Libercontrarian

Crushed between the wheels of capitalism and big government.

Eric Grumbles Before The Sergeant Major Of The Armchair Commando Brigade About Illegal Immigration

Eric Cowperthwaite, whose blog has been quoted about 1,100 times here, is my friend and a man whose opinion I respect immensely on every topic - until Monday. Eric has been oddly silent about his opinion about the immigration issue. I found out that he's likely silent because his opinion may get him laughed at - and I mean this in the most realistic, but friendly way, like how you tolerate your crazy uncle [JOKE] . I promised Eric a fisking, and here it goes. His post is presented unedited, so you can read it in its entirety.

"Well, Nick, the LiberContrarian, has asked me, in comments on another post, why I don't post on immigration issues and where I actually stand. Okay, you asked for it. ;-)
First, before I talk about how I feel, let's debunk the idea that tougher immigration laws would make the US safer. The truth is, it would not. The most obvious reason is that there is no reasonable way to actually police our approximately 5,000 miles of border, when you include both the Canadian and Mexican borders."

OK, so if the job is difficult, we shouldn't try it? Good thing we didn't have the same attitude when we were building the railroads, learning how to fly, fighting the Japanese and the Germans or going to the moon. Really, Eric, not doing something because it's tough, like SECURING THE BORDERS, one of only a few functions Libertarians claim the Federal Government should be empowered to do, is foolhardy, and bad policy. It reveals us not as a nation of laws, but just as a nation of men; cowardly men at that.

"The USSR had one of the tightest borders in the world, for a large country, and far harsher law enforcement and penalties for illegal border crossing (like torture and execution) than the USA could ever have. And they were unable to control their border. "

Really? Were there 57,400 East Germans sneaking into West Germany in one week of July, 1986? Did I miss something there?

“Even if we were to bring every soldier and marine home from overseas and put them on the borders, spaced out evenly, we would only have one military member every 44 feet. This assumes that every single one of them was on the border, including staff, mechanics, generals, everyone. Since the reality is that you could only put about one out of every 15 of them on the border, and you would need four shifts, so that they could sleep, take days off, get sick, etc., we would end up with one soldier/marine about every half mile. Of course, this is simply ridiculous.”

Oh, I strongly suspect that you could utilize electronic means of monitoring, coupled with a suitable fence (we could take a lesson from the Israelis' success in this venture), and a disciplined and rigorous application of law enforcement ON THE EMPLOYERS VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW, plus the complete denial of FREE GOVERNMENT AID, FREE GOVERNMENT PAID SCOOLING, and FREE AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP to the anchor babies that illegal alien Mexicans come here to have (while defaulting on the medical care given to them), then I suspect you could fix the problem by way of disincentivization.

“The reality is that no realistic increase in border patrol and customs strength can actually secure the border so that no one gets in. But, and just as important, the three major terrorist attacks in the US involving foreigners in one way, or another, would not have been prevented by stronger controls on illegal immigrants. In every case the terrorists had entered the country completely legally and none of the proposed solutions, not Real ID, not strengthened border security, would have prevented those terrorists with legal papers from entering the country or moving around freely.
If the USSR , probably the harshest police state the world has ever seen, could not prevent illegal entry into their country, it is highly unlikely that we can. And, even if we could, the bad guys have the ability to enter legally. So, let's lay to rest the whole "increasing security" myth.”

False premise. Nobody was trying to enter the Soviet Union ; nobody bothered to leave because they knew how dangerous it all was. I disagree in principal with your sentiment; the goal isn't to reduce the number of illegal immigrants from 1 million per year to zero, but perhaps to 10,000 or so. No one is suggesting mining the border and summary executions for tourists overstaying their visas, but perhaps... A reasonable reduction of the flagrant and ceaseless violation of our laws and our borders would be nice, thank you very much.

Remember, Eastern Europeans left their homes when the Cold War ended because Eastern Europe wasn't a land of opportunity (kinda like Mexico - unless you're a drug dealer or a corrupt politician) - but Eastern Europeans came here LEGALLY, and have made a tremendous positive impact on our society. They have respect for our institutions and our traditions, unlike an unfortunately large percentage of the people from Central America. They speaka de English (like Papou used to say), and there's no culture of dependence on government in that community.

