There is a lot of talk about immigration right now. It is a teaching moment. Political candidates who want to be President are talking a lot of nonsense.
Start with the basic facts:
The U.S. is overpopulated and creates more ecological destruction per human than any other country on earth (yes, including China).
The economy can not be expanded infinitely.
There has been growing economic inequality.
Immigration amnesties lead to further illegal immigration.
Illegal immigrants mostly compete for the lowest paying jobs. Even legal immigrants tend to compete for entry level jobs, though some are wealthy or educated enough to join the upper class or upple middle class as soon as they get here.
Who else competes for the lowest paying jobs in America? High-school dropouts, and even graduates, of course. That means mainly children of people who themselves are marginally employed or work regularly, but for low wages. Working class and welfare class women. And, disproportionately, people who have traditionally been discriminated against, including African-Americans, American Indians, etc.
The people who advocate for immigration amnesty, and hence for unlimited future immigration to the U.S., are well-intended. They see it as a human rights issue.
And there are long-term benefits to immigration for the economy. More people means more demand and more workers, and so more GDP. Legalized immigrants can better match their talents to the job markets. That is why the Republican establishment used to lead in advocating for more immigration, including immigration amnesty. That is why the largest single amnesty was put in place in 1986 under President Ronald Reagan.
The immediate impact of new immigrants, whether legal or illegal, is pressure on those jobs that require little skill to perform. They are often hard jobs. This includes childcare, cleaning services, and unskilled physical labor. These are exactly the jobs that unskilled citizens, including poor white, black, and hispanic citizens also want. The competition for these jobs pushes down wages, often to below the official minimum wages. It makes finding full time work difficult, except perhaps during brief economic booms. It makes it even harder for families that have been in the United States for generations to accumulate the resources necessary to climb out of the bottom of the working class.
That is why labor unions, otherwise pretty liberal and supporters of the Democratic Party, have traditionally been for minimal immigration.
The effect on the U.S. and global environment is also negative. Most illegal immigrants come here because they are greedy and want to have a higher standard of living than they would have in their native nation. To the extent they achieve that they are using more energy and other natural resources. They are generating more greenhouse gasses, and they are speeding up global warming.
In an ideal world the idea that "all men are created equal" might mean that men and women could move freely, to live wherever they want. We don't live in an ideal world. We live on a dying earth where most nations are already populated beyond what is sustainable. That is particularly true of the United States.
What we really need is a one-child policy in the United States. Mexico needs a one-child policy. So does Canada. So does nearly every nation on earth.
So what is wrong with my dear liberal and leftist friends? They are mostly herd animals, and they are not much for thinking for themselves. They "buy" a package of positions on issues that make them feel good about themselves. They want an environmentalist merit badge and a human rights merit badge. On many issues those badges are quite compatible.
But not for immigration. Increasing immigration and anything that encourages illegal immigration are positions that have practical consquences. They help rich white employers and bankers. They hurt working class men and women, and disproportionately hurt black workers. And they hurt the environment.
Congress should change the immigration law to allow in a number of immigrants each year that will not have a negative impact on employment for unskilled citizens. Congress should not grant amnesty to illegal immigrants.
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Friday, June 12, 2015
Terminate the H1-B Visa Program
The H1-B visa program allowing U.S. businesses to employ specialty workers on a temporary basis should be terminated. It has been abused by employers while offering little or no benefit to the U.S. economy even when used as intended.
The foreign workers employed are supposed to have skills in technology, science, business, or other areas that are not available from potential employees in the U.S.
In large, however, the skills are available from U.S. employees. The difference is the H1-B workers can be employed at low wages and threatened with deportation should they fail to meet employer demands.
In the cases where there are shortages of skilled workers in the U.S., these could be fixed by simply training Americans or providing specific education for them.
In theory only 65,000 H1-B visas are to be issued each year, but due to loopholes in reality almost 136,000 were issued in 2012. Each visa is good for up to six years.
The legal immigration quota for the U.S. currently is 700,000 per year. That does not include student visas and guest workers. That is a lot of new arrivals each year. If Congress wants to prioritize within that 700,000 those who have skills that would help the U.S. economy, I have no problem with that.
Work skills are already one of the criteria for determining who gets a regular immigration slot. The difference is that person does not come to the U.S. as a slave to a corporate sponsor, but may take any employment they like.
Comprehensive immigration reform is something every politician says they want, but different groups have different ideas of what changes they would like.
I favor comprehensive immigration reform, including allowing all North American citizens the freedom to travel, work, and do business anywhere in North America.
But the H1-B visa program has been abused to the point that it should be terminated. No exceptions. Businesses that abused the program should be investigated and sanctioned.
The foreign workers employed are supposed to have skills in technology, science, business, or other areas that are not available from potential employees in the U.S.
In large, however, the skills are available from U.S. employees. The difference is the H1-B workers can be employed at low wages and threatened with deportation should they fail to meet employer demands.
