New Imigration Reform

[Pantalaimon]

Not all business is created equal. My fault for generalising. But in the shutting down the factory, it is just a question of money. Moving to another country, and finding a place to live and work there, costs a bit too, for the individual, too, last I heard. And unlike the hypotehtical factory owner, I still have to do a lot more then just wave my wallet (And possibly empty some of it), to bring my supply of labour across the border. I'll either need to be married to someone down there, be already hired, be in great demand, or... be planning to start a company ;), in order to get my immigration request approved.

I think it comes down to national interests as well. For a country welcoming a 'factory owner', they benefit twofold: employment of citizens that will hopefully trickle down to stimulate their domestic economy, and increased tax revenue both from the owner and employees.

For a country welcoming a laborer, they don't necessarily gain anything. In fact, they may come out a net loser if the prospective immigrant becomes a drain on social programs, funnels the money back to their home country, etc.

[Jester]

How about we just reciprocate Mexico's immigration laws for US citizens?

Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here in the USA

Congratulations, you've got a better immigration policy than Mexico.

And yes, the government of Mexico is being deeply self-interested and often hypocritical on this topic.

-Jester

Classy: The "Mexicans Belong in Mexico" poster, with a pile of excrement instead of the cactus and eagle. Not even a little racist! Nosiree.

[kandrathe]

Congratulations, you've got a better immigration policy than Mexico.

And yes, the government of Mexico is being deeply self-interested and often hypocritical on this topic.

-Jester

Classy: The "Mexicans Belong in Mexico" poster, with a pile of excrement instead of the cactus and eagle. Not even a little racist! Nosiree.

We do have a more rational and just policy, but ours doesn't work.

Edit: Yeah, the flag is a little over the top. It's hard to find objective analysis on the net.

[Jester]

We do have a more rational and just policy, but ours doesn't work.

Mexico's only works by the accident of being next to the US. If everything north of the border was destroyed, you can bet there'd be waves of immigration to, rather than from, Mexico, and their policy would suddenly be as unenforceable as yours. Indeed, I seriously doubt Mexico polices half what the law says, or if they do, it is even less dogged than the US.

-Jester

Afterthought: "A bit over the top" is an interesting way to describe it. Abominable might be closer. Imagine that pile 'o crap was replacing the star of david in the flag of Israel, with the phrase "Juden raus." That's about what I think of it.

[Hammerskjold]

>How about we just reciprocate Mexico's immigration laws for US citizens? etc etc etc linky link quoty quote.


Did you put that link as a satire? Because it looks like a genuine 'HHWHITE POWAH!!11' kind of garbage. At first I thought the big blue eye to the left was a banner ad for contacts or something, then looking at some of the other nuggets they had, it turned up the usual suspects. Ie: holocaust is 'teh' fakes.

Or maybe I'm missing the humour and the sophisticated satire? I mean I quite agree that racism is not a whites only activity, paradoxically it's an activity that's open to all skin colour from what I've seen.

But that link seems to be dubious to use as a serious source. For every 1 rational point, it comes with 5 crazy ones.

Now who's up for some hot shower? HOT SHOWER! HOT SHOWER! HOT SHOWER!

[kandrathe]

Mexico's only works by the accident of being next to the US. If everything north of the border was destroyed, you can bet there'd be waves of immigration to, rather than from, Mexico, and their policy would suddenly be as unenforceable as yours. Indeed, I seriously doubt Mexico polices half what the law says, or if they do, it is even less dogged than the US.

Mexico has more southern border interdictions, deportations, and they jail many more aliens than the US.

[kandrathe]

>How about we just reciprocate Mexico's immigration laws for US citizens? etc etc etc linky link quoty quote.
Did you put that link as a satire? Because it looks like a genuine 'HHWHITE POWAH!!11' kind of garbage. At first I thought the big blue eye to the left was a banner ad for contacts or something, then looking at some of the other nuggets they had, it turned up the usual suspects. Ie: holocaust is 'teh' fakes.

Or maybe I'm missing the humour and the sophisticated satire? I mean I quite agree that racism is not a whites only activity, paradoxically it's an activity that's open to all skin colour from what I've seen.

