Illegal Immigration Pt. 2

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I just have to bring this back up.

A sequel to the former topic:



Is erecting a fence across the southern border a horrible policy? Yes or yes?

Is it reasonable to demand thousands of dollars in naturalization fees from migrants fleeing $80 work weeks? No or no?

[MagusYanam]

First of all, there won't be any new batches of illegals. Everyone on American soil will automatically be a citizen. Period.

Second, what is the issue with 12 million new citizens? An over-saturated Blue Collar workforce? Great, all the more reason for the government to invest more into the education system (which will happen eventually regardless, once India and China get too close for comfort).

The benefits remain the same. Before, American workers had to compete with immigrants working two dollars an hour. Now all wage disparity is eliminated. Before, illegal aliens were stressing the health care and education systems (beyond what the government's incessant lack of funding was all ready doing). Now their taxes are paying for the services they use. Win-win-win-win.

You know, it pains me to say it, but with the state of our economy it doesn't look as though simply giving illegal immigrants citizenship is going to be enough. I live in Michigan, where we recently passed a law to raise minimum wage to around $6.75 an hour. Great idea; pathetic timing.

The Michigan economy is such that already huge numbers of people are unemployed because no company has the wherewithal or incentive to take them on since GM left Flint for dead. And now companies are feeling even more pressure, so the length of the work week is going to go down. People will be earning the same amount of money by doing less work, which is, sad to say, not going to help us out of this slump.

If our economy is any indication (and given Bush's domestic policies it looks either like it already is or very soon will be), increasing the number of eligible, legal workers is not going to help the workers. I think the solution lies in restricting corporations from outsourcing or giving them incentives to hire domestics. That's perhaps task #1 for helping out the little guys coming over the border.

It's sad that these people might have bleak lives in their own countries, but that's not our problem. It's the problem of their governments. You want things to be better for Mexicans? Go talk to Vincente Fox.

Sorry, Cephus, but this is sounding somewhat irresponsible. Does the Mexican government truly have the wherewithal to help it citizens achieve a higher standard of living? Given their current state of affairs, it doesn't appear that way. Since our government has a tremendous amount of clout where our neighbours are concerned (and has ever since the Monroe Doctrine), we should indeed be accepting part of the responsibility for the plight of the Mexicans, not because it's our problem, but because we can and because we should.

In the long run, it's better for our national security and better for our social and economic well-being to pursue policies of generosity where foreign policy is concerned, with the resources we have. What our politicians should be doing (and I've been saying this for a long time now) is tying our military budget to our foreign aid budget. Even if we just said we're going to spend a nickel on foreign aid for every dollar that goes into a defence contract, it would make a tremendous difference even where illegal immigration was concerned.

[Cephus]

Sorry, Cephus, but this is sounding somewhat irresponsible. Does the Mexican government truly have the wherewithal to help it citizens achieve a higher standard of living? Given their current state of affairs, it doesn't appear that way. Since our government has a tremendous amount of clout where our neighbours are concerned (and has ever since the Monroe Doctrine), we should indeed be accepting part of the responsibility for the plight of the Mexicans, not because it's our problem, but because we can and because we should.

There's nothing irresponsible about worrying about our own problems and letting other governments, whether we think they are capable or responsible enough to do it on their own, handle their own people. Here's a news flash for you: The United States does not rule the world. It's not our way or the highway, as much as some people wish it were so. We're a member of the global economy, we're not in charge of it. We have plenty of problems on our own soil that are not being addressed because we're too busy running around the planet trying to keep an eye on everyone else and that's got to stop. The Mexicans are not our responsibility. If we want them to be our responsibility, we should invade Mexico, make Mexico our 51st state and be done with it.

Anyone up for that?

[MagusYanam]

Did I ever say that the United States were in control of the global economy or ruled the world? Did I ever claim it should be 'our way or the highway'? That's the neoconservative master plan, and (I think) an unattainable, not to mention reprehensible one. At the same time, we have to realise that, along with the EU and China, the United States are one of the big economic players on the world stage and we should take some responsibility for it as a result.

