Flutterby™! : Man-Eating Eagles 2006-04-28 18:32:59.052825+00

Man-Eating Eagles

2006-04-28 18:32:59.052825+00 by Dan Lyke 16 comments

Via Chris, Bush Reveals Plan to Curb Illegal Immigration Via Giant, Man-Eating Eagles. And they said bioengineering could only lead to disaster...

So does anyone have any good solutions to the immigration debate? I'm more towards the "open up the borders" side of things, but I think that needs to get tempered with some more effective foreigh policy. And part of illegal immigration is that we get the hardcore people who really really want to work; there's no better filter than making people walk hundreds of miles across some of the least inviting terrain around, through various armed regional conflicts, all in order to find a better job, for discovering the people I want in my society. I'm afraid that making immigration easier would no longer supply us with the über-laborers that we're getting now.

I guess I mean a couple of things by "good solution". I think the best solution is "open the border". Unfortunately, that's not a politically tenable solution, and won't be for as long as people cling to the notion that government should provide a "safety net". Nor, in most places, are U.S. citizens with no real skills going to give up their cushy jobs to the immigrant who will work harder for less and still feel like their raised standard of living gives them the best part of the deal.

That might, however, be workable as the only way to keep real estate prices in this bubble.

From a purely practical standpoing, the current situation is actually one that serves many people very well: It pays lip-service to those who believe that their jobs are at risk (and most of them aren't smart enough to need more than lip-service), it gives employers cheap labor, and it provides people like me with the cream of other countries to look to as my benchmark; anyone who makes it on foot from Guatemala is way overqualified to help me move or clean up my yard.

Half of me wants to have the same sort of cultural protections that people are screaming about in, say, the Netherlands, but then I realize that we'd have to put up checkpoints here in Northern California to keep all but select Tennesseeans out...

I am reading Oriana Fallaci's two latest books about Muslims and Western Civilization and will write a report shortly - but what I read strongly

unnerves me - as it should all of us....

I've outlined what I think would be a reasonable immigration policy here. It puts a filter into place in that you have to have someone in this country wanting you to be here but outside of that and a couple of other reasonable requirements it pretty much opens up our borders.

I also favor "opening the border". However, like you, I don't think that's politically feasible right now. What might be politically feasible would be to require would-be immigrants to post say, a $200,00 bond before they're allowed a visa. The bond would be forfeit if they ever used a government service or were convicted of a crime. Criminal bonds cost about 10% of their face value, so such a bond might cost an immigrant $20,000 (although I expect the actual amount would be less, since most would-be immigrants are as law-abiding as the rest of us.) Companies or families who wanted to bring friends or relatives to the U.S. could pay for the bonds. I also imagine that bond companies would offer financing.

Such bonds would address one of the main legitimate concerns that the pro-borders folks have -- that immigrants impose costs on the rest of us in the form of extra burden on our social services and increased crime.

crasch: I have a good friend who holds a PhD in economics. He's also a Cuban immigrant (naturalized - immigrated when he was 10). I should ask him for numbers, but I think they will show that immigrants add more value to the economy than they take out. And as much as people are up in arms about illegals, I would bet that their contribution to the economy is orders of magnitude greater than their draw.

Most illegals aren't hardened criminals. They bust their asses to make enough to live on and send some home. A significant portion of what they send home gets spent on US goods. They are generally afraid to use social services with the exception of sending their kids to school.

My Cuban friend also mentioned that his father spent years trying to learn English while working 80+ hours a week to support his family. He didn't need to know English for his job and never could quite get it - but it wasn't for lack of trying.

I don't see bonds or sponsorship as working primarily because there's no incentive (nor great risk of prosecution) for those companies and individuals who ignore them now. All routes of this nature depend on better enforcement/stronger borders which leads us to the "drug war" scenario.

Illegal drugs come into the country because of demand. Because demand remains unchecked, we've spent millions and millions to "secure" the border from smugglers and prosecute those who possess and traffic in illegal drugs without much success.

Shifting the demand curve (for cheap labor) is the ONLY thing which will decrease illegal immigrants. One doesn't contract demand easily for a commodity for which demand is widespread, which we've seen with drugs, but the only real solution lies in that direction.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-05-02 12:49:28.082792+00 by: crasch [edit history]

ebradway -- I wholeheartedly agree. If it were up to me, I'd open the borders completely. However, the majority of Americans disagree with us. And even if immigrants are a net positive overall, some do impose costs on the rest of us. The most common objections I hear to open borders are that immigrants will commit crimes and that they will take advantage of our welfare system (see the immigrant posts on http://www.parapundit.com and http://gnxp.com). My bond proposal addresses both of those concerns -- the bonds will provide a powerful incentive to select only for those unlikely to commit crime or go on welfare, and even if immigrants do commit crimes or go on welfare, the bonds will go a long way to covering the cost.

topspin -- I agree that increased border control would be futile for the same reasons that you specify. However, what do you mean by "not work"? My goal is to change our immigration system so that anyone who will make a net positive contribution can easily move here, and most of those who impose net costs are kept out. I think a bond system would allow many more of those who would be positive contributors to be here legally, while not allowing many more thieves/parasites than the existing system.

