Meanwhile, is there anything conspicuous that happened during the 90s? Like, oh, I dunno - one of the biggest economic expansions in decades? Huge fucking market bubble? Anything like that?
No, no, I'm certain that the 1986 amnesty is the more likely explanation.
Not seeing how that data is pulled, that leaves me with a few questions:
1) If 2.7 million illegals received amnesty in the time immediately after the amnesty, the graph would mean that in 1990, the entire population of amnestized (sp?) aliens were replenished.
2) Which sectors are most likely to employ illegal immigrants and were those sectors the ones who benefited from the bubble? I'd postulate that the majority of industries affected by the 90's stock market bubble didn't hire many illegals. Could be the trickly-down effect, but I'm not sure I've ever seen proof of any correlation between illegal immigration and the 90's stock market.
3) This assumes the effect is immediate, instead of gradual. Many policy changes take a couple of years to perpetuate their effects.
That graph is teeli me that illegals increase pretty much proportionally witht he foregin born population. I see no huge spike between 1980 and 1990. if it did increase the nubmer of illegal immigrants it likewise increased the number of legal immigration too.
In short not enough info to really draw any conclusions.
1) If 2.7 million illegals received amnesty in the time immediately after the amnesty, the graph would mean that in 1990, the entire population of amnestized (sp?) aliens were replenished.
Well, if we look at this chart, as well:
It starts to paint an interesting picture. The data only stretches back to 1990, but we can see the tail-end of a massive spike in illegal immigration numbers. So it looks like, yes, there was an extremely short-term influx, which rapidly tapered off. Since then, we've seen a fairly constant number which spiked sharply right around 1997-2000. (Hmm... what was the economy here like around that time?)
2) Which sectors are most likely to employ illegal immigrants and were those sectors the ones who benefited from the bubble? I'd postulate that the majority of industries affected by the 90's stock market bubble didn't hire many illegals. Could be the trickly-down effect, but I'm not sure I've ever seen proof of any correlation between illegal immigration and the 90's stock market.
Well, I just demonstrated correlation. Not causation, no, but definitely a very conspicuous correlation. And it's not like only dot-coms were prospering during that era. The economy as a whole was going gang-busters, and most industries have a need for cheap, unskilled labor somewhere. Every office building needs janitors. All those wealthy dot-com execs need nannies. You're being awfully myopic in your attempt to view the entirety of the immigration boom through the lens of a single piece of legislature from 1986.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
1) If 2.7 million illegals received amnesty in the time immediately after the amnesty, the graph would mean that in 1990, the entire population of amnestized (sp?) aliens were replenished.
Well, if we look at this chart, as well:
It starts to paint an interesting picture. The data only stretches back to 1990, but we can see the tail-end of a massive spike in illegal immigration numbers. So it looks like, yes, there was an extremely short-term influx, which rapidly tapered off. Since then, we've seen a fairly constant number which spiked sharply right around 1997-2000. (Hmm... what was the economy here like around that time?)
2) Which sectors are most likely to employ illegal immigrants and were those sectors the ones who benefited from the bubble? I'd postulate that the majority of industries affected by the 90's stock market bubble didn't hire many illegals. Could be the trickly-down effect, but I'm not sure I've ever seen proof of any correlation between illegal immigration and the 90's stock market.
Well, I just demonstrated correlation. Not causation, no, but definitely a very conspicuous correlation. And it's not like only dot-coms were prospering during that era. The economy as a whole was going gang-busters, and most industries have a need for cheap, unskilled labor somewhere. Every office building needs janitors. All those wealthy dot-com execs need nannies. You're being awfully myopic in your attempt to view the entirety of the immigration boom through the lens of a single piece of legislature from 1986.
What I'm seeing is the drop of rate of illegals corresponding with the rise in rate of legal immigration. I can assume that the movement of illegals into legality spurred this growth on. This is the yearly influx of illegals though, if I'm reading this right. Which means that the cumulative effect is that in the years afterwards, the illegal population was increasing at an increasing rate.
And I mentioned that it could be an effect of the overall market boom, but I've never seen that proven or even seriously studied.
That graph is teeli me that illegals increase pretty much proportionally witht he foregin born population. I see no huge spike between 1980 and 1990. if it did increase the nubmer of illegal immigrants it likewise increased the number of legal immigration too.
In short not enough info to really draw any conclusions.
Legal
1980-2005 was 14.1 to 35.2, an increase of 149.6%.
Illegal
1980-2005 was 3 to 9.7, an increase of 223.3%.