In the cases where there are shortages of skilled workers in the U.S., these could be fixed by simply training Americans or providing specific education for them.
In theory only 65,000 H1-B visas are to be issued each year, but due to loopholes in reality almost 136,000 were issued in 2012. Each visa is good for up to six years.
The legal immigration quota for the U.S. currently is 700,000 per year. That does not include student visas and guest workers. That is a lot of new arrivals each year. If Congress wants to prioritize within that 700,000 those who have skills that would help the U.S. economy, I have no problem with that.
Work skills are already one of the criteria for determining who gets a regular immigration slot. The difference is that person does not come to the U.S. as a slave to a corporate sponsor, but may take any employment they like.
Comprehensive immigration reform is something every politician says they want, but different groups have different ideas of what changes they would like.
I favor comprehensive immigration reform, including allowing all North American citizens the freedom to travel, work, and do business anywhere in North America.
But the H1-B visa program has been abused to the point that it should be terminated. No exceptions. Businesses that abused the program should be investigated and sanctioned.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Impeach Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia's partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion in Arizona v. United States is not a simple prejudiced, racist misreading of the laws of the United States. It is as close to treason as one can get in the United States of America without actually, as the Constitution defines treason, "levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies."
Justice Scalia begins his argument by asserting "The United States is an indivisible 'Union of sovereign States.' Highlander v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co. 305 U.S. 92, 104 (1938)." That individual States are not sovereign is obvious from hundreds of Supreme Court Decisions, even infamous ones like Dred Scott. Scalia's argument is totally dependent on presenting careful selections from U.S. history as if they were strong precedents.
In fact the cases and historic examples he uses have been discredited, or have only minor significance. Given his attitude, it is surprising that Scalia did not cite the declarations of independence of the States that joined the Confederacy, and then forget to remind us that the Confederate States lost the Civil War and had no Supreme Court ever ruled that they had a right to declare independence.
Scalia even cites the (pre-Constitution) Articles of Confederation, neglecting that they were superceded by our Constitution, which created a nation with a federal system in which the national government, including its Supreme Court, are the supreme law of the land.
My opposition to Scalia's opinion is not meant to detract from the rights of States, and of the People, and of the limitations of the power of the central government outlined in the Constitution. It is not a problem for me when Scalia or any American argues for states rights when they actually exist. Scalia goes much further: he joins the rebels of the Confederacy, using their very arguments, and asserting boldly each individual State is sovereign.
Justice Scalia cites the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions to support his views, as did the rebels of the Confederacy. These Resolutions are part of our history, but they amount to an opinion that was not ultimately supported by our people or government. Not by most individual states most of the time, not by any Congress, never by a President (not even by their authors, Jefferson and Madison, once they became Presidents), and not by any Supreme Court justice except the rebel Scalia. States cannot judge laws passed by Congress (and signed by a President) to be unconstitutional. That judgment is a duty of the Supreme Court.
A Supreme Court judge is not supposed to cite the losing sides of arguments as precedents. True, the Supreme Court occasionally overrules precedent, as when Brown v. Board of Education began correcting prior decisions that had limited the human rights of non-white citizens. Scalia, in Arizona v. United States, is not simply re-interpreting the Constitution, straightening out some flaw in its prior application. He is attempting to re-write history, law, and the Constitution, and to break up the United States into 50 separate nations.
At the beginning of Section II Scalia writes "One would conclude from the foregoing that after the adoption of the Constitution there was some doubt about the power of the Federal Government to control immigration, but no doubt about the power of the States to do so." But one's conclusion would be based on Scalia's editing of history to distort the whole cloth of law.
Scalia only reluctantly accepts that the federal government can control immigration "not because of the Naturalization Clause but because it is an inherent attribute of sovereignty no less for the United States than for the States."
So we see the rebel's reasoning clearly: Sovereignty is Supreme, and Scalia and his gang of right-wind legal thugs are to be the interpreters of the meaning of Sovereignty. Does Sovereignty mean trampling on human rights? To Scalia it does. Does it mean trampling on the U.S. Constitution? That is apparent from Scalia's opinion.
After falsely declaring each individual state to be Sovereign (in which case there is no real need for a United States) Scalia claims the case was "about a federal law going to the core of state sovereignty: the power to exclude."
Scalia would exclude illegal immigrants from Arizona. That is not a radical opinion. The problem is the basis of his opinion. Scalia earlier stated who can be removed by a sovereign State: "certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it to the advantage of the state," "obnoxious aliens" (even perhaps bearing Green Cards), "paupers, vagabonds," "persons with contagious diseases," and "freed blacks."
In other words, Scalia would exile anyone Scalia did not like. And a State could exile anyone it did not like. Perhaps Jews, Arabs, Blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, atheists and agnostics, or the unemployed. Perhaps a state ruled by the Republican Party would exile Democratic Party members. The sick and disabled might be cast out. It all depends on who controls a State.
