"A Day Without Immigrants"

There was an article in the paper a while back written by a 19th century historian that shed some interesting light on this subject. The article was about the phenomenon of "squatting" in the period of the Western Expansion.

Land rights during that period were handed out pretty much to wealthy Eastern bankers and industrialists who paid pennies on the dollar to lobby their local, state, and national politicians. Those Easterners often ended up "buying up" land rights that contained people who had lived there for generations. Folks who had gone through the effort of cultivating the land and making it productive. Though it is true that they did not hold deed to the land, prior to the Lousiana Purchase and the surveying of Louis and Clark, no such mechanism for deed allocation existed. The act of surveying the land and selling it off, in effect, created a "squatter class" who were unable to or unaware of the process of acquiring the deeds.

Numerous attempts were made either by legal action or even force of arms to remove the farmers from their land. They were, after all, in violation of one of the most revered laws of the land: the right to private property. The fact that the Easterners that held the titles to the land were citizens of states with representation in Congress and the squatters were unpropertied violators of laws made the fight decidedly one-sided. It didn't matter that they were the ones who made the land monetarily significant, that they performed the work, or that they were there first.

After nearly a century of bloody range wars, however, history has taken a very different picture of these squatters than it did at the time. Back then, they were characterized as lawless moochers and violators of private property. Now we call them "pioneers".

I suspect a hundred years of historical retrospect will view the Mexicans much the same way.

Well said Pale.

Pale,

Those situations aren't even remotely similar. The squatters you refer to didn't go onto someone else's land and set up shop. They were there first and their land was bought out from underneath them. They broke no laws at the time they settled their land.

Maybe your only point is to withhold judgement and let future historians weigh the effects. But, the present costs of illegal immigrants is higher than the present benefits. Add to that the fact that they broke laws in coming here, I say warm up the deportation buses.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

Pale,

Those situations aren't even remotely similar. The squatters you refer to didn't go onto someone else's land and set up shop. They were there first and their land was bought out from underneath them. They broke no laws at the time they settled their land.

Wait, didn't the Native Americans have that land first?

Oh my god, I actually agree with JohnnyMojo. I should mark this on my calendar.

Wait, didn't the Native Americans have that land first?

Illegal Mexicans are as much Native Americans as I am a Viking.

JoeBedurndurn wrote:
Wait, didn't the Native Americans have that land first?

Illegal Mexicans are as much Native Americans as I am a Viking.

Huh? I wasn't saying that they were.

My bad, thought you were agreeing with Paleo's illegals as squatter vs rich white guys comment.

I am also confused. Paleo's post about squatters was very interesting but I don't see how it applies besides the "history is the judge" angle. Could somebody lay it out for me?

I was responding directly to LG's contention that "breaking laws makes you a criminal". If anything, disregard for laws regarding the sanctity of personal property would be far more serious than moving here to work. The former involves a taking and direct and serious injury to a specific party. The latter does not.

Oh. Thanks. Maybe I still don't get it, though. Sure some crimes are more serious than others but we still consider littering a crime even though murder exists.

puppies

Right, but I think that Paleo's point is that because an action is prohibited by a state's laws does not necessarily mean it is immoral. I almost always follow my personal morality even when it comes in conflict with the law. Using the laws of a state to guide your own morality helps promote fun things like fascism.

Is it immoral to have an immigration policy?

I was responding directly to LG's contention that "breaking laws makes you a criminal".

Um, it doesn't? I thought that was the definition?

Partisans.

Danjo wrote:

Is it immoral to have an immigration policy?

I think so, yes.

Duttybrew wrote:
Danjo wrote:

Is it immoral to have an immigration policy?

I think so, yes.

Are you saying anarchy is the answer?

Absolutely.

Duttybrew wrote:
Danjo wrote:

Is it immoral to have an immigration policy?

I think so, yes.

Oh. I don't know if I agree, but at least the arguments now make sense.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

Maybe your only point is to withhold judgement and let future historians weigh the effects. But, the present costs of illegal immigrants is higher than the present benefits. Add to that the fact that they broke laws in coming here, I say warm up the deportation buses.

Hard figures on that please?

I'm not saying there are non, but if there are I'd just like to see them. Makes claims in discussions like this more valid.