But that link seems to be dubious to use as a serious source. For every 1 rational point, it comes with 5 crazy ones.

Now who's up for some hot shower? HOT SHOWER! HOT SHOWER! HOT SHOWER!

I agree. I'll try to find a more sanitary source of the Mexican laws. The only other ones I found were in Spanish.

Ok, here is a less offensive link. Link

[Swiss Mercenary]

To clarify for those of us kibitzing the discussion, is there a part of that document you wish to draw our attention to in particular? It seems like pretty standard immigration policy, no?

The fellony part? I think that's about it.

I think it comes down to national interests as well. For a country welcoming a 'factory owner', they benefit twofold: employment of citizens that will hopefully trickle down to stimulate their domestic economy, and increased tax revenue both from the owner and employees.

For a country welcoming a laborer, they don't necessarily gain anything. In fact, they may come out a net loser if the prospective immigrant becomes a drain on social programs, funnels the money back to their home country, etc.

And not all business brings long-term benefits. I'm pretty sure that having a Wal-Mart open in a small town of Mom & Pop stores will not necessarily bring prosperity to it. (Unless prosperity is defined by those people losing their businesses, driving down wages of their employees, and funneling the money back to their shareholders, and so on.)

Sure, it may have seemed like a great idea short-term...

If we want to be fair, wouldn't it only be right to evaluate what good the company will bring, before we let it open up shop, then? After all, we have no qualms about doing the same to people's requests for immigration.

[Jester]

And not all business brings long-term benefits. I'm pretty sure that having a Wal-Mart open in a small town of Mom & Pop stores will not necessarily bring prosperity to it. (Unless prosperity is defined by those people losing their businesses, driving down wages of their employees, and funneling the money back to their shareholders, and so on.)

Sure, it may have seemed like a great idea short-term...

Economic theory tells you that this is quite backwards. Short term benefits are what you get out of mom-and-pop stores. People are employed, they have money to spend, community status quo is preserved. Picturesque, and many protests against mega-mart stores are founded on just such an idyllic notion of what a small town is.

The Wal-Mart appears to be a step backwards, because it drives those people out of business. This is 'obviously bad'. The ways the money returns to the economy, and grow it overall, are less obvious. Consumers buy products for less. This extra money can now be spent on buying things elsewhere. Shareholders with more money invest more broadly, or consume more commodities. The cycle spins around, and, in the long term, people benefit. But these benefits are widely shared, not obvious, and take time to kick in. So people distrust in their existence.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Economic theory tells you that this is quite backwards. ... The Wal-Mart appears to be a step backwards, because it drives those people out of business.

How would you rather have your car manufactured, like Ferarri, one at a time and expensive, or like Ford in a mass production line and affordable? This is what Walmart has brought to retail distribution. They are very efficient, they negotiate deals with manufacturers to bring prices down, and they automate everything they can to cut labor costs. I could envision a system where the Mom & Pops could survive, if they had something similiar driving their distribution chain. Walmart is successful, because they are out smarting their competitors. You could make the same argument for every inefficient system that has been modernized. I wish we could bring back the days of horse drawn carriages.

[Jester]

How would you rather have your car manufactured, like Ferarri, one at a time and expensive, or like Ford in a mass production line and affordable? This is what Walmart has brought to retail distribution. They are very efficient, they negotiate deals with manufacturers to bring prices down, and they automate everything they can to cut labor costs. I could envision a system where the Mom & Pops could survive, if they had something similiar driving their distribution chain. Walmart is successful, because they are out smarting their competitors. You could make the same argument for every inefficient system that has been modernized. I wish we could bring back the days of horse drawn carriages.

I'm saying that economic theory predicts that Wal-Mart, despite causing apparent short-term devastation to local economies, is still an overall benefit. It would also be a benefit to have the (highly implausible) situation where hyper-efficient mom-and-pop stores with global distribution chains (way to go mom and pop!) beat out Wal-Marts. It all adds to the efficiency of the economy.

