El Peregrino

I am of the opinion that the positive externalities outweigh the negative ones, particularly when we consider, as I believe we should, the benefits to the migrants.

First this is a really good post for a libertarian-leaning blogger. Good being defined as 'I can agree with much of it' . Or perhaps, it really attempts to think through many aspects of the issue.

However, I have to object to the second clause of that sentence on semi-technical as well as normative grounds.

On technical issues, I suspect by positive externalities to the migrants, many will read or think , yes they can make much higher incomes. But this isn't an externality, it is part of the internals of employing immigrant labor. Positive externalities might be things like being exposed to American democracy etc. but I suspect that we as a people -- no take that back -- the sort of people who are big immigration fans are much to cowed to assert any such claim. Nor is it clear that many migrants, esp. illegal migrants, think all that much of US American culture, witness the plethora of Mexican flags at the first 'marchas' for amnesty. They might be right, from their point of view. I've seen studies that show that Mexicans in America have worse health overall, due to adopting the high-fat high sugar diet typical of poorer Americans. Latino kids are more prone to crime than the white population, but their migrant parents are less so. So clearly being a migrant in America has some corrosive effect on both the family and individuals.

Keeping all the above in mind, I disagree on the normative issue whether 'we must consider positive externalities to the migrants themselves' . Let's say I live in a gate-guarded community with a swimming pool and gym. As in all such communities there are regulations about number of families that can live in a dwelling. Now, lets suppose my neighbor converts his den into living space and rents it out. The person that moves in benefits primarily by having a roof over his head, but may experience the external benefit of greater health if he takes up swimming. Now, must all the homeowners in the gate-guarded community take into consideration the tenants increased health when they ask his landlord to stop renting out part of his house? Must they weigh it, for example, against the additional car parked on the street? McCardle's logic implies that we must.

One of the mysteries of modern life is how some many people in the first world can be so oblivious about immigration. Mass migration from 'the south' to the relatively wealthy north is causing knock on effects, so much so that the longstanding populations of heavily immigration impacted countries and regions are themselves moving towards greener pastures. The strange thing is that this is all happening despite the vanishingly small benefit of mass migration to the inhabitants of receiving societies.

So given the mystery, it is not surprising that an English octegenarian cartoonist should join the fray on the side of migrants. After fifty years of assimilating into British life, Paddington Bear is now to represent the refugee. He is, in fact, arrested by a police constable after admitting he is from Peru. This episode is supposed to represent Britain 'Here and Now', but anyone who has lived in Blighty recently knows how unlikely it is that a PC would question anyone's immigration status, let alone arrest a foreigner merely for being a foreigner in Britain.

The LA Times' Gregory Rodriguez took a trip up to farm country and found that the growers in Tulare County wanted to keep their labor force in place--on your dime. That is, the Citrus town of Lindsay was applying for federal aid to "avert an economic meltdown" devising an:

innovative plan to not only address joblessness but to keep the workforce from abandoning the town. Invoking the memory of Franklin D. Roosevelt's Depression-era Works Projects Administration, the city's elected officials — all of whom are Republicans — are seeking federal aid to put the idle labor force to work on local improvement efforts. ("A Town that Wants Illegal Immigrants,"   Feb 11)

I wrote the following to the Times--resisting the temptation to ask how throwback to the 1930s WPA can be "innovative".

Lindsay, California presents a wonderful example of the dangers of relying on imported low-wage labor. According to the 2000 United States Census, the median household income in Lindsay is just below $25,000—half the United States’ average. Per capita income was less than 40% of the national average and 39% of the town’s population lived below the poverty line. Lindsay was (and is) a very poor place; given the nature of its population, much of the poverty is imported.

In light of these facts, Lindsay’s request for federal largess is yet another data point showing that mass immigration does not pay for itself. Private businesses may gain, but we all pay the costs. Rather than subsidize Lindsay’s cheap labor habit, government should prompt farmers to mechanize. Increasing labor productivity and reducing the need for immigrant labor is the only viable long-term solution for California agriculture.

The letter didn't make it in, but I can't complain too much about, as a much pithier message was printed [scroll down].

Additional thoughts: Why is agriculture special in regard to immigration? After all, many United States industries have adapted to high labor costs by innovating or (in the worse case) moving operations abroad. Florida juice orange growers are already mechanizing, and surely we can import table oranges from, say, Mexico. Why not let trade and mechanization work its magic, rather than stay stuck with a cheap labor strategy which will fail in the long run?