“So, on to my position on the matter. The reason that we tolerate illegal immigration is because of our incredibly poorly thought out minimum wage laws. You see, what a minimum wage law does is ensures that some jobs will never be filled and some work never done because it is worth less to the employer than the minimum wage is set at. This is a well known fact to economists, but the politicians somehow think that they can repeal the laws of economics. The truth is that illegal aliens are providing that labor that we can't pay for because of minimum wage laws. They, obviously, can, and do, work for less money than American citizens legally can be paid.”

Couldn't disagree more. What illegal is working for any wage close to Minimum Wage? I work closely with retailers, the traditionally-lowest paid workers in American society. The lowest paying retail job is $8.00/hour. Illegals work in my area for $7.00/hr for kitchen help, to $10+/hr for unskilled construction labor. Nobody works for $5.15/hr.

It's not the government-mandated Minimum Wage that creates false demand for workers, it's government mandated OSHA workplace rules, the accounting costs of workforce pay management in a highly regulated environment, and most importantly, the exposure to liability from lawsuits from ever-aggrieved American workers that makes the Mexican illegal an attractive candidate for employers that love to take shortcuts around the law. You may not like the laws that were created by your elected officials, but I would advise you to change the laws instead of encouraging employers to obey the laws that are most convenient for them.

Try and remember that when those laws were made, they came into existence because employers are abusing the trust of workers; government recognizes that Management holds the upper hand in the workplace – especially so if there’s an unlimited supply of nearly-free labor.

“Politicians not shutting down illegal immigration has nothing to do with security, racism or any of the other things that everyone shouts about. They know full well that a significant amount of work and money in the economy is due to illegal immigration and that it could not be replaced if illegal aliens were excluded from our economy. “

And you're saying that we could not fete and document these workers quickly enough to "make it palatable" to employers eager to underemploy them to make up for their own uncompetitive business models? Nonsense. While Mexicans, who seem to have an extraordinary tolerance for underemployment, would be let in the country at the same pace as other nation’s aspiring workers FOLLOWING THE RULES TO GET IN, I'm sure we could expand our ICE program quickly enough to keep wages and other associated costs of employment for greedy corporations and penny-pinching Wal-Mart shoppers in check.

“Aside from that, from the perspective of my principles, immigration is one of the things that made our country truly great. We took in people who were willing to take great risks to live a better life. These people worked hard and were committed and dedicated to improving their life and that of their children. And, as we look around us today, immigrants are still doing the same thing. How many small businesses are owned by immigrants and first generation Americans in your community? How many restaurants, dry cleaners, yard care services, etc. are owned by immigrants? How much do you suppose these things are worth to our economy? The problem is not immigration. It is things like minimum wage laws. It is the apparent idea that so many hold that the economy and wealth are zero sum games. Immigrants coming to this country aren't going to make you poorer. I don't have the time, in this post, to delve into the zero sum economic idea, so instead I'll refer you to Coyote's recent post on the topic.

If clamping down on illegal immigration won't improve our security and will hurt us economically, where do I stand on illegal immigration? I propose two things, done simultaneously.

1. Get rid of the minimum wage laws, which are hurting, not helping
2. Allow unlimited legal immigration”

!?!?!!WHAT??!?!

Did I just read this correctly? Unlimited legal immigration? Hey Eric - I've got a great idea: I know where there are some slaves in Darfur that we can probably pay their masters to use. They'll work for so cheap that it will empower our lazy, uncompetitive corporations to make a big profit, even with their crummy business models and short term outlook. It'll be good for the economy - nobody really wants to work in those jobs, anyway.

Before you say "hey - illegal aliens aren't slaves," ask the coyotes that bring these guys to the jobsites if they're free to go... Construction is RIFE with stories of busloads of guys hauled straight to the jobsite by coyotes, who aren’t remotely afraid to show their faces there.

“Security is an entirely separate topic. There is a lot that we could do to improve security without infringing on citizen's rights. Rather than do those things, we are doing things that make the politicians look better, like demanding that people show an ID to get on a plane (this would not have stopped the 9/11 terrorists).