Are you agreeing with me? Being satirical? I'm confused by your response.

-Jester

[Swiss Mercenary]

The ways the money returns to the economy, and grow it overall, are less obvious.

Returns to somewhere else... Which is akin to immigrants funneling it out of the country.

While you claim that people saving money put it right back into the economy, there is a net loss of it in the community, due to the loss of jobs, businesses, and the inefficiency that surrounds running small stores. When the majority of the commerce was done by those stores, money does not leave the community - it circulates within it. With the international corpo-sprawl setting up a branch, that money does start leaving it, heading somewhere in the direction of the central office, and it's shareholders.

Of course there's a benefit... To other people.

[Jester]

Returns to somewhere else... Which is akin to immigrants funneling it out of the country.

While you claim that people saving money put it right back into the economy, there is a net loss of it in the community, due to the loss of jobs, businesses, and the inefficiency that surrounds running small stores. When the majority of the commerce was done by those stores, money does not leave the community - it circulates within it. With the international corpo-sprawl setting up a branch, that money does start leaving it, heading somewhere in the direction of the central office, and it's shareholders.

Of course there's a benefit... To other people.

This is mercantilism. You can't 'hoard' well-paying jobs in a community if you care about economic success outside that community. If every community does that, every community loses more than they gain.

You cannot, on a large scale, generate economic prosperity through restriction. The money from one community is invested in another, and from yet another back to the first.

In the end, immigrants cannot 'funnel' money out of the country in a lasting way. The money goes out, people outside buy products with it, which fuels demand, which creates production back inside your country. The whole loop may take decades or even centuries to return the prosperity, but trade brings wealth everywhere.

This is basic economic theory: people benefit through competition. If a local business can outperform Wal-Mart in the selling of whatsoever commodity, then great. Nobody would be happier than I to see that anti-union, homogenizing, dehumanizing machine kicked where it hurts.

The 'central office' and 'shareholders' of Wal-Mart or any other company are not located on Mars. They are people, and they spend and save like anyone else. This creates demand, and fuels new investment. That generates wealth.

It is perhaps possible to generate *temporary* success with such a system at a nationwide level. But, I'm neither an American nor a nationalist, so I don't see why going down that route would be a good plan.

There are adverse social effects to be considered, and, as I'm sure anyone familiar with my posting record would know, I'm very concerned about these things, and support most efforts to alleviate these problems. But, in the end, the basic principles of the free market work.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I'm saying that economic theory predicts that Wal-Mart, despite causing apparent short-term devastation to local economies, is still an overall benefit. It would also be a benefit to have the (highly implausible) situation where hyper-efficient mom-and-pop stores with global distribution chains (way to go mom and pop!) beat out Wal-Marts. It all adds to the efficiency of the economy.

Are you agreeing with me? Being satirical? I'm confused by your response.

-Jester

I agree with you in regards to Walmart, because with the advent of mostly free trade, corporations are not restricted to national borders. With jobs, borders and variable laws form boundaries within which a corporation can navigate, but an unskilled individual usually cannot. The effect of illegal immigration on jobs is equivalent to the effect of bootlegging on the distilled drink industry, or black market pharma on the legal drug companies. It supplies a commodity at an extremely low price allowing the unscrupulous who break the laws to unfairly undercut their competition. We can debate the value of borders and variable laws, but then we delve into the merits of national sovereignty.

[Jester]

I agree with you in regards to Walmart, because with the advent of mostly free trade, corporations are not restricted to national borders. With jobs, borders and variable laws form boundaries within which a corporation can navigate, but an unskilled individual usually cannot. The effect of illegal immigration on jobs is equivalent to the effect of bootlegging on the distilled drink industry, or black market pharma on the legal drug companies. It supplies a commodity at an extremely low price allowing the unscrupulous who break the laws to unfairly undercut their competition. We can debate the value of borders and variable laws, but then we delve into the merits of national sovereignty.