This is madness. Preaching this poison, which is done all too much within the United States of America, is protected by our rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Sitting on the Supreme Court trying to rule based on this poison is not protected.
Antonin Scalia has exceeded the bounds of his appointment. He should resign. If he does not resign, he should be impeached. If Congress fails to impeach him, human rights in this nation will be gravely in danger of disappearing.
Justice Scalia begins his argument by asserting "The United States is an indivisible 'Union of sovereign States.' Highlander v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co. 305 U.S. 92, 104 (1938)." That individual States are not sovereign is obvious from hundreds of Supreme Court Decisions, even infamous ones like Dred Scott. Scalia's argument is totally dependent on presenting careful selections from U.S. history as if they were strong precedents.
In fact the cases and historic examples he uses have been discredited, or have only minor significance. Given his attitude, it is surprising that Scalia did not cite the declarations of independence of the States that joined the Confederacy, and then forget to remind us that the Confederate States lost the Civil War and had no Supreme Court ever ruled that they had a right to declare independence.
Scalia even cites the (pre-Constitution) Articles of Confederation, neglecting that they were superceded by our Constitution, which created a nation with a federal system in which the national government, including its Supreme Court, are the supreme law of the land.
My opposition to Scalia's opinion is not meant to detract from the rights of States, and of the People, and of the limitations of the power of the central government outlined in the Constitution. It is not a problem for me when Scalia or any American argues for states rights when they actually exist. Scalia goes much further: he joins the rebels of the Confederacy, using their very arguments, and asserting boldly each individual State is sovereign.
Justice Scalia cites the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions to support his views, as did the rebels of the Confederacy. These Resolutions are part of our history, but they amount to an opinion that was not ultimately supported by our people or government. Not by most individual states most of the time, not by any Congress, never by a President (not even by their authors, Jefferson and Madison, once they became Presidents), and not by any Supreme Court justice except the rebel Scalia. States cannot judge laws passed by Congress (and signed by a President) to be unconstitutional. That judgment is a duty of the Supreme Court.
A Supreme Court judge is not supposed to cite the losing sides of arguments as precedents. True, the Supreme Court occasionally overrules precedent, as when Brown v. Board of Education began correcting prior decisions that had limited the human rights of non-white citizens. Scalia, in Arizona v. United States, is not simply re-interpreting the Constitution, straightening out some flaw in its prior application. He is attempting to re-write history, law, and the Constitution, and to break up the United States into 50 separate nations.
At the beginning of Section II Scalia writes "One would conclude from the foregoing that after the adoption of the Constitution there was some doubt about the power of the Federal Government to control immigration, but no doubt about the power of the States to do so." But one's conclusion would be based on Scalia's editing of history to distort the whole cloth of law.
Scalia only reluctantly accepts that the federal government can control immigration "not because of the Naturalization Clause but because it is an inherent attribute of sovereignty no less for the United States than for the States."
So we see the rebel's reasoning clearly: Sovereignty is Supreme, and Scalia and his gang of right-wind legal thugs are to be the interpreters of the meaning of Sovereignty. Does Sovereignty mean trampling on human rights? To Scalia it does. Does it mean trampling on the U.S. Constitution? That is apparent from Scalia's opinion.
After falsely declaring each individual state to be Sovereign (in which case there is no real need for a United States) Scalia claims the case was "about a federal law going to the core of state sovereignty: the power to exclude."
Scalia would exclude illegal immigrants from Arizona. That is not a radical opinion. The problem is the basis of his opinion. Scalia earlier stated who can be removed by a sovereign State: "certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it to the advantage of the state," "obnoxious aliens" (even perhaps bearing Green Cards), "paupers, vagabonds," "persons with contagious diseases," and "freed blacks."
In other words, Scalia would exile anyone Scalia did not like. And a State could exile anyone it did not like. Perhaps Jews, Arabs, Blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, atheists and agnostics, or the unemployed. Perhaps a state ruled by the Republican Party would exile Democratic Party members. The sick and disabled might be cast out. It all depends on who controls a State.
This is madness. Preaching this poison, which is done all too much within the United States of America, is protected by our rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Sitting on the Supreme Court trying to rule based on this poison is not protected.
Antonin Scalia has exceeded the bounds of his appointment. He should resign. If he does not resign, he should be impeached. If Congress fails to impeach him, human rights in this nation will be gravely in danger of disappearing.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Immigration, the Economy, and Globalization
I have been avoiding writing about the topic of immigration into the United States of America. I have found most political people, the kind who would be reading a relatively obscure blog like mine, have set views that they do not want challenged by the many facets of the issue. Left and right, people want a simple position they can get their emotions behind. To differ from your crowd risks social rejection. As we have seen in the recent federal funding debates, factions digging into their positions and not seeing an overview (which would give some validity to opposing views) leads to paralysis. Which is great if you want to be frozen into the dysfunctional status quo. I believe that truly understanding all aspects of an issue leads to the best possible (though not necessarily ideal) solutions. So here we go, starting with a legal dissection.