Immigration made this country great, immigration was one of the keys that the liberal culture of the US believed in. And no, I don't mean the collectivists posing as liberals today. If other countries don't want to give their citizens the chance at liberty and property, let's allow them to come here and get the chance. People who will willingly leave their country and endure great hardship to get here, are, by and large, people we want here. Are there some bad apples in the mix? Of course. But that's the price of a free society. Is there some risk in this? Of course. But (and I'm sounding like a broken record) that's the price of a free society.”

Was this a freudian slip? A "free society," as in free healthcare, free welfare, companies that get free reign to disregard laws...?

You know, I've never felt compelled to shoot holes in your often well-reasoned arguments, indeed they never present as such in your blog. This post wasn't well thought out, and your position seems to be guided by some apparent personal bias that has clouded your normally clear vision. Since you have a leadership position in our community, I am hoping that you will think more deeply about your position on this topic and revise your opinion after careful review.

posted by: underwhelmed at July 19, 2005 22:55 | link | comments (2) |

Comments:

#1  20 July 2005 - 05:15

 

Nick, I will try to get around to responding to this in more detail at some point. I do have a couple of quick comments for you though.

1. In some spots you put words in my mouth that bear no resemblance to things I think or believe.
2. Economics and wealth is not a zero sum game.
3. The current quota system for legal immigration hurts us and was originally based on racist premises.
4. Although the USSR did not have an illegal immigration problem (which I never claimed they did) they did have a problem with people entering their country to do inimical things to do them, like Afghani Mujahideen, for example. And those folks were able to get in to their country if they wanted, which was the real point of that comment.
5. Economic security and physical security are two different issues. The claim that border controls are needed for physical security is fallacious. Most of those who want to attack us using terrorist methods enter the country legally. But, no matter how tight we make the borders, if they want to get in illegally, they can. That is a separate argument from economic security.
6. I never claimed, nor would I, that some of the illegals are not slaves. Nor would I deny that some employers like illegals because they can circumvent things like worker's comp. I disagree with you about the best way to deal with that problem, that's all. By the way, you will never eliminate it, no matter what you do.

All in all, I need to come back and respond in detail. One problem is that to really do this thing justice, and for my thinking to be clear, detailed and fully supported, I would have to write a lot more than a simple blog post. That is one significant reason why I haven't ever written on this topic.

ecowper

#2  20 July 2005 - 16:42

 

Well, it's a pressing issue, and your opinion is widely respected. You need to address it.

1. Words in your mouth? Come on - nobody could do that to you.
2. Economics and wealth are a lot closer to a zero sum game when the population growth was near zero percent. If your argument is that "the way to achieve growth is to violate the law," then we're through discussing the issue right there. I know you know better than that - if you think politicians are smarter than the rest of the people, so they have to sneak labor (and corresponding tax base) into the country behind our backs, YOU'RE SUPPORTING THESE OLIGARCHICAL MADMEN IN D.C.!
3. If the current quota system hurts us, is sneaking in people and encouraging wholesale violation of the law a better solution? Once again, if you think the laws aren't working, try to change them. The reason you, and people who believe like you do, refuse to speak in public about this topic is because you know how wildly unpopular your point of view is.
4. You brought the USSR up as an example, not me. If you were trying to point out how sneaky people are, then we will be in agreement. You also have to agree that there's a rather large difference between 15 terrorists sneaking into your country, and 57,600 people (with God Knows how many terrorists and criminals and MS13 gang-bangers hidden amongst them) a week running through your untennanted borders. Why make it easier on bad people, simply because it's hard to do?
5. Why does economic security reside in a lower place than physical security in your mind? Don't you see how the two are related? What kind of economic damages would be incurred by the country if Seattle was blown off the map by a WMD?
6. So, if one defeatist tells me I can't eliminate a problem, I'm supposed to just give up and not try? That's not an Eric Cowperthwaite sentiment, that's a Dianne Feinstien sentiment. You're better than that. What's your real agenda?

underwhelmed

Comments: