Outsourcing Immigration

No cool links here. Just pondering, while watching another GOP debate, the immigration issue. Long time readers of the H-blog (Hi Ma!) know that I'm pro immigration. Not that I'm a pro at immigration, honestly I've never even immigrated before, not once. More that I'm all for free trade and that I'm all for allowing people to pull an Eddie Murphy.

But what made me stop and say, "STOP THE PRESSES!" is "Outsourcing." Remember when that was the big danger facing our country? Remember all those books? How it was destroying the economy, killing off jobs here, making the poor, poorer and the rich, richer? How if it kept up America would fall into ruin and we would be owned by India? Funny how none, and I do mean none of that happened. Funny also, how during this Presidential Election Cycle I can't find a single candidate staking his (sigh, or her) election on this most pressing issue. This catastrophic event was something like two years ago, and now its dead. We're all OK, no bill were needed, no new laws, no...nothing.

Could it be that the same thing is happening with Immigration? I'm pretty sure that there's some saying about "those who don't learn good from history* stuff, make it all bad again."

Could it be that we're a nation of lemmings? Following whatever latest "America Destroying Danger" the politicians come up with to run on?

Nawwwwww?


*How come the feminists haven't jumped all over HIStory like they did Womyn?

The Real Mystery: Who Voted for Her?

No one knows what to think about our immigration problems. Not only does an elected city councilman from LA not understand what to do about the problem..she didn't even know she was part of it. For some reason a person deemed competent enough to lead her fellow Americans didn't realize that not being born here may actually effect her resident status. Now, I don't expect Mrs. Meyer to know everything, but isn't it a no-brainer that you would want to look into what restrictions apply to you knowing you weren't born in the country where you are running for public office? And trying to scare up sympathy with the old, "If they can do this to me they can do it to anybody" nonsense is just pathetic. I think most other people would have had the sense to make one call to the immigration office at some point in their life to check on the rules.

I really don't want Mrs Meyer to be deported because she clearly didn't violate the intent of the law. And I wouldn't mind having her as a neighbor because she is probably a very nice lady. However, I do hope the people of LA are sharp enough to realize that if someone can't manage something so simple in their personal life, they have no business managing a city.

Immigration Idea

Much like Muscles For Justice in Drives Ed, the Immigration Bill failed. Not much to add, only that I continue to be surprised by how quickly this issue became a hot button and how emotional it is. As always, I think that the "immigration crisis" is a created phenomenon.

However, looking at it, I do have one question. Why is the ability to work tied to citizenship? Seems like we can have a guest worker program (I'm for open borders on working, but I'll take this as a step) that has nothing to do with citizenship. This way the US can have the benefit of cheap labor that expands the market of available goods and services or all Americans and the benefit of taxing that labor (which in theory lessens the burden on all of us, but in reality just means more moolah for the feds to spend), while letting immigrants keep their original citizenship. This means less worry for us and allows a country like Mexico to actually grow its middle class and strengthen its own economy. I know that the argument is that all foreigners want citizenship, but I'm not sure that's the case. I think they want citizenship so they can have access to jobs. If you could travel freely across the border, you could live well in Mexico and work in the US, and I bet most would choose something like that. I could be wrong, but bifurcating the two will prove it.

The GOP should accept this idea as it helps business but doesn't add to the Democratic Party's voter rolls. Loosening the worker restrictions would also allow the government to keep better track of immigrants and immigrants are incentivised to take this legal route over the illegal one. There is not threat of "Amnesty" because this has nothing to do with legalization. And just for kicks, the GOP could still rally around blowing billions on a wall to keep out those workers without permission to work here (and now use some of the new tax revenue to build said boondoggle).

Sometimes deconstructing thing makes them more plausible. We don't always need 15 volume laws that try to accomplish everything to everyone. Simpler is better.

Why any border fence will fail.

The Denver Post just ran an article on the Border Fence and given the last post on the H-Blog, I thought I'd comment.

The article shows the flaws in the border fence, either as the GOP favored physical wall or the Dem favored high-tech wall. Basically for the GOP wall, you can ask any prison warden how effective walls are without people manning them. For the Dems, this ain't a movie, technology just isn't there yet, and yet may be a looooong time coming.