There are two types of immigrants into the United States: legal and illegal (allowing for a handful that occupy gray areas). While many anti-immigrant sentiments, and arguments, may apply to legal immigrants, most Americans seem to be okay with legal immigration, to the extent that it currently exists. Legal immigration can be addressed by Congress, and most people are willing to let the issue be fought out there. Illegal immigrants provoke different reactions. These two types of immigration get tied together when there are proposals to legalize illegal immigrants who have become long-term residents, something also in the power of Congress. I will start with an initial look at illegal immigration, since this is where greatest controversy has been.
One common attitude towards illegal immigrants, the welcoming one, is usually rationalized on a civil rights basis. If all people are created equal, as it says in the Declaration of Independence, then an illegal person is still a person, and standing on American soil should be treated as an equal person, with a path to official citizenship.
There are typically three main reasons many American citizens want illegal immigrants to be removed and to have no pathway to a legal status. One is economic: in effect such immigrants are scabs who lower wages and take jobs from citizens. The second is a dislike of the cultures (or ethnicity) of illegals. The third is based on the act of entering the country illegally: there are legal ways to enter, and illegal entry is a criminal act. This initial act of defiance of U.S. law puts them at odds with those who style themselves as law-abiding citizens.
For me only the racist or ethnic argument is easy to dismiss. I like for new spice to be added to the American melting pot. I don't like narrow-minded or racist culture. The other criticisms, however, are not so easy to dismiss.
There are two good, yet contradictory arguments about the economic effects of illegal immigrants. One is that they take jobs that no one wants, and like any other paid persons, spend their pay mostly on local goods and services and so help keep the wealth creation cycle intact. The others is that they lower wages and use taxpayer funded services to which they contribute nothing or little. I have seen that both of these phenomena exist (ideology bound thinkers refuse to notice one or the other), but the question is, to what extent? The reality is that no single snapshot gives the whole picture. The economic impact varies according to whether the U.S. is in a boom or a recession, and it varies by locality and economic sector. It can be subtle too: according to contractors, for the same rate of pay, many illegals will work harder, with fewer breaks. That benefits the construction corporations, but does it benefit the general economy is nearly-as-productive workers are idled?
To the extent that illegal immigrants do benefit the economy, the obvious solution would be to bring them in legally, either through temporary work programs or by expanding quotas. Then, to the extent that some people focus on the illegality of immigrants, that can be separated from economic impact arguments. The Republican Party has had quite a problem with this aspect of the immigration issue. Capitalists want cheap labor, and love the union-busting tendencies of illegal immigration. Rank and file conservative Republicans feel threatened economically and culturally, and so oppose increasing quotas and temporary work programs. Bachmann, Perry, Romney and crew have to balance the need for big campaign donations from their bosses against the need for the votes of the little people.
I am for maximizing economic benefits to the downtrodden American worker. That means I favor temporary work visas only when there really are no workers already present in this nation who want the jobs available. That means the law would have to be flexible, letting more workers in during booms, maybe excluding them during recessions. Also, such work should really be temporary. If a worker is needed most of the time for a period of say, over two years, they should be given the opportunity to choose to become first a permanent worker and then a citizen.
If this rational policy were followed, illegal immigrants would only be here for their own benefit. They have made a choice to not go through the quota system or temporary labor programs. They have, in effect, stolen someone else's place in line. I think the civil rights argument is inappropriate in this context. I don't believe scabs have a civil right to lower other people's wages or take their jobs. I want to emphasize that I admit to thinking narrowly here, within the context of a national economy box that I think is outmoded. My problem with applying the civil rights argument, in its present context, is that it provides a giant loophole for American capitalists to maximize their own profits while starving working people. We don't need that kind of help.
So far I have kept the argument in a national context, and I think that is part of the problem. We live in a regionalized economy where capitalists think nothing of packing up a plant in Rhode Island and reassembling it for production in Wuchou. NAFTA unites the economies of Canada, the United States, and Mexico, but our freedom to work where we choose in these three nations is excluded from the deal.
Mexico is the Godzilla of the immigration debate. Often illegal immigrant is synonymous with illegal Mexican immigrant. Anti-immigrant sentiment sees Mexico as a horde of people seething to inundate the U.S., held back only by immigration and anti-immigration laws.
This is absurd. Open the borders and there would be some brief acceleration of immigration from Mexico, but it has never been all that hard to get into the U.S., despite tragic deaths in the deserts near the border. There just are not that many people in Mexico. The population of Mexico is about 112,000,000. The U.S. population is about 312,000,000.
If anything, open borders would be a problem for Mexico. Remember, the Mexico used to include Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. American birth rates and illegal immigration into those states in the 1840s were a precursor of their theft by the U.S. government. I believe that given the lower cost of living in Mexico today, a lot more Americans would move there if they were free to come and go, buy housing, and work there. 10% of the American population moving to Mexico would have a far greater impact there than 10% of the Mexican population moving to the U.S. The failure of Canada and the U.S. to arrange for mutual citizenship is even more absurd.
What is true regionally is true globally. While I believe there would be enormous cultural and economic benefits to having global citizenship, to everyone being able to live and work where they choose, in the short run I would want the transition to be well-managed. The gates should come down slowly. If someone is coming to America, they should have a plan, basically a job lined up, and the same for Americans emigrating to greener pastures.
Another big context is overpopulation. I believe it is a fact that the world is overpopulated with humans. I believe the global number of humans needs to be substantially reduced over time if the environment that supports us all remains healthy. Therefore I support a two-child maximum policy in the U.S., and think that is appropriate in much of the rest of the world as well.
I don't think my immigration ideas are likely to be implemented by the U.S. anytime soon (even though they have been implemented within the European Union). To allow for mutual immigration between the U.S. and any other country, notably Mexico, I would like to require that the partner country recognize women's rights to birth control and abortions, and implement a two-child maximum policy. Of course if every nation did that, less people would feel compelled to emigrate from their native lands.
There are two types of immigrants into the United States: legal and illegal (allowing for a handful that occupy gray areas). While many anti-immigrant sentiments, and arguments, may apply to legal immigrants, most Americans seem to be okay with legal immigration, to the extent that it currently exists. Legal immigration can be addressed by Congress, and most people are willing to let the issue be fought out there. Illegal immigrants provoke different reactions. These two types of immigration get tied together when there are proposals to legalize illegal immigrants who have become long-term residents, something also in the power of Congress. I will start with an initial look at illegal immigration, since this is where greatest controversy has been.
One common attitude towards illegal immigrants, the welcoming one, is usually rationalized on a civil rights basis. If all people are created equal, as it says in the Declaration of Independence, then an illegal person is still a person, and standing on American soil should be treated as an equal person, with a path to official citizenship.
There are typically three main reasons many American citizens want illegal immigrants to be removed and to have no pathway to a legal status. One is economic: in effect such immigrants are scabs who lower wages and take jobs from citizens. The second is a dislike of the cultures (or ethnicity) of illegals. The third is based on the act of entering the country illegally: there are legal ways to enter, and illegal entry is a criminal act. This initial act of defiance of U.S. law puts them at odds with those who style themselves as law-abiding citizens.
For me only the racist or ethnic argument is easy to dismiss. I like for new spice to be added to the American melting pot. I don't like narrow-minded or racist culture. The other criticisms, however, are not so easy to dismiss.
There are two good, yet contradictory arguments about the economic effects of illegal immigrants. One is that they take jobs that no one wants, and like any other paid persons, spend their pay mostly on local goods and services and so help keep the wealth creation cycle intact. The others is that they lower wages and use taxpayer funded services to which they contribute nothing or little. I have seen that both of these phenomena exist (ideology bound thinkers refuse to notice one or the other), but the question is, to what extent? The reality is that no single snapshot gives the whole picture. The economic impact varies according to whether the U.S. is in a boom or a recession, and it varies by locality and economic sector. It can be subtle too: according to contractors, for the same rate of pay, many illegals will work harder, with fewer breaks. That benefits the construction corporations, but does it benefit the general economy is nearly-as-productive workers are idled?
To the extent that illegal immigrants do benefit the economy, the obvious solution would be to bring them in legally, either through temporary work programs or by expanding quotas. Then, to the extent that some people focus on the illegality of immigrants, that can be separated from economic impact arguments. The Republican Party has had quite a problem with this aspect of the immigration issue. Capitalists want cheap labor, and love the union-busting tendencies of illegal immigration. Rank and file conservative Republicans feel threatened economically and culturally, and so oppose increasing quotas and temporary work programs. Bachmann, Perry, Romney and crew have to balance the need for big campaign donations from their bosses against the need for the votes of the little people.
I am for maximizing economic benefits to the downtrodden American worker. That means I favor temporary work visas only when there really are no workers already present in this nation who want the jobs available. That means the law would have to be flexible, letting more workers in during booms, maybe excluding them during recessions. Also, such work should really be temporary. If a worker is needed most of the time for a period of say, over two years, they should be given the opportunity to choose to become first a permanent worker and then a citizen.
If this rational policy were followed, illegal immigrants would only be here for their own benefit. They have made a choice to not go through the quota system or temporary labor programs. They have, in effect, stolen someone else's place in line. I think the civil rights argument is inappropriate in this context. I don't believe scabs have a civil right to lower other people's wages or take their jobs. I want to emphasize that I admit to thinking narrowly here, within the context of a national economy box that I think is outmoded. My problem with applying the civil rights argument, in its present context, is that it provides a giant loophole for American capitalists to maximize their own profits while starving working people. We don't need that kind of help.
So far I have kept the argument in a national context, and I think that is part of the problem. We live in a regionalized economy where capitalists think nothing of packing up a plant in Rhode Island and reassembling it for production in Wuchou. NAFTA unites the economies of Canada, the United States, and Mexico, but our freedom to work where we choose in these three nations is excluded from the deal.