I'm not going to dig up the research again, but on previous immigration threads, I've posted a ton of stats, cites and links to the actual cost of *illegal* immigrants. I don't have much time before The Duckling wakes up from his nap, but the cost far outweighs the economic benefit.

We're not talking about a couple of people here. We're talking about 11 or 12 Million people. Millions and millions of people. With no health insurance. With no car insurance. No savings accounts, no banking records, an entirely cash underground economy that only rarely leaves the neighborhoods into which it is concentrated...except when it is sent back to Mexico. Who do you think pays when those people get sick, or ram into someone on the freeway? The tax payer, and the citizen who gets rammed.

I think employers who hire illegals should be fined, have their licenses taken away (assuming the business requires licensing; builders, restaurants, etc.), and a set fine should have to be paid to the state *per illegal worker found* that would reimburse the state for state paid benefits. I want that fine to be so excessive, and so over the top that businesses wouldn't even consider hiring anyone who broke the law to get her and is now demanding amnesty.

I want minimum wage raised high enough that people can survive without welfare or food stamps. It disgusts me that American workers who work more than 40 hours a week still don't make enough to buy groceries. It makes me angry when construction crews fire all their American workers, and hire illegals at half the wages. Illegals who don't pay taxes, don't get insurance, are often hurt at work, and for whom the state then becomes responsible. While also, in many cases, having to subsidize the laid off worker as well.

Businesses who hire illegals are the real bad guys in this situation. I understand why people would come north. But I surely think that enticing them here is in bad form and should be stopped.

I've said before, I'll say again; I'm all for immigration. Legally. There is a process. It's not terribly onerous. There's only so far the poor to middle class can be pushed, and this may be the point at which it starts to get ugly. Huge numbers of American blue-collar workers have been put out of work, because illegals will work for subpar wages and the employer doesn't have to pay taxes on them. People collecting food stamps see these illegals working, and know that they used to do the job, but now they're not qualified because they're Americans.

My friend Dave is a master carpenter. His entire crew was American. The company he worked for fired all of them, and hired an entirely illegal crew. The illegal crew is making about $10 an hour, but the employer doesn't have to pay insurance, or fica or unemployment or worker's comp. The company saves about 20% per worker by hiring illegals. And if we don't have legislation that punishs those companies, it's just going to get worse.

Hasn't anchor babies law loophole been closed sometime during the years of Clinton administation?

Ducki is right on everything but minimum wage.

People are paid a wage based on the value of their productivity. If the price of a person's labor isn't worth the productivity of that labor, the person won't get hired. That is why places with higher madated employee costs, such as Michigan or France, have higher unemployment.

The people minimum wage hurts the most are the people who most need entry level jobs. As people get more experience and their productivity improves, their wages increas either through the process of raises or changing jobs.

Other than that...Ducki is right on the money.

Dutty, I think your idea of no immigration laws is wrong-headed. A nation is more than a place where people meet and work. A nation is a community centered around certain moral and political principles. You act as if Americans' traditions, language, culture, and political principles are not legitimate objects of love and worth preservation. For that reason, I wholeheartedly disagee.

The people minimum wage hurts the most are the people who most need entry level jobs. As people get more experience and their productivity improves, their wages increas either through the process of raises or changing jobs.

What about supply and demand? If we restrict the supply of labor by actually enforcing our hiring laws, would every citizen benefit from the increase in demand from the vacuum left by 12 million workers?

Or would we end up in a France-like situation with a disgruntled (legal) immigrant underclass that does all of those jobs that 'Americans won't do'?

The article I think Paleocon is referring to is a Washington Post Op Ed by Penalver:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...

Another article by the same guy from 2 days ago:

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...

I find his comparison of pioneering homesteaders to modern illegal immigrants tenuous at best.

What about supply and demand? If we restrict the supply of labor by actually enforcing our hiring laws, would every citizen benefit from the increase in demand from the vacuum left by 12 million workers?

Potentially. But you have to recognize that the equilibrium point for wages in those type jobs might still be below the government mandated minimum.

There has never been an example in history where government setting the price of anything wasn't worse for the economy than if the market set the price. Wages are the price of labor, and an arbitrary price floor isn't the solution.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:
What about supply and demand? If we restrict the supply of labor by actually enforcing our hiring laws, would every citizen benefit from the increase in demand from the vacuum left by 12 million workers?

Potentially. But you have to recognize that the equilibrium point for wages in those type jobs might still be below the government mandated minimum.

There has never been an example in history where government setting the price of anything wasn't worse for the economy than if the market set the price. Wages are the price of labor, and an arbitrary price floor isn't the solution.

At the risk of threadjacking....

Though, in theory, I agree with you, I think that if we are going to take the pure free market position, we must also require large multinationals like United Fruit and Exxon to cover the costs of their own risk management. That means, no CIA or US military bailouts for their inability to properly arbitrage against political instability in places like Guatemala, Venezuela, or Iran. Should a foreign country nationalize its assets, we should simply tell the multinationals that got screwed that they should have bought insurance.

Paleocon wrote:

Though, in theory, I agree with you, I think that if we are going to take the pure free market position, we must also require large multinationals like United Fruit and Exxon to cover the costs of their own risk management. That means, no CIA or US military bailouts for their inability to properly arbitrage against political instability in places like Guatemala, Venezuela, or Iran.

But if the U.S. doesn't do it, some other country would gladly step in in orer to get on Exxon's good favor.

Mayfield wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Though, in theory, I agree with you, I think that if we are going to take the pure free market position, we must also require large multinationals like United Fruit and Exxon to cover the costs of their own risk management. That means, no CIA or US military bailouts for their inability to properly arbitrage against political instability in places like Guatemala, Venezuela, or Iran.

But if the U.S. doesn't do it, some other country would gladly step in in orer to get on Exxon's good favor.

Like who? The Russians? They can't even deal with their own domestic problems right now. The Chinese? You can't get a chinaman to put out a fire in his next door neighbor's house. You sure as hell aren't going to get him to die in some godforsaken rock he can't find on a map. Nah. Americans are the only folks dumb enough to do that kind of crap.

JMJ wrote:

Dutty, I think your idea of no immigration laws is wrong-headed. A nation is more than a place where people meet and work. A nation is a community centered around certain moral and political principles. You act as if Americans' traditions, language, culture, and political principles are not legitimate objects of love and worth preservation. For that reason, I wholeheartedly disagee.

Thanks for the reply, Johnny. I think we are starting to get to the source of our disagreement on this issue.

I can't see how a 'nation' is anything other than a social fiction. Our culture is as varied as the geography and has been in constant flux since Europeans began coming over here, if not before. Folks in North Dakota probably have more in common with their Canadian neighbors than they do with people living in a city like Miami. So, I don't see how something so fluid can really be preserved or that it should be. Furthermore who is to stop you from preserving your own traditions, language and culture? Unfortunately, I haven't been able to uncover a case in history where strong nationalism has been used to benefit the people who live under the rule of the government promoting it.

Now, I am going to say some things that could easily be twisted around into ideas that would be considered vile or morally bankrupt. So, I will say them with as much deliberation and clarity as I can muster. This dogma of strict adherence to the preservation of traditions and culture has enabled tyranny more than any other factor in history, as far as I can tell. A great example of this is the Holocaust. The Jewish people have long been known to hold onto their culture and traditions with a rare persistence. They are an easy group to identify, and as a result, segregate and persecute (common themes in their history). In Germany, Hitler could point to the Jews and blame them for the plight of the rest of society. Now, it must be said that a large portion of Aryan Germans were swept up in blind jingoism and Hitler would have been nowhere without them. So we have two groups that were so obsessed with preserving and promoting their culture and traditions that they enabled one of the more vicious tyrants of the era. The preservation of tradition and culture has not served the Jews well.

The topic of our political principles is an interesting one. There is this magical mythology that we teach our children about the creation of this country and our founding fathers. These figures are seen as enlightened and benevolent gurus who constructed the first democracy and most perfect form of government. Unfortunately, these are myths. The freedoms that we enjoy today were not bestowed upon us by the Forefathers, but rather were gained through blood and sweat and tireless efforts of union workers, grassroots movements, and other courageous folks desperately trying to get the boot off of their neck. Countless injustices have been done in the name of promoting our political principles and Paleocon's example above is just one case.

So no, I don't believe those things you mentioned are objects worthy of love. In my opinion, the only things worthy of love are those things that have been infused with the gift of life.