And I mentioned that it could be an effect of the overall market boom, but I've never seen that proven or even seriously studied.
Have you ever read about the matter from a publication that didn't consider amnesty being the culprit as an obvious given?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
What I'm seeing is the drop of rate of illegals corresponding with the rise in rate of legal immigration.
That's a fairly interesting observation. What it looks like, to me, is that the two lines are marching along in perfect counterpoint, which implies to me that there's pretty much a set number of immigrants coming here per year, regardless of any other factors. Those that can enter legally do, those that can't say "fuck it" and cross the border anyway.
The logical extension of this would be that if we greatly increased legal immigration numbers, we would create a corresponding plummet in illegal numbers.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
2) Which sectors are most likely to employ illegal immigrants and were those sectors the ones who benefited from the bubble? I'd postulate that the majority of industries affected by the 90's stock market bubble didn't hire many illegals. Could be the trickly-down effect, but I'm not sure I've ever seen proof of any correlation between illegal immigration and the 90's stock market.
No, they used H-1Bs (a different, though related, argument.)
What I'm seeing is the drop of rate of illegals corresponding with the rise in rate of legal immigration.
That's a fairly interesting observation. What it looks like, to me, is that the two lines are marching along in perfect counterpoint, which implies to me that there's pretty much a set number of immigrants coming here per year, regardless of any other factors. Those that can enter legally do, those that can't say "fuck it" and cross the border anyway.
The logical extension of this would be that if we greatly increased legal immigration numbers, we would create a corresponding plummet in illegal numbers.
I was speaking of the years immediately after the amnesty, though the data was mostly missing. At the start of the illegal data, it corresponds with the last of the spike in legal immigration.
To your point here, I can see that the two bits are in opposition with each other. My point was that I don't think it draws any conclusions as is as a trend. I don't believe it's sufficient to state that there is no correlation between amnesty and the rise in illegals. In fact, the spike at the beginning of the full data may prove my point. As for the dot com bubble, that began in 1995. Note that the data was erratic during that time. I don't think I could draw a conclusion from that.
That's a fairly interesting observation. What it looks like, to me, is that the two lines are marching along in perfect counterpoint, which implies to me that there's pretty much a set number of immigrants coming here per year, regardless of any other factors. Those that can enter legally do, those that can't say "fuck it" and cross the border anyway.
The logical extension of this would be that if we greatly increased legal immigration numbers, we would create a corresponding plummet in illegal numbers.
Wow, it's almost as if we should just open the borders and consider them all citizens.
That's a fairly interesting observation. What it looks like, to me, is that the two lines are marching along in perfect counterpoint, which implies to me that there's pretty much a set number of immigrants coming here per year, regardless of any other factors. Those that can enter legally do, those that can't say "fuck it" and cross the border anyway.
The logical extension of this would be that if we greatly increased legal immigration numbers, we would create a corresponding plummet in illegal numbers.
Wow, it's almost as if we should just open the borders and consider them all citizens.
Quiet, you.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
What's really funny to me is that conservatives are shitting a collective brick about those damn foreigners depressing wages, and yet they are sublimely oblivious to the current trend in America of wealth being allocated ever upwards, and the fact that wages for just about everyone but the superrich have barely kept pace with inflation. In some cases, they've declined. And this trend started all long before illegals were a concern.
I thought conservatives were all for depressed wages in order to help big business and the wealthy? These stereotypes are confusing!
That's the point. The Conservative movement as a whole tends to display a fairly Panglossian and high-handed approach to the problems of low wages and low wage earners. When a factory relocates to Micronesia, the response is a resounding "meh market forces are the best of all possible worlds". But in immigration arguments, their hearts are suddenly bleeding for the market of citizens who would be competing for fruit-picking jobs in California.
It suggests that the wage arguments made by conservatives are more rhetorical than substantive.
That's a fairly interesting observation. What it looks like, to me, is that the two lines are marching along in perfect counterpoint, which implies to me that there's pretty much a set number of immigrants coming here per year, regardless of any other factors. Those that can enter legally do, those that can't say "fuck it" and cross the border anyway.
The logical extension of this would be that if we greatly increased legal immigration numbers, we would create a corresponding plummet in illegal numbers.
Wow, it's almost as if we should just open the borders and consider them all citizens.
I wholeheartedly endorse this course of action.
It gets rid of all this "rule of law" nonsense that our own little Platonist has such a damn fixation on.