Yes. And closing down the border, imprisoning or deporting illegal immigrants, and generally cracking down on migration has the same effect that prohibition did: it creates that same nasty, exploitive, underground market. Since the traffic is in humans and not alcohol, it is even worse. The only solution to speakeasies is to legalize bars. Stronger prohibition leads to gangs, disrespect for the law, and fails utterly to solve the underlying problem.

But those humans are making choices for themselves. Migrant workers are not being snatched out of Mexico by body thieves and sold on a black market. They choose their course because they are willing to take the risks to earn more money. What I would like to see, at the US-Mexico border and everywhere else, is a way for all people to be able to work for their living under fair conditions, free from exploitation.

Perhaps a guest worker program would be the best model. I have no objection to it, if it is set up properly, with the good of everyone in mind. The more open the border, and indeed, the more open all borders, the better, in my mind.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Yes. And closing down the border, imprisoning or deporting illegal immigrants, and generally cracking down on migration has the same effect that prohibition did: it creates that same nasty, exploitive, underground market. Since the traffic is in humans and not alcohol, it is even worse. The only solution to speakeasies is to legalize bars. Stronger prohibition leads to gangs, disrespect for the law, and fails utterly to solve the underlying problem.

But those humans are making choices for themselves. Migrant workers are not being snatched out of Mexico by body thieves and sold on a black market. They choose their course because they are willing to take the risks to earn more money. What I would like to see, at the US-Mexico border and everywhere else, is a way for all people to be able to work for their living under fair conditions, free from exploitation.

Perhaps a guest worker program would be the best model. I have no objection to it, if it is set up properly, with the good of everyone in mind. The more open the border, and indeed, the more open all borders, the better, in my mind.

-Jester

Again, we agree.

[Swiss Mercenary]

This is mercantilism. You can't 'hoard' well-paying jobs in a community if you care about economic success outside that community. If every community does that, every community loses more than they gain.

I think it's called the Tragedy of the Commons, or something close to that. And, if we care at all about that, then why is drawing a border at community to community unacceptable, yet drawing a border at nation to nation (But only for individuals), is?

In the end, immigrants cannot 'funnel' money out of the country in a lasting way. The money goes out, people outside buy products with it, which fuels demand, which creates production back inside your country. The whole loop may take decades or even centuries to return the prosperity, but trade brings wealth everywhere.

If we can agree on that, then I'd be more then happy to concede my point. We can scratch out the "Funnelling money out of the community" and "Funnelling money out of the country" on both lists.

[Jester]

I think it's called the Tragedy of the Commons, or something close to that. And, if we care at all about that, then why is drawing a border at community to community unacceptable, yet drawing a border at nation to nation (But only for individuals), is?
If we can agree on that, then I'd be more then happy to concede my point. We can scratch out the "Funnelling money out of the community" and "Funnelling money out of the country" on both lists.

I don't believe in nations either, particularily. They are a stopgap level of organization before someone steps up to the plate and establishes a world government. I hope for a world where national borders would be no more important than city limits, an administrative unit only.

The tragedy of the commons is when a resource (like the eponymous commons, public land in England prior to the Enclosures Acts) is free and publicly available, but expendable through overuse. Thus, for each person, they can use it to their personal advantage, but if everyone uses it, it dries up and nobody can. It is the precise opposite of how a working free market economy operates.

-Jester

[Swiss Mercenary]

The tragedy of the commons is when a resource (like the eponymous commons, public land in England prior to the Enclosures Acts) is free and publicly available, but expendable through overuse.

Not overuse, so much, then, but rather the "Closing my gates will benefit me, at the expense of others (As money can still flow in, but not flow out), but if everyone else closes their gates, then we'll all lose" problem of closed economies.

[Jester]

Not overuse, so much, then, but rather the "Closing my gates will benefit me, at the expense of others (As money can still flow in, but not flow out), but if everyone else closes their gates, then we'll all lose" problem of closed economies.

For a given amount of products, if money is flowing in and not out, then all you have is inflation. If you're buying products with them from outside, then money is flowing out. If you could have increased production locally with the money, then what you had was a shortage of cash, and the sensible thing to do would be to save money anyway

Even on a local scale, closed economies only seem like a good idea. They aren't really.

-Jester