Mexico is the Godzilla of the immigration debate. Often illegal immigrant is synonymous with illegal Mexican immigrant. Anti-immigrant sentiment sees Mexico as a horde of people seething to inundate the U.S., held back only by immigration and anti-immigration laws.
This is absurd. Open the borders and there would be some brief acceleration of immigration from Mexico, but it has never been all that hard to get into the U.S., despite tragic deaths in the deserts near the border. There just are not that many people in Mexico. The population of Mexico is about 112,000,000. The U.S. population is about 312,000,000.
If anything, open borders would be a problem for Mexico. Remember, the Mexico used to include Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. American birth rates and illegal immigration into those states in the 1840s were a precursor of their theft by the U.S. government. I believe that given the lower cost of living in Mexico today, a lot more Americans would move there if they were free to come and go, buy housing, and work there. 10% of the American population moving to Mexico would have a far greater impact there than 10% of the Mexican population moving to the U.S. The failure of Canada and the U.S. to arrange for mutual citizenship is even more absurd.
What is true regionally is true globally. While I believe there would be enormous cultural and economic benefits to having global citizenship, to everyone being able to live and work where they choose, in the short run I would want the transition to be well-managed. The gates should come down slowly. If someone is coming to America, they should have a plan, basically a job lined up, and the same for Americans emigrating to greener pastures.
Another big context is overpopulation. I believe it is a fact that the world is overpopulated with humans. I believe the global number of humans needs to be substantially reduced over time if the environment that supports us all remains healthy. Therefore I support a two-child maximum policy in the U.S., and think that is appropriate in much of the rest of the world as well.
I don't think my immigration ideas are likely to be implemented by the U.S. anytime soon (even though they have been implemented within the European Union). To allow for mutual immigration between the U.S. and any other country, notably Mexico, I would like to require that the partner country recognize women's rights to birth control and abortions, and implement a two-child maximum policy. Of course if every nation did that, less people would feel compelled to emigrate from their native lands.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Bundling Immigration, the Economy, and the Environment
A few personal notes before getting onto the topic of the day:
I am now getting abusive email from a neo-Nazi who objects to my America: Republic or Democracy? essay. He favors republics over democracies. And presumably dictatorships over republics. I am sure conservatives who prefer a republic with minority rule by the rich are really glad to have neo-Nazi protection of their flanks on this issue.
Volunteers collected enough signatures to put me on the ballot for the state assembly race as the Green Party candidate (1st Assembly District, California), but not enough that I could be on without paying a filing fee, and not as many as I said I would require to show that it was worth running. The incumbent Democratic Party guy raises hundreds of thousands of dollars every cycle. If I had governed California as bad as he had I would fall on my sword, but this guy just has staff members collect his signatures and pay his filing fee. Even if I coughed up the filing fee, the expense (time and energy as well as money) of running a campaign is not the best use of me this year. On the other hand I have until March 12 to make a final decision.
My spring garden is well underway. Fava bean plants are about 4 inches high, radish sprouts are visible, and the earliest apple and plum trees have already started blooming. My tea plants were devastated by a rabbit or other rodent a few weeks ago, so I put wire cages around them and am hoping for a recovery.
I did a lot of good thinking about an Assembly campaign. How would I answer a question on immigration? Immigration is a great example of bundling issues, and the problems that causes.
The left, including the centrists who call themselves liberals, like to be pro-immigrant. The right is mainly anti-immigrant.
But the left also tends to be environmentalist, and most environmentalists will admit that we have an unsustainable global population. The population of the U.S. is too large too. My district is traditionally forested, so we could probably convert more forests to food production and sustain a larger local population, but lefty environmentalists are against that. You would think environmentalists would be against immigration, even legal immigration. It not only raises the population (and stress on the environment) in the short run, but immigrants tend to have a lot of children, so it leads to even more stress in the long run.
For many conservatives the bottom line is not "unborn babies," but the economy. That is why taxes are so important to them. They want economic expansion, the environment be damned. Low taxes are a priority. So you would think they would favor unlimited immigration, at least for middle-class to rich immigrants. Think how fast housing stock would be dried up if anyone who would buy a house would be allowed to immigrate legally and immediately.
So why is pro-immigration sentiment bundled with contradictory leftist views, and anti-immigrant sentiment bundled with contradictory rightist views?
Emotionally leftists can identify with immigrants; conservatives see immigrants are foreign in a scary way. Other issues feed into these basic emotions. Liberals and conservatives both say they care about human rights, but the rights they care about differ in subtle ways. I think the liberal-left feeling is that you really need to treat all individuals equally, so if someone is physically present in the U.S., even after illegal entry, they should be treated like citizens, who are citizens precisely because they are phyiscally present.
Conservatives feel no similar obligation. Human rights are largely property rights, and property rights have a history for each individual. To the extent citizenship is a property right, you can't just get it by standing on American soil. You need to establish title.