Cephus, you use the language of scarcity and you are well within your rights to do so. At the same time, though, the primary reason why we don't have as many resources as we should to give aid to other countries is because we spend exorbitant amounts on high-tech toys for our military. The Pentagon should realise that every time it shells out another few billion on a stealthier plane, a smarter bomb or a sweeter armour, it's doing so as simply icing on the cake. Back when the Soviets had their MIGs, increasing spending on better fighters was a good idea. That's not the case anymore - we have very few military rivals, and then usually the issue is not quality, it's quantity.

So what should we be doing with that money instead, since it's in the budget and currently going toward vanities we don't need? We should either be a.) cancelling our debts or b.) spending more on foreign aid.

And I'm sorry to say it, Cephus, but in modern politics this kind of isolationism is an outmoded relic which died with Bob Dole's campaign for the presidency. Should we be paying more attention to our domestic problems than we are right now in our politics? Of course we should; I'm in full agreement with you there. At the same time, there is simply no reason for us to ignore or pass the buck on foreign affairs over which we do have influence, whether we like it or not.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

If our economy is any indication (and given Bush's domestic policies it looks either like it already is or very soon will be), increasing the number of eligible, legal workers is not going to help the workers. I think the solution lies in restricting corporations from outsourcing or giving them incentives to hire domestics. That's perhaps task #1 for helping out the little guys coming over the border.

My foremost desire is simply to level the global playing field. Outsourcing should be moderately regulated to prevent malfactions such as child labor, but nothing beyond that. Globalization allows foreigners of humbler backgrounds to compete for comparatively elite jobs, in addition to increasing production and efficiency- a plus for consumers.

My other idea on this matter was the very opposite of what you have proposed. We could give companies incentives to outsource to Mexico (who has lost most of it's offshoring pacts in recent years to India and China), which would stem the tide of migrants.

Don't just keep immigrants out, eliminate the very incentive to come. If there are decent paying jobs in Mexico, there is no reason to cross the border illegally.

Naturalize the immigrants that are here, and bring jobs to those who will potentially come in the future. Seems like the perfect plan to me.

There's nothing irresponsible about worrying about our own problems and letting other governments, whether we think they are capable or responsible enough to do it on their own, handle their own people.

The most peaceful international relationships occur when the involved countries are interdependent of one another. Aiding and trading with Mexico not only solves their problems, but works to our advantage in a number of ways.

What do nations do when they lack necissary resources? Start wars. Is it any mystery why Africa and the Middle East are the most volatile places on the planet?

Global stability relies on intercultural cooperation. The recent decade (believe it or not) has actually been the most peaceful time period in the history of humanity. Is it a coincidence that this peaceful time frame coincides with the recent burgeon of globalization? Most certainly not.

We can benefit from helping Mexico. Everyone can.

[Cephus]

Did I ever say that the United States were in control of the global economy or ruled the world? Did I ever claim it should be 'our way or the highway'? That's the neoconservative master plan, and (I think) an unattainable, not to mention reprehensible one. At the same time, we have to realise that, along with the EU and China, the United States are one of the big economic players on the world stage and we should take some responsibility for it as a result.

But just because we are a major economic player, or a major military one, that doesn't give us the right or the responsibility to tell everyone else what to do. The US has gotten used to carrying a big stick around and threatening everyone else that they'd better do what we want, or else. There's also a big difference between helping Mexico to help it's citizens and doing it for them. What you're suggesting is little more than running Mexico with their legal government as little more than puppets.

So what should we be doing with that money instead, since it's in the budget and currently going toward vanities we don't need? We should either be a.) cancelling our debts or b.) spending more on foreign aid.

No, try c) spending more on domestic problems. We have no business trying to save the rest of the planet until we can save ourselves first.

[Cephus]

My other idea on this matter was the very opposite of what you have proposed. We could give companies incentives to outsource to Mexico (who has lost most of it's offshoring pacts in recent years to India and China), which would stem the tide of migrants.

That ignores the whole point of outsourcing though. The reason US companies go to India is because they can hire college graduates at pennies on the dollar, which isn't the case in Mexico. Plus, you're forgetting that it isn't just wages, but benefits that bring Mexicans to the US illegally. No matter how many crappy jobs you put in Mexico, they still don't have the infrastructure that makes the US attractive. No free medical care, free education, welfare benefits, etc.