Karl Rove's plan for Latinizing the GOP bangs into reality yet again.

From Yahoo News

At a recent concert, the 35-year-old singer stuck up his middle finger when he sang the president's name in his song "Asignatura Pendiente," which includes the words, "a photo with Bush." The gesture last Friday prompted cheers from thousands of fans in the San Juan stadium.

Some libertarians are so committed to their vision of a society of atomistic individuals that they go far beyond calls for a minimal state, or even the abolition of the state. They sink into a something very near hatred for the society in which they were raised, its customs, language and symbols become anathema to them. As example.

What underlies this sanctimonious campaign on behalf of learning English has very little to do with immigrants respecting the language and culture of the lands to which they are moving. It has more to do with maintaining the collective political and social identity that is rapidly collapsing throughout America and Europe. The world is becoming decentralized, and nothing reflects this more than the variety of languages with which people speak to one another in society. The idea that such processes can be resisted by forcing everyone to speak in one tongue is, like the "war on terror," an expression of efforts to rebuild sand castles whose foundations are being washed away by incoming tides. Butler Shaffer Time hack -- 06:11 PM, May 23


Note here we are not speaking about the state. We are talking about American society and American culture. Shaffer cannot bear the fact that people identify with one another based on language, custom, tradition, heritage, and for better or worse, physical appearance. He is especially outrages that people that look like him, speak his language, share his way of life do so.
He seems not to mind the collective action of migrants from the south.

Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez can buy off their publics with generous subsidies and ignore Western pressure while sabotaging democratic developments from Central America to Central Asia.

It seems to me that Max Boot is confusing'democracy' with 'neoliberal'. Hugo Chavez was elected, survived a coup due to popular support, and (I believe) has been reelected. Putin was electedc, and facing a country whose assets were sold off in a corrupt privatization, which faces a demographic collapse, and whose true major export is prostitutes, is taking tough steps to save his nation. Neither of these guys are pursuing the neoliberal course, but so what?

Max wants to coordinate with China (?!) to make sure it constructs a less "gas guzzling" infrastructure. Good luck on that, buddy -- China does what it wants. But the internal inconsistancy is stunning. China is a democracy? Why is China's party dictatorship, nationalism, and total control of the media otay with ol' Max but Putin and Chavez are the devil incarnate?

Moreover, why does anyone even care what Max Boot thinks. Is it the uncanny accuracy of his predictions on the Iraq war? (Is that his really name? I am beginning to suspect "Max Boot" is an elaborate hoax, a characature is the neoliberal/neoconservative dvoika that passes for "foreign policy strategy" in our great nation.)

Andrew Sullivan takes on the 'social right' yet again. Too worried about demographics, says the pundit of P-town.

Wealthier societies with fewer people and continued growth are - or should be - a goal for most of us, not a threat.

Well, yes and no. If, like Japan, you are busy investing in capital to conserve human labor for jobs that absolutely must be done by humans, you can indeed maintain your society (for a while) with a negative population growth rate.

If, like Europe, you are busy importing people from cultures that are incompatible with your traditional culture, you have quite another situation on your hands. 7/7 , 3/11, Theo van Gogh, Fortyn, are all examples of the problem you face.

If you are importing people whose government tells them that half their land was taken unjustly by the United States, you also have a problem -- perhaps not as severe, but real none the less.

In other words, an aging and decline population is not a major worry --if you are not letting in millions of immigrants. If you are, you are both endangering some of the gains in standard of living that derive from a less crowded country, and you are ultimately endangering your society.

No doubt its been a tough week for immigration reformers (and by reformers I mean restrictionists). Ten years ago the country was debating whether high levels of legal immigration were good. Now the country is on the verge of granting an amnesty to tens of millions of illegals and vastly expanding the number of "temporary" visas.

The good thing is that the issue is back in peoples consciousness. While polls show some confusion, to say the least, on the part of Americans regarding the issue, there are signs that pundits are starting to think about it in a serious way. I am confident that the American people are truly not happy with current immigration policy -- legal or illegal. Very few people outside of the bicoastal elites turly like to seen their old neighborhood made over demographically. With some leadership from the chattering classes (e.g. this Diane West essay) I am confident Americans will find their voice for a new, vastly lowered level of total immigration.