But what's staggering is the cost, $7.6 billion (initial cost, I've seen nothing on recurring expenses, improvements, maintenance, etc), and no one in their right mind thinks that that cost is anywhere close to the real cost (if it's ever built, I'm thinking at least $20 bln).

The solution to the illegal immigrant debate isn't a wall of any kind. It may make people think that somethings being done, but in reality its the ultimate red herring. As the wall fails to "fix" the illegal immigrant problem, the solution will inevitably become to keep "fixing" the wall. The solution is political, economic. and legal. Allow more legal immigrants, focus on the big ticket offenders, work to get Mexico more economically viable (pie in the sky I know), and figure out what kind of crime illegal immigration really is and enforce it accordingly. Is someone coming to America and working as a dishwasher the equivalent of murder? Kidnapping? Grand Larceny? Petty Theft? Jaywalking? Seriously. We keep hearing that illegal immigration is bad, and we're clearly ready to spend billions, but what kind of crime is it? How does should it rank on our enforcement priority given the damage it causes? This is one topic I've heard nothing about, and to me, its kind of key.

Bottom line, of all the really stupid ideas I've heard recently, the wall is, by far, the most stupiderist. Really expensive and totally worthless.

CO puts farmers between immigrants and inmates

Colorado passed one of the toughest illegal immigrant bills in the nation last year. Which received many "huzzah's" from immigration hardliners nationwide. Even better, it like it worked, illegal immigrants fled the state (and maybe some legal ones too). Now the hard-liners song, "For Colorado's a jolly good fellow..." Two for two and on a roll. Now the stage is set for the final piece of the theory to be proven. With all those jobs that illegal immigrants took in agriculture that US citizens are pining away for available, citizens surely rushed in to fill the void. Right? Right?

Mmmmm, not so much. It looks like no one wanted those jobs after all, and crops rotted because there was no one to work the fields. Maybe as Meatloaf sang, "Two out of three ain't bad."

In any case, now CO farmers need a solution. And the survey says...Prison labor! That will get those fields tended to. Plus $.60 an hour (plus no unions!) can't beat that. But wait, wasn't that the problem to start with? How can any American, no matter how desperate work for $.60 an hour? I mean you'd have to force someone to work at those wages.

Which makes one wonder how serious the argument that illegal immigrants take jobs because they work at lower wages really is. I mean, if the solution is to use people who will work for less than 10% of the new minimum wage (at gunpoint), how does that help American workers get those jobs?

Two final points.

One. The "illegal immigrants take jobs argument" is false for roughly the same reasons as the minimum wage concept doesn't really help. The jobs II's (I squared?) take are jobs no one wants. These are the true "entry level" gigs. There are no third generation manual laborers. Sucking out supply won't bring in new American workers because there are no American workers looking to do the work. The jobs that are filled by II's can't pay more because the end product can't charge more, there's no way to pass on the increased cost. In fact, in most cases prices are going down. Get rid of labor supply and the industry just goes away, jobs are lost, product is lost, revenue is lost, and taxes are lost. Look at CO. The answer to this new supply of jobs is not a rush of labor, its Prison Labor. Doesn't this demonstrate anything? Bottom line, hardliners create lots of loses but no gains. Brilliant! But typical of government.

Two. When listening to the debate its important to look at who's talking (but not look who's talking too-terrible movie). Farmers and the like are very much against the hardliners. Makes sense, their livelihood, their homes, their land and homes depend on this supply of labor. Everyone wants to keep US agriculture alive, II's are the way, much better than subsidies. But who's arguing against? There's no group, American's Who Want to Work Crazy Hard for Low Wages (or AWWWCHLW-bless you), debating the point. Its politicians looking to gain points with the electorate. Or better put, people who have nothing at stake trying to gain favor from other people who have nothing at stake. No politician or voter against II's really touch the issue (nanny's exempted). The people who do touch this issue are uniformly against this new dance craze.

Beware politician's who smell votes...