They'll keep on coming here so long as we allow it.

[MagusYanam]

But just because we are a major economic player, or a major military one, that doesn't give us the right or the responsibility to tell everyone else what to do. The US has gotten used to carrying a big stick around and threatening everyone else that they'd better do what we want, or else. There's also a big difference between helping Mexico to help it's citizens and doing it for them. What you're suggesting is little more than running Mexico with their legal government as little more than puppets.

Begging your pardon, Cephus, but this is very far from what I was suggesting. I wasn't advocating a power play by the U.S. government to circumvent Mexico's authority over its own citizens (that seems to be what you think I was saying - correct me if I'm wrong). What I was advocating was an increase in foreign aid to Mexico. I'm no neocon; far from it - I'm a liberal internationalist. I agree with you that we shouldn't be in the business of telling other countries what to go do with themselves, but there is a difference between that and investing in aid for developing nations.

No, try c) spending more on domestic problems. We have no business trying to save the rest of the planet until we can save ourselves first.

Well, I won't disagree with you on the need to keep an eye on domestic issues. Just keep in mind that many of our domestic problems have foreign roots or foreign results. When GM left Flint for greener pastures, where did they go, for example?

[MagusYanam]

My foremost desire is simply to level the global playing field. Outsourcing should be moderately regulated to prevent malfactions such as child labor, but nothing beyond that. Globalization allows foreigners of humbler backgrounds to compete for comparatively elite jobs, in addition to increasing production and efficiency- a plus for consumers.

Globalisation is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it does have the benefits you describe. But on the other, it's going to take quite some work to make the global economy a 'level playing field' (though the sentiment is quite admirable). The globe is not level: one of the big criticisms of globalisation today is that money tends to accumulate in resource-rich areas and drain away from resource-poor ones. What place would Haiti, for example, have in the global economy? They are located on a Caribbean island and are therefore not exactly the most resource-rich area on the planet. They would be providing largely unskilled labour, the fruits of which would gather where the biggest banks and biggest corporation heads are.

Like you said, strife happens in areas which don't have resources. And the way it's working right now, globalisation really isn't helping at all.

Naturalize the immigrants that are here, and bring jobs to those who will potentially come in the future. Seems like the perfect plan to me.

Except that it's easier said than done. Naturalising the immigrants that are already here I can see as being helpful and easy enough, but bringing jobs to unemployed domestic workers is difficult as it is.

I'm just seeing the local picture here. I can take a bus thirty minutes out of town here in Kalamazoo and find neighbourhoods as poor as some Sonoran neighbourhoods - and these are people that are willing to work, but they simply cannot physically achieve the opportunity to do so. They have to commute great distances on their own time and money, usually to get a job that pays minimum wage.

So I think we should start demanding some community awareness from the big employers, both here and on our southern border. The final result I'd like to see, or course, is an economy that takes into account other factors besides profit and resources in its critical equation.

[MagusYanam]

No matter how many crappy jobs you put in Mexico, they still don't have the infrastructure that makes the US attractive. No free medical care, free education, welfare benefits, etc.

Just a minor correction here. Mexico's medical care system is freer than ours is. And I'm not sure, but I believe Mexico's education system is modelled after ours (free and compulsory up through high school).

[The Persnickety Platypus]

That ignores the whole point of outsourcing though. The reason US companies go to India is because they can hire college graduates at pennies on the dollar, which isn't the case in Mexico.

No, US companies did a considerable amount of offshoring to Mexico before China started proving more cost-effective. Curiously, about the same time US/Mexico globalization halted is when the waves of immigrants started pouring in.

Plus, you're forgetting that it isn't just wages, but benefits that bring Mexicans to the US illegally. No matter how many crappy jobs you put in Mexico, they still don't have the infrastructure that makes the US attractive. No free medical care, free education, welfare benefits, etc.

What Magnus said.

It's the jobs that bring them here. The social infastructure (if it is in fact any better) is just an added bonus.

No, try c) spending more on domestic problems. We have no business trying to save the rest of the planet until we can save ourselves first.

Save ourselves? From what?

Most of the lowest percentile of American wage earners have full fridges, televisions, vehicles, and in some cases, high speed internet.

America has the goods. Now lets let Mexico have some.