Would we see a spike in immigration? Probably. Would it be a significant spike? Probably not. People come across the border if they want to, and realistically, we can't stop them. They're a boon to our economy, they contribute tax revenue, and they're less criminal than the home population.
So, what would be bad about inviting everyone in who wants to come, again (barring of course terrorists, blah blah blah)?
That's a fairly interesting observation. What it looks like, to me, is that the two lines are marching along in perfect counterpoint, which implies to me that there's pretty much a set number of immigrants coming here per year, regardless of any other factors. Those that can enter legally do, those that can't say "fuck it" and cross the border anyway.
The logical extension of this would be that if we greatly increased legal immigration numbers, we would create a corresponding plummet in illegal numbers.
Wow, it's almost as if we should just open the borders and consider them all citizens.
And consider a America as a group of people, a society if you will, rather than a geographical location? If you want to be a part of it and are willing to contribute, you're in.
Wouldn't you have exactly the same problem as the Ethiopean healthcare problem just at a later date, at least if you wanted to guarantee some sort of a consistancy of quality of life for the previous members? At least if you didn't just go all the way and declare America to be the (opt in) World Government.
Cheap labor comes in, drives down the cost of already cheap labor. Companies hire progressively cheaper labor until you simply can't support yourself or a family because there are too many people looking for jobs. Benefits and health care go right out the fucking window because people need to eat. Dental care and good heart health and all that takes a very large backseat.
You probably can't afford to go to school, so you probably turn around and start selling drugs. Depression hits the unemployed and drug abuse goes up even more. So cartels ship even more drugs here to the waiting previously employed drug dealers.
Cheap labor comes in, drives down the cost of already cheap labor. Companies hire progressively cheaper labor until you simply can't support yourself or a family because there are too many people looking for jobs. Benefits and health care go right out the fucking window because people need to eat. Dental care and good heart health and all that takes a very large backseat.
You probably can't afford to go to school, so you probably turn around and start selling drugs. Depression hits the unemployed and drug abuse goes up even more. So cartels ship even more drugs here to the waiting previously employed drug dealers.
It'd probably be quite cyclical like that.
That's just a possibility.
Immigration problems and the amnesty did seem to start around the same time you had the crack epidemic. Which is to say in the same decade. Hmmmm....
Posts
I might be convinced of your argument, but I see the supply of cheap labor as nearly infinite (or at least outpacing demand by a large margin). The only way I can see controlling supply is to make Mexico (or insert your nation of choice) into a 1st world nation.
EDIT: This post may not make a whole lot of sense. I'm on a conference call at the moment. A really really really dumb one.
The way things are going there are plenty of Republicans who are going to get their ass handed to them in the next election, too. Which is why this won't be anywhere near being 'resolved' until '09 at the earliest.
Are there other examples of managing supply other than increasing the enforcement of laws?
I haven't seen this brought up yet, but does anyone have information on the correlation of tariffs between US and South/Central America and immigration to the US? I've heard that if our foodstuffs weren't subsidized, then we could promote healthier businesses abroad. Here's to hoping potential immigrants would rather stay home. I haven't seen anything to support this just yet.
But, as Will said, my "managing of supply" is basically relaxing restrictions. "Managing" wasn't a very good choice of words, but I was trying to parallel the "managing demand" argument that ryuprecht gave.
Are you disagreeing with me that allowing increased legal immigration would serve as a disincentive towards illegal immigration? I mean, it's closer to open borders than we currently are; I figured it'd make you happy.
I think it's reasonable to look at the current illegal immigration numbers as sort of a theoretical maximum. It's trivially easy to get into this nation, it's trivially easy to stay, and there's no realistic legal alternative. We couldn't create conditions more conducive to illegal immigration if we tried. As such, it's hard to conceive of a situation in which more people would come over here illegally.
Any increased incentive to do things the legal way would help the situation. And I think you're going to have to do better than simply say, "Oh, hey, infinite illegal immigrant pool" to convince me that it's fundamentally impossible to decrease the labor flow.
I was referring more to your comment that 6 years vs 2 years will make a difference. The supply of those who say "2 years is still too long" is, for this purpose, infinite in my mind. In fact, it may even drive it up more. Who is to say that more people won't move within arms reach of the border because of the decreased wait, then come across.
I also have to say that I disagree with the statement that "it's hard to conceive of a situation in which more people would come over here illegally." You can reduce the penalties. You can remove the fear of deportation. You can grant amnesty without teeth for further management (see 1986). You can add water fountains in the desert...