Neither bonds nor sponsorship are options now. I think most immigrants would much prefer to be here legally. If bonds or sponsorship were available, I think most would take advantage of them, even if we did not change the demand. Consider this comment from the Becker/Posner blog:

"I am an immigration attorney representing a mostly Chinese clientele, the majority of whom enter the country illegally, so I have some reliable information on the smuggling costs. The current going rate is $65,000 for persons smuggling from the Fuzhou province of China, where the vast majority of the illegal entrants from that country have come from for the last fifteen years.

They happily pay the fee as most were unemployed in China or employed in awful conditions. They are able to pay it back without fail by living frugally, and sharing rooms that are frequently provided by their employer. They eat at the restaurants they work at, and usually do not pay taxes unless they gain immigration status (illegals are no longer permitted to pay taxes as of last year even if they want to). They do not view themselves as indentured servants, nearly all are happy to live in the United States, and virtually none have any desire to return to China, except to visit family."

If Chinese farmers are willing to pay $60 K to coyotes to be here illegally, it seems likely to me that they would be much rather pay $20 K to be here legally.

Perhaps I'm missing your logical connection here, but you seem to be saying that using the bond system would "select" those who would likely be good immigrants, but BOTH the good and bad immigrants pay the "coyotes" so why wouldn't they both pay into the bond system also? There's no logic in suggesting "selection" would occur for better immigrants simply because they are paying someone else to get in the country. If you think so, why?

Further, in the mid-90s Federal legislation limited the federal social services immigrants could receive but many STATES chose to offer state sponsored benefits to immigrants which were not offered by the federal govt. Your plan doesn't fund the states offering the benefits, but the feds who limited their benefits years ago. Making a system which somehow funds the states based upon the number of immigrants they have or somesuch becomes a bureaucratic mess as immigrants move around the country AND expensive. I assume the bonds, in your eyes, would cover the cost of deadbeats, social services, AND distributing the bond money to the states equitably?

"Those who use the social services or commit crimes need to be deported and forfeit their bond money." EVERYONE would agree that deadbeat or criminal immigrants need to be deported and from the immigrant's perspective nothing has changed other than who they pay to get in the country. It simply isn't happening because enforcement sucks. If you're arguing for better enforcement of existing laws, there's nothing new in that argument.

If you are suggesting that bonding or sponsoring allows us to better track these individuals and better able to deport/penalize them, how so? If their employer is willing to turn a blind eye to them as illegals now, what makes you think they won't turn a blind eye to other legal issues?

In the end your argument hinges on increased enforcement or changing the supply side of the equation and I still insist that illegal immigration is demand driven and attempts to alter supply will fail.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-05-03 14:24:43.631658+00 by: crasch [edit history]

Bonding agencies have an incentive to make sure that you're not going to commit crimes or go on welfare, since they will have to pay out the bond if you do, thus reducing their profits.

Most would-be immigrants are not deadbeats or criminals, so I predict most would be bonded and be here legally. They will not have to pay coyotes. Only those who couldn't get someone to bond them would have to pay coyotes.

I assume the bonds, in your eyes, would cover the cost of deadbeats, social services, AND distributing the bond money to the states equitably?

I didn't specify who the bonds would pay out to, but I assumed that the bond money would go to whichever agency the immigrant sought social services from, whether that be federal or state or local. Nor do I claim that the bond would pay off all of the costs for all wrongdoing that all immigrants may cause. However, $200 K is a substantial amount of money, and it would be better to have that money rather than nothing.

If you're arguing for better enforcement of existing laws, there's nothing new in that argument.

I'm not arguing for better enforcement of existing law. If it were up to me, I would eliminate immigration laws altogether. However, that's not possible right now.

However, given that we will have some immigration restrictions, I'm arguing that it would be better to focus scarce enforcement resources on those most likely to be deadbeats and criminals. Most would-be immigrants are not deadbeats and criminals, and it is wasteful to try to keep them out.

I think most immigrants would choose to be here legally, and would be bonded, if it were an option. If most immigrants could become residents legally, there would be much more incentive to cooperate with authorities when they try to round up those who are dead beats and criminals. Businesses would also have little incentive to hire or protect non-bonded workers, if most of their employee population could be bonded.