Would it be possible to change the bundling? I have seen it tried several times. I have seen environmentalists argue against illegal immigration (trying to get large organization like the Siera Club to take a sensible position). They get screamed at as being racist neo-nazis for even trying to discuss the subject. On the other hand I have seen many attempts by Republican business men to try to get fellow Republicans to show some sense about the business benefits of immigration. Even former President George W. Bush tried to make this argument. The only result was that Republican politicians learned to keep any pro-business, pro-immigration ideas out of their campaign rhetoric. The rank-and-file will not stand for it.
Locally (Humboldt County and Mendocino County, California) the talk is usually in terms of development. Liberals and environmentalists are usually anti-development but pro-immigrant, which is contradictory. Conservative are pro-development and anti-immigrant. Also contradictory.
I would like to see the immigration issue unbundled from the liberal v. conservative fight so that we can talk about it rationally. There are economic benefits to high level of immigration, and there are environmental consequences to immigration. There are also legitimate human rights issues involved.
I am now getting abusive email from a neo-Nazi who objects to my America: Republic or Democracy? essay. He favors republics over democracies. And presumably dictatorships over republics. I am sure conservatives who prefer a republic with minority rule by the rich are really glad to have neo-Nazi protection of their flanks on this issue.
Volunteers collected enough signatures to put me on the ballot for the state assembly race as the Green Party candidate (1st Assembly District, California), but not enough that I could be on without paying a filing fee, and not as many as I said I would require to show that it was worth running. The incumbent Democratic Party guy raises hundreds of thousands of dollars every cycle. If I had governed California as bad as he had I would fall on my sword, but this guy just has staff members collect his signatures and pay his filing fee. Even if I coughed up the filing fee, the expense (time and energy as well as money) of running a campaign is not the best use of me this year. On the other hand I have until March 12 to make a final decision.
My spring garden is well underway. Fava bean plants are about 4 inches high, radish sprouts are visible, and the earliest apple and plum trees have already started blooming. My tea plants were devastated by a rabbit or other rodent a few weeks ago, so I put wire cages around them and am hoping for a recovery.
I did a lot of good thinking about an Assembly campaign. How would I answer a question on immigration? Immigration is a great example of bundling issues, and the problems that causes.
The left, including the centrists who call themselves liberals, like to be pro-immigrant. The right is mainly anti-immigrant.
But the left also tends to be environmentalist, and most environmentalists will admit that we have an unsustainable global population. The population of the U.S. is too large too. My district is traditionally forested, so we could probably convert more forests to food production and sustain a larger local population, but lefty environmentalists are against that. You would think environmentalists would be against immigration, even legal immigration. It not only raises the population (and stress on the environment) in the short run, but immigrants tend to have a lot of children, so it leads to even more stress in the long run.
For many conservatives the bottom line is not "unborn babies," but the economy. That is why taxes are so important to them. They want economic expansion, the environment be damned. Low taxes are a priority. So you would think they would favor unlimited immigration, at least for middle-class to rich immigrants. Think how fast housing stock would be dried up if anyone who would buy a house would be allowed to immigrate legally and immediately.
So why is pro-immigration sentiment bundled with contradictory leftist views, and anti-immigrant sentiment bundled with contradictory rightist views?
Emotionally leftists can identify with immigrants; conservatives see immigrants are foreign in a scary way. Other issues feed into these basic emotions. Liberals and conservatives both say they care about human rights, but the rights they care about differ in subtle ways. I think the liberal-left feeling is that you really need to treat all individuals equally, so if someone is physically present in the U.S., even after illegal entry, they should be treated like citizens, who are citizens precisely because they are phyiscally present.
Conservatives feel no similar obligation. Human rights are largely property rights, and property rights have a history for each individual. To the extent citizenship is a property right, you can't just get it by standing on American soil. You need to establish title.
Would it be possible to change the bundling? I have seen it tried several times. I have seen environmentalists argue against illegal immigration (trying to get large organization like the Siera Club to take a sensible position). They get screamed at as being racist neo-nazis for even trying to discuss the subject. On the other hand I have seen many attempts by Republican business men to try to get fellow Republicans to show some sense about the business benefits of immigration. Even former President George W. Bush tried to make this argument. The only result was that Republican politicians learned to keep any pro-business, pro-immigration ideas out of their campaign rhetoric. The rank-and-file will not stand for it.
Locally (Humboldt County and Mendocino County, California) the talk is usually in terms of development. Liberals and environmentalists are usually anti-development but pro-immigrant, which is contradictory. Conservative are pro-development and anti-immigrant. Also contradictory.
I would like to see the immigration issue unbundled from the liberal v. conservative fight so that we can talk about it rationally. There are economic benefits to high level of immigration, and there are environmental consequences to immigration. There are also legitimate human rights issues involved.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
A Quick, Cheap Housing and Economy Fix
Know anyone on the Obama transition team? Pass this idea along to them, see if they can indeed think outside the box:
Sell the glut of houses to immigrants. It will cost taxpayers nothing. All that Congress & the President would have to do is to authorize those who are already on the waiting list, and have the money to buy a house, to come on in.