The wait currently isn't simply 6 years. It's actually more like 10+, and that's assuming you don't get denied or delayed because of some random i you forgot to dot, or t you forgot to cross, or because your paperwork was lost. And don't forget that simply getting here often involves a slog through the desert, where many people just up and die. When I said that crossing the border was easy, I meant that we, the US, don't really place much in the way of added barriers. Short of walking up to a border patrol dude and saying, "Hello, I would like to illegally cross into your country - can you point me in the right direction?" a determined person will get in, provided he survives the attempt. After getting through that, what's the prize? A job for a small fraction of minimum wage, no government protection, and the lifelong specter of imminent deportation lingering over your head.
Now, compare that with a waiting list of a couple years, followed by legal status, government-granted benefits, and a job earning 2-3 times as much. C'mon, I don't see how you can say with a straight face that the latter isn't going to win anyone over.
And if they move to within arm's-reach of the border... yeah, so? I don't care if they physically form a line from the Pacific the the Gulf, as long as they're not illegally entering.
Okay, it's hard to conceive of a plausible situation in which more people would come over. Deportation is exceedingly infrequent. I mean, the threat is always there, just because yeah, it happens, but it couldn't be less of a thread without just plain not existing at all.
And I'm growing less convinced that amnesty in 1986 had a significant effect on illegal immigration numbers. I understand the argument, but I've yet to see anything in the way of support other than, "Hey, c'mon, it totally makes sense!"
So yes, I stand by my claim that illegally immigration could not reasonably get any worse than it is now.
The way the dollar is fallin the primary incentive to come here will vanish soon enough
We aren't going to become a 3rd world country anytime soon, and there's an ocean between Mexico and other developed nations. So, unless England scraps that plan for a sea-wall...
That's what we need to do. Fuck the wall, we need to build an ocean. Mexico has been sponging off the structural integrity of our continental mass for too long.
And yet we still have millions of illegals, despite the very real challenges involved in being illegal. My argument is that by relaxing it, and making it easier, you don't curtail supply, you would in effect increase it.
It will, most certainly. So let's say you have 10 million illegals. The new rules convince some part of the population to come over, say 9 million. There will still be a market for illegality. I just don't think you can control that effectively enough to make it worthwhile. Add to that even if you make it easy to be legal, those that will take the bait are the law-abiding ones who want to be here, leaving those that can't make it through the process, or don't give a shit, left to fill that demand.
My point was that physical proximity to the border increases the ability to cross it. If the demand still exists, people will be more likely to cross it.
I'm not sure what you are looking for then. The data clearly shows that the numbers of illegals has increased dramatically since then, outpacing population growth. It's established that there is a demand for illegal immigrants to work in this country. Amnesty removes barriers to illegality by forgiving past illegal activities. These things I think everyone can agree upon. It seems the conclusion is pretty straight forward.
I'll grant it's not a full reckoning of the variables, but I'm having a hard time doubting the connection.
Despite? I'm fairly sure it's directly because of.
Yeah, he has his phrases all mixed up.
My bad. That should have read "illegal", not legal. I will edit.
Well, I was looking for something like this:
Because I like pretty pictures. That there shows the overall number of illegal immigrants in our nation from 1980-present. Yes, it's been increasing since 1980; however, there's something sort of interesting going on. Illegal immigrants increased in number a little bit between 1980 and 1990 - the period during which the amnesty happened. A little bit. By about half a million.
Between 1990 and 2000, they doubled. Now, if we're to believe that amnesty is the boogie man behind all this illegal immigration, we would have to assert that the effects of this amnesty lagged by almost half a decade. I know that Mexico isn't a paragon of communications technology, but come on.
Meanwhile, is there anything conspicuous that happened during the 90s? Like, oh, I dunno - one of the biggest economic expansions in decades? Huge fucking market bubble? Anything like that?
No, no, I'm certain that the 1986 amnesty is the more likely explanation.
Or not. Sure, increased legal immigration blah blah. My point is that legal immigration ought to be as much as the market would like to have. The market will do a much better job than the government of deciding how much low-skill labor we should be importing.
Not seeing how that data is pulled, that leaves me with a few questions:
1) If 2.7 million illegals received amnesty in the time immediately after the amnesty, the graph would mean that in 1990, the entire population of amnestized (sp?) aliens were replenished.
2) Which sectors are most likely to employ illegal immigrants and were those sectors the ones who benefited from the bubble? I'd postulate that the majority of industries affected by the 90's stock market bubble didn't hire many illegals. Could be the trickly-down effect, but I'm not sure I've ever seen proof of any correlation between illegal immigration and the 90's stock market.
3) This assumes the effect is immediate, instead of gradual. Many policy changes take a couple of years to perpetuate their effects.
Well, it was my understanding that US is keen of giving Mexico rather large sums of money every now and then. I could be wrong about that.
In short not enough info to really draw any conclusions.
Well, if we look at this chart, as well:
It starts to paint an interesting picture. The data only stretches back to 1990, but we can see the tail-end of a massive spike in illegal immigration numbers. So it looks like, yes, there was an extremely short-term influx, which rapidly tapered off. Since then, we've seen a fairly constant number which spiked sharply right around 1997-2000. (Hmm... what was the economy here like around that time?)
Well, I just demonstrated correlation. Not causation, no, but definitely a very conspicuous correlation. And it's not like only dot-coms were prospering during that era. The economy as a whole was going gang-busters, and most industries have a need for cheap, unskilled labor somewhere. Every office building needs janitors. All those wealthy dot-com execs need nannies. You're being awfully myopic in your attempt to view the entirety of the immigration boom through the lens of a single piece of legislature from 1986.
What I'm seeing is the drop of rate of illegals corresponding with the rise in rate of legal immigration. I can assume that the movement of illegals into legality spurred this growth on. This is the yearly influx of illegals though, if I'm reading this right. Which means that the cumulative effect is that in the years afterwards, the illegal population was increasing at an increasing rate.
And I mentioned that it could be an effect of the overall market boom, but I've never seen that proven or even seriously studied.
Legal
1980-2005 was 14.1 to 35.2, an increase of 149.6%.
Illegal
1980-2005 was 3 to 9.7, an increase of 223.3%.
Have you ever read about the matter from a publication that didn't consider amnesty being the culprit as an obvious given?
Its not our job to fix Mexico's rampant corruption or other problems. And when we've tried to do it elsewhere, it goes badly.
Does the Wall Street Journal count? They are notoriously pro-immigration.
That's a fairly interesting observation. What it looks like, to me, is that the two lines are marching along in perfect counterpoint, which implies to me that there's pretty much a set number of immigrants coming here per year, regardless of any other factors. Those that can enter legally do, those that can't say "fuck it" and cross the border anyway.
The logical extension of this would be that if we greatly increased legal immigration numbers, we would create a corresponding plummet in illegal numbers.
Fair enough. The flow of illegals wont be stopping any time soon.
I was speaking of the years immediately after the amnesty, though the data was mostly missing. At the start of the illegal data, it corresponds with the last of the spike in legal immigration.
To your point here, I can see that the two bits are in opposition with each other. My point was that I don't think it draws any conclusions as is as a trend. I don't believe it's sufficient to state that there is no correlation between amnesty and the rise in illegals. In fact, the spike at the beginning of the full data may prove my point. As for the dot com bubble, that began in 1995. Note that the data was erratic during that time. I don't think I could draw a conclusion from that.
Quiet, you.
I wholeheartedly endorse this course of action.
It gets rid of all this "rule of law" nonsense that our own little Platonist has such a damn fixation on.
Would we see a spike in immigration? Probably. Would it be a significant spike? Probably not. People come across the border if they want to, and realistically, we can't stop them. They're a boon to our economy, they contribute tax revenue, and they're less criminal than the home population.
So, what would be bad about inviting everyone in who wants to come, again (barring of course terrorists, blah blah blah)?
And consider a America as a group of people, a society if you will, rather than a geographical location? If you want to be a part of it and are willing to contribute, you're in.
Wouldn't you have exactly the same problem as the Ethiopean healthcare problem just at a later date, at least if you wanted to guarantee some sort of a consistancy of quality of life for the previous members? At least if you didn't just go all the way and declare America to be the (opt in) World Government.
Cheap labor comes in, drives down the cost of already cheap labor. Companies hire progressively cheaper labor until you simply can't support yourself or a family because there are too many people looking for jobs. Benefits and health care go right out the fucking window because people need to eat. Dental care and good heart health and all that takes a very large backseat.
You probably can't afford to go to school, so you probably turn around and start selling drugs. Depression hits the unemployed and drug abuse goes up even more. So cartels ship even more drugs here to the waiting previously employed drug dealers.
It'd probably be quite cyclical like that.
That's just a possibility.
Immigration problems and the amnesty did seem to start around the same time you had the crack epidemic. Which is to say in the same decade. Hmmmm....