If their employer is willing to turn a blind eye to them as illegals now, what makes you think they won't turn a blind eye to other legal issues?

Because immigration laws, like laws against drugs and prostitution, create victimless crimes. Most immigrants, in the absence of immigration laws, would be as law abiding as you or I. Employers know this, and thus they turn a blind eye to immigration law violations. However, employers have no use for deadbeats or true criminals so they have no incentive to protect them.

Bonding agencies have an incentive to make sure that you're not going to commit crimes or go on welfare, since they will have to pay out the bond if you do, thus reducing their profits.

So, basically, you would expect the bonding companies to somehow "know" these folks were good guys before bonding them? Is that REALLY practical in your eyes? I find the notion of bonding companies "selecting" good candidates a bit naive, frankly, as their revenue comes from volume. I agree with you about the current character of most immigrants and I think bondsmen would find most immigrants to be great risks, but that tends to produce a business model which discounts the few losses because the volume is high. That model allows the demographics of the immigrants to change from what we currently see.

Put simply: the risky illegal entry process tends to select for those who are driven, ambitious, courageous, and committed. The easier bonding process would greatly increase immigrations but it would also "lower the bar" of courage and drive required and one would expect that would drop the productivity of those bonded immigrants. Surely we can agree that the strong motivation to work and devotion to working that is associated with most illegal immigrants is, in some part, due to "selection" from those willing to endure the harsh, risky conditions to get here. Do you think those qualities can be selected for as well by a bonding agency? If not, then you must realize your plan almost certainly "softens" the productivity of those bonded immigrants.

So, basically, you would expect the bonding companies to somehow "know" these folks were good guys before bonding them? Is that REALLY practical in your eyes?

I don't know exactly how bonding agencies will determine who is a good risk or not. Most likely they will charge different rates based on your risk profile. Swedes will pay less than Saudis, rich professors will pay less than poor peasants. Perhaps they will require immigrants to have family members pay part of the bond, akin to the Grameen bank model. Perhaps they will take advantage of credit reporting agencies in the country of origin. The better they become at identifying bad risks, the more profitable they will be, which will undoubtedly spur innovation.

Surely we can agree that the strong motivation to work and devotion to working that is associated with most illegal immigrants is, in some part, due to "selection" from those willing to endure the harsh, risky conditions to get here. Do you think those qualities can be selected for as well by a bonding agency? If not, then you must realize your plan almost certainly "softens" the productivity of those bonded immigrants.

Yes, it will make it easier for lazier immigrants to get into the states. However, if they don't go on welfare or commit crimes, I have no problems with this.

How do you measure the success or failure of immigration laws? What would your ideal immigration laws look like?

I am, unfortunately, pressed for time and will have a disruptive (but hopefully fun) schedule for the next few days. In a probably futile attempt to continue this discussion, I'll toss out my idea of what's going on and going wrong here.

At the core, immigration laws are exclusionary, selfish, and another example of the USA's "I've got mine!" disregard for the rest of the world.

Successful immigration laws screen for criminals, terrorists, psychopaths, etc. Beyond that, we stop believing in ourselves as a country of opportunity when we exclude those "economically undesireable" immigrants. Apparently that is the case today in America, we are no longer the country of opportunity, innovation, and leadership, but the country of isolation and stagnation.

Somebody, politically and socially, needs to kick the butt of the American people until we believe we are and behave as though we are the richest, brightest, and ballsiest nation that ever existed. Anything less weakens us.

crasch: I've seen you talk about selecting immigrants who will make a positive impact on our country, but I'll submit it's wrong to expect MORE from an immigrant than we do from our citizens. How can we insist an immigrant have a sponsor for a job or a desireable skill or somesuch when we don't expect the same from MANY MANY born here into the welfare culture?

The worry about immigration is: they'll use our social benefits and not pay into the system AND they'll take our jobs.

The immigration issue is indicative of the sickness that is the American economy and social structure. We should step back from our fear of outsiders, step back from our bleeding heart belief that giving people food, shelter, and whatnot is good for them, and start expecting a bit of backbone.

It's a shame those latino immigrants are showing more courage, more drive, more initiative, and more success than MANY MANY born into relative luxury in this country. We MUST expect better of our citizens, then the jobs.... even the low pay, low prestige, low desireability jobs SHOULD be filled by those here who are going through tough times but are determined to pull themselves up.

We have created this crap and we should fix it internally. It is NOT the fault of those who want to come here with a better work ethic than those who are born here.

topspin -- I agree completely with your sentiment. If I had my way, we'd have the minimal screening you propose.