Even administrative costs would be minimal. Those who can show the financial ability to buy a house could get temporary visas to come in (I would not want them to buy a house unseen), pick a house, and make the arrangements. When the money is transferred and the new title recorded, they get their green card and can occupy the house.
The entire surplus of American houses could be disposed of in six months to a year. Housing prices would stop falling, so people would (mostly) stop defaulting on their mortgages. Banks would be saved.
Cost to tax payers: zero.
The anti-immigrant types might scream, but we would not be letting in more immigrants in the long run. Just speeding up the current program. Quotas would remain the same, so legal immigration would slow for a while once the program was completed.
I just can't think of anything wrong with this idea, except that it does not involve giving away taxpayer dollars, and most politicians are too spineless to tack into the the anti-immigration headwinds even when the benefits to the United States of America are so obvious.
Pass the idea along.
Sell the glut of houses to immigrants. It will cost taxpayers nothing. All that Congress & the President would have to do is to authorize those who are already on the waiting list, and have the money to buy a house, to come on in.
Even administrative costs would be minimal. Those who can show the financial ability to buy a house could get temporary visas to come in (I would not want them to buy a house unseen), pick a house, and make the arrangements. When the money is transferred and the new title recorded, they get their green card and can occupy the house.
The entire surplus of American houses could be disposed of in six months to a year. Housing prices would stop falling, so people would (mostly) stop defaulting on their mortgages. Banks would be saved.
Cost to tax payers: zero.
The anti-immigrant types might scream, but we would not be letting in more immigrants in the long run. Just speeding up the current program. Quotas would remain the same, so legal immigration would slow for a while once the program was completed.
I just can't think of anything wrong with this idea, except that it does not involve giving away taxpayer dollars, and most politicians are too spineless to tack into the the anti-immigration headwinds even when the benefits to the United States of America are so obvious.
Pass the idea along.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Hugo the Puppy, Victor Hugo, and John Steinbeck
Jan brought back a puppy from San Diego, a gift from her parents. It is supposed to be a poodle crossed with a Maltese, but he looks like a small poodle to me. I wanted to name him Danton or Robespierre after the French Revolution figures, but eventually we settled on Hugo, after Victor Hugo, the author. Jan is a big Victor Hugo fan.
Victor Hugo's best known works include The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Les Miserables. In the latter work he alternates between chapters about Paris in general and chapters in which we follow the characters while the plot moves forward.
California author John Steinbeck used a similar pattern in The Grapes of Wrath, a justly famous book. I just finished reading it, for the fourth time in my life, this week. Steinbeck had become famous upon publication of Tortilla Flat, a novel where questions of ethics are raised to high humor, but in which poverty is made to seem more fun than middle-class existence. But the poverty of Tortilla Flat is an established, well-worked out poverty. In Wrath the leading characters are well-removed from their former middle-class farm existence, having become tenant farmers on land they formerly owned, before the book begins. But a new and terrible poverty is their fate in California, where they were treated with an amazing lack of hospitality. They are not treated as citizens, or as people, just as movable and expendable pieces of farm equipment.
I have written a great deal about the problem of overpopulation in the United States and the world. Immigration to the U.S. is a perplexing problem. Even legal immigration contributes to overpopulation. Yet I believe every human being should be treated with dignity and respect where ever in the world they go, no matter what their national origin.
It would be nice if we could persuade humans to voluntarily control their reproduction, and of course many do. But too many do not, and I don't buy the argument that as the world gets wealthier reproduction rates always go down. I don't believe that the poor of the world, lets call that about 3 billion people, are going to get wealthier any time in the near future. This year, because of inflated food prices, most of them became much poorer. I also believe there are cultural issues that determine the number of children women have. Religious beliefs play a big part.
I don't know what Victor Hugo would think, but I suspect John Steinbeck would be having the same dilemma. Steinbeck had a fine appreciation of the natural world and natural science. Two of his best novels, Sweet Thursday and Cannery Row, feature a biologist protagonist. John would tell you that when all the fish in the sea are caught, there will be no more fish to eat. And animal populations that get out of control always crash eventually, for one reason or another.
Here's a bit of The Grapes of Wrath, near the beginning of Chapter Five:
Some of the owner men were kind because they hated what they had to do, and some of them were angry because they hated to be cruel, and some of them were cold because they had long ago found that one could not be an owner unless they were cold. And all of them were caught in something larger than themselves. Some of them hated the mathematics that drove them, and some were afraid, and some worshipped the mathematics because it provided a refuge from thought and from feeling.
More data:
Books at Amazon.com:
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Les Miserables
The Grapes of Wrath
Tortilla Flat
Cannery Row
Sweet Thursday
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
