Victor Davis Hanson's book Mexifornia is a great jumping-off place for this discussion. He characterizes the issues of illegal immigration abstractly, as you have here, and also talks about particulars. The particulars that come from years of running a California farm and teaching in the Cal State system. The book was available online as an abridged .pdf file; maybe it still is. Meanwhile, Google found this review (and others).

gotta check out the Hedgehog for more on this.
Mike

http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2005/03/illegal-immigration-issue-gop-simply.html

A tough issue. Victor David Hanson is right. First we must control the borders.

Gil

bq.Would that both help our economy and also decrease illegal immigration, allowing those who don't want to move here permanently to leave families at home?

I hope you do not imply that legal immigrants, such as myself, can bring our families to live here. My wife's immigration status will become "current" sometime in 2012, we have been parted since being married in 1997 solely because I chose to work here legally. If I had travelled here illegally we would be together and we would both be able to take advantage of any "one time" amnesty.

Yes, we have to control our borders, but we also must encourage a lot more legal immigration. There would not be so many illegal immigrants if there were not such a demand for their labor. We should reform our immigration laws to allow more people to come here legally to take up the jobs that are waiting for them. They are coming anyway, but in a disorderly manner that overwhelms our defenses. Imagine if government decided to lower the speed limit on your local interstate to 30 MPH, or 55 MPH as was the rule during the 1980s and early 1990s. How many otherwise honest and law-abiding people would exceed the spped limit? How many cops would be needed to attempt enforcement?

Peter's situation illustrates why we need to review immigration policy as a whole. And Jim's points reinforce that need.

How best can we balance security and the rule of law with the flow of immigrants which has always been crucial to our prosperity and vitality as a country?

I read the Hedgehog post yesterday. This is indeed one issue that might split the GOP. It will surely be contentious in the country as a whole, the more so if we don't have an intentional, orderly debate.

I'm a gun owner and I firmly support the right to self defense, but I suspect I'm not the only person who's bothered at the prospect of informally organized and (in some cases) armed citizens patrolling our borders - many of them from outside the region. (Note: Some of the Minutemen are retired law enforcement officers who carry weapons legally. They know the law and are trained in how not to go off half-cocked in dangerous situations. But others among the Minutemen might come armed, as might any racists or gang members who come looking for a fight.)

And I know I'm not the only one who is concerned that the situation at our southern border, in particular, is so serious that otherwise law abiding people who would rather just get on with their own lives feel the need to take action outside of the INS and border patrol.

The Minutemen are right: there is a serious issue here. The Mexican government is right: someone might get seriously hurt on April 1. The racists and the violent gang members both would benefit from that -- but we all would lose.

legal immigrants are not the same people as illegal immigrants and they don't do the same work (and are also paid much more) so allowing more legal immigrants is not something i expect to work.

It's not likely that a doctor or university professor would need to enter this country illegally (assuming s/he's not a terrorist), so in that sense you're right that illegal immigrants are 'not the same' and 'don't do the same work' as legal immigrants.

But there's a huge overlap between legal and illegal immigrants at the lower end of the skills/pay spectrum, in my experience.

There are several important underlying dimensions to this dilemma that need to be brought to the discussion. I have spent a lot of time in rural Mexico (agricultural development) and have a natural connection with the Mexicans I meet (or hire) here in the States. That does not mean I'm 'soft' on illegal immigration, but there are some things we need to understand.

Firstly, the problem became significant in the early '80s when two things happened in close association. There is probably no causal link between the two, but the result was the same. The US policy of interdiction of marijuana from Mexico meant that tens of thousands of men who had enjoyed pretty good income as harvest labourers--particularly in Michoacan and surrounding states--were suddenly out of work. About the same time the peso collapsed and nearly destroyed the emerging middle class. To this day many Mexicans do not trust banks, which is why houses are a permanent construction project--it's the only place to store wealth.

Consequently a reasonably reliable stream of income becomes necessary because any stored wealth is highly illiquid. Working "al otro lado" (legally or otherwise) is the best immediate solution to that need, and often the only solution within reach of ordinary people.

Secondly, and partly as a result of the above, "mojarse"--to wet oneself, as in 'wetback'--has become not only something of a rite of passage for young Mexican men, but it vastly increases their marital desirability amongst the young women. It establishes their bona fides of motivation, derring-do, and cleverness, as well as allows them to earn a lot more money than is usually possible in the creaky, quasi-socialist Mexican economy.

Any immigration policy failing to understand these factors--and that's all of them so far--is doomed to failure.

Thirdly, the Mexican government depends in remittances from the States to maintain some semblance of social peace. These inflows amount to at least some $20 Billion, US, and are the second largest source of hard currency, after petroleum. Illegal Mexicans in the US allow Mexican governments at various levels and of all political stripes (PAN, PRI, PRD) to remain ensconced in power and thereby able to benefit themselves and their cronies to a significant degree.

The net result is that both the Mexican government(s) and millions of individual Mexicans are caught in a monumental incentive trap that makes it best in everyone's short-term interest to maximise illegal entries to the US, rather than make the difficult, unpopular and periodically lethal (literally) political choices necessary to make Mexico a stable, dynamic, well-functioning economy.

Any successful American immigration policy must demolish these numerous and deep-seated incentive traps driving the problem.

Insightful comment , Bart Hall (#9), that gets to essential points. The other half would be an appreciation of the incentives (or "incentive traps") on the American side.

The obvious key point missed by some on this thread is that illegals come to this country to work, and that this is a sensible strategy only because US employers want to employ them. Many US households, bosses and managers employ them because of--not in spite of their illegal status. Not in a Snidely Whiplash, heh heh victimze the wetbacks manner, but because to do so makes sense in their lives.

Undocumenteds will work for lower wages. More than that, the employer can opt out of the burdensome web of the Employer/Employee relationship that employers of legals must submit to. SS, FICA, Medicare witholding, unemployment insurance, health benefits, disability benefits, federal, state, local witholding. And all the one-time, annual, quarterly, and monthly filings that go with them. Undocumenteds are the ultimate "at-will employee"--they can be "fired", without cause, simply by not-rehiring them the following day. No paperwork, minimal exposure to justified or unjustified lawsuits. Or complaints about State or Federal OSHA regulations.

De facto, the US has a two-tier economy and the two-tier employment law system to go with it. On the top, legal tier, workers have rights, employers have responsibilities, and there are mechanisms to enforce the relationship, however imperfect. On the bottom, we have a system where the undocumented workers have next to nothing. Except the knowledge, per Bart Hall (#9), that what they receive as the "dregs" of the US labor system is still much better than what they would be earning back home.

As long as this incentive system for employers persists in the US economy, there will be irresistible opportunities for rational would-be illegal immigrants from Mexico and other places.

Robin

Your Time article link - Who Left the Door Open? didn't work for me. Here's the link for those that want to read it.

I'm not sure how well Time reported the situation but they did acknowledge to some extent that what you read must be taken with a grain salt due to the failures in our immigration policies and laws. (IE Lack of substantially valid information)

"The U.S.'s borders, rather than becoming more secure since 9/11, have grown even more porous. And the trend has accelerated in the past year. It's fair to estimate, based on a TIME investigation, that the number of illegal aliens flooding into the U.S. this year will total 3 million—enough to fill 22,000 Boeing 737-700 airliners, or 60 flights every day for a year. It will be the largest wave since 2001 and roughly triple the number of immigrants who will come to the U.S. by legal means. (No one knows how many illegals are living in the U.S., but estimates run as high as 15 million.)"

The article is a good read though. It contains examples and stories of failures in our current policies as well as the flaws in Mexican policies. The article however does not offer any solutions to the problem of illegal immigration. I will add enforcing the current laws on the books would be a start. That is not to say that additional controls / manpower wouldn't help either. Overkill on legislation / manpower could be just as detrimental in my opinion.

AMac

"The obvious key point missed by some on this thread is that illegals come to this country to work, and that this is a sensible strategy only because US employers want to employ them."

While I would tend to agree that the majority are looking for work or come here to work. Other social incentives such as those employed by the state governments that offer free / no questions asked services does not help the situation either.

For me, the only issue John Kerry and the Democrats could have come up with in last year's election to balance out national security and Bush would have been the issue of immigration. And no one even touched on it.

I live in Los Angeles, too, and the "flood" mentioned above of Mexicans is actually a tsunami. Additionally, we are surrounded by Aremanians (just as many currently in LA alone as in the whole country of Armenia), Wilshire Blvd is being taken over by Koreans, and Russians and Iranians swarm through Beverly Hills. And that doesn't even count the Chinese, the various Muslims, the Africans, the Filipino's, and the increasing number of Russians.

What Ms. Burk doesn't address -- the white elephant standing in the middle of the room -- is the fact that the only sort of taxes this swarm of illegals pays is sales tax. They are not paying their own way in contributing towards upkeep on horrifically over-crowded freeways, they are not paying their own share of taxes for the school system, they demand free health care, and they're sending billions (with a "B") of dollars "back home" each year, so those dollars aren't even contributing towards American sale-taxes. And absolutely for certain they're not paying their share towards support of our military.

We are a rich country and can probably afford the flow of money out of the country towards Pakistan and Mexico and Vietnam and all the other places our immigrant population are sending money "back home" to. But dammit, every time I hit a pot-hole on the street or see a tax-payer funded park or museum cut its hours back due to lack of funding, or read a story about lack of Emergency Room access because "immigrants" are taking up all the space and resources -- I blame the next Mexican I see.

The insult to injury, then, is when I also read that Mexican coyotes are selling their services to Muslim jihadists who want to buy their way illegally into our country. Therefore, I would like to see not only a wall built along the Rio Grande, but also a mine-field installed. Preferrably within the next six months.

And then -- we'll look at the Canadian border.

Do we have good estimates of how many illegal immigrants are in LA nowadays? I'll go looking for some, but if any of our readers comes across a good source, please post it here.

Ditto on models that estimate the net economic benefit or drain from illegal immigration. Outflows to home countries by legal immigrants is an important issue, but one we should separate out.

When I lived in LA in the 80s, there were large and thriving populations of Armenian and Korean heritage. Many were 2nd or 3rd generation citizens, however, rather than illegal immigrants. Korean-owned stores in many LA neighborhoods have toughed out riots and crime and I give those entrepreneurs credit for that and for working hard to build a life for their families..

I appreciate the sense of being drowned, NahnCee. That has been present in other waves of ethnic immigration to the US, too. If you can point us to some data that separates out legal from illegal immigration, it would help us get a handle on the different issues involved here.

I'm sorry but...

There are NO Illegal Immigrants entering the country.

BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN GRANTED IMMIGRANT STATUS!

These are ILLEGAL ALIENS. They have no 'immigrant' status. Calling them 'immigrants' does dishonor to the legal immigrants who worked damn hard (and in most cases waited damn long) in order to get here.

We should, and always will welcome LEGAL immigrants to our shores - that is what makes America unique and great.

Remember - there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. These are illegal aliens.

Yes, words matter, don't they.

I could have written about "illegal entry" or about "undocumented immigrants" - the latter a phrase I find especially tendentious.

No one word fits all the situations ideally. "Illegal aliens" focuses on the fact of entering outside of immigration mechanisms and emphasizes the foreignness of those involved - a phrase well suited to NahnCee's sense of drowning in a tsunami of outsiders. "Illegal entry" focuses on the act of entry itself - useful when talking about jihadis coming over the border and about the coyotes who profit from all this, less useful when discussing the economic impact of people who come here to work for an extended period of time.

Those who agree with Victor Davis Hanson that Hispanic immigrants do not want to assimilate probably don't like the phrase I ended up using as a compromise. But I chose it specifically because I do think that wrapped up in this complex situation is a key element, namely that many who cross our borders with permission wish to stay and make a life here.

Let's not forget that employers who utilize illegal migrant labor are offloading their costs onto taxpayers and insurance payers. This causes market distortions in all kinds of areas.

High levels of immigration is no way to solve our own social problems. Europe, Japan, China, and Mexico are all “greying” faster than the United States. They need their young workers at home. There are basically only one part of the world where there's a surplus of young workers: the Middle East. And, let's face it, the greatest security problems are in high rates of immigration from the Middle East.

Dave, is it true that Mexico and the rest of Latin America don't have a surplus of young workers? I'd have to go try to find the demographic profiles for those countries, but I'd be surprised if they were not much younger than Europe and Japan.

OTOH there's also the issue of how you measure surplus. Are jobs going unfilled in Mexico and other Latin American countries for lack of workers? The WSJ article I linked above argues that it's the economic policies of those countries which make immigration to the U.S. so attractive.

Just thinking out loud ....

Yes, Robin, it's true. I stumbled across that factoid not long ago when I was researching something else. Their “seniorization coefficient” (I think those are right buzzwords) is about the same as Europe's. Interesting, n'est pas?

I'll see if I can dig up the citation again.

AMac--

Though I have never knowingly hired (directly or indierectly) an illegal immigrant, I agree with you that they come here to WORK.

These folks will happily work for 9 bucks an hour, and damn it, they'll work. I'm fed up with spoiled, surly, arrogant, rebellious, lazy Anglo twits who think they're worth $15 an hour just to show up and give me $#|^ for not coddling their slimy little backsides all day long.

We have lots of Mexicans moving into this area, and I think it's great. For one thing I have a source of dependable labour who accept my position as boss without playing our their bizarre father-issues on my dollar. For another--even better--they are pushing out the white trash.

Some of these folks are now my customers. A couple of years ago they'd come in for a few tomato and pepper plants. They were driving something from the early '70s with more Bondo and duct tape than steel. Now they're driving decent iron from the early '90s and are bringing home some flowers for the wife.

They're sending thousands back to papito and mamita in Mexico, they're building their own families here, and many of them are succeeding by means of their own hard work and discipline.

Many of these people represent the essence of the American Dream. They're building their lives and this country just like the Irish, the Chinese, and the Italians before them.

Someday, some of them will hit it big, because their sort of attitude and effort can pay off handsomely. And they'll be our enthusiastic customers because we treated them with respect and decency on the way up.

In the meantime, you can't find a young American who knows which end of a shovel goes in the dirt, let alone wants to use the thing.

I am wholeheartedly in favour of a guest-worker programme to regularise the status of the most possible Mexicans without offending those who made the effort to follow the rules.

And by the way, if they migrated here, they are 'immigrants,' legal or otherwise.

Got it! And the buzzwords I was looking for were “dependency ratio”. Look out ten years and beyond and you'll get the picture.

Those who view Mexico as an endless pool of cheap labor need to realize it ain't necessarily so.

There are even more issues. The Mexicans who migrate here tend to be the youngest and best educated. That plays hob with Mexican productivity. Mexico's economy is by way of being wrecked by China.

Bart Hall, there appear to be substantial cultural differences between the migrants coming across the border in Texas (which I suspect are the ones you're seeing) and the migrants coming across the border in California. This includes issues like willingness to assimilate, work ethic, inclination to rely on government services. I haven't seen any statistics on it but there are so many attestations for both cases that it's pretty hard to deny.

Sorry about that URL guys. I gotta learn to use your furshlugginer internal tags sometime.

Looking briefly at the detailed stats at the World Bank site:

Overall Latin American / Caribean projections for young men aged 20-24 show a decrease as a % of the population between now 2000 and 2005.

However, the region's dependency rate across all age groups is also projected to decrease from 59.3% to 48%. That doesn't seem to signal a looming labor shortage in those countries for a generation, however, especially if women are taken into account.

I'll try to find time to look at these numbers more carefully later tonight. Everyone else is welcome to do that and chime in with observations ....

9 bucks an hour are expensive aliens.

About the illegals not paying their share. A lot of California's agro would move to mexico if it wasn't for the cheap illegal labor

Bart Hall (#20)--

Thanks for the additional comments.

We can, and should, talk about nationality and ethnicity--these things matter. Generalizations about willingness and ability to master English and other measures of 'assimilation' are especially important.

At the same time, generalizations are just that. When phrases like "{ethnic group} trash" creep in, the conversation is in danger of getting badly sidetracked.

{/preaching}

I have acquainances in the building trades. The big visible change here in the Northeast in the past, say, five years is how many Hispanic-looking and Spanish-speaking guys one sees in entry-level manual labor jobs. The contractors I know tell me they have grown to prefer to hire Mexican workers over Americans for the first few rungs--Laboror, Assistant Stonemason, Roofer, Electrician's Helper. And they are becoming well-represented in the middle rungs (e.g. Crew Chief).

Per a (#25)'s point, most of these guys are making over $9/hour. My acquaintances tell me it's not paying out cheap wages that make Mexicans attractive, it's their overall willingness to work, hard, and to be reliable. And when a Mexican finds a good boss, he may call relatives in the small town back home to say, there's a job for you here if you can make it up. So it's not a case of hiring unknown Mexicans, but of hiring Jose's and Miguel's cousins--comparatively known quantities.

Are these guys legal or illegal? I have no way of knowing, but I'd guess 90%-plus are illegal. Is this good or bad? Elements of both, per earlier comments in the thread. But I find it very disturbing that we, as a society, aren't addressing the issue, except in caricatures. With Dem and Repub lazy thinking and pandering, we are going to go where the unsteered policies take us, and then be "surprised" a few years from now at where we end up.

AMac, that's exactly why I decided to do a regular roundup of stories on this topic and encourage discussion of the issues.

BTW, all, I've put up a separate post to a new Time mag story on al Qaeda and the border.

Three comments:
1) The "War on Terror" should require the US Military to take over border security. I cover this pretty much in depth on my own blog, in several posts, here and here, plus a couple of places in the archives.
2) I have no qualms with guest-workers, but I want to know who comes into this country, and where they are. We should, indeed, keep the best that make it here - the ones that are willing to work, that do a good job, and that contribute to the overall success of this nation. The ones that come here for a soft touch should get a hard one - a boot to the backside as we help them back across whatever border they crossed.
3) The question isn't whether or not the people coming across the border are "good workers" or "jihadists" - the question is, we don't know WHO they are, or what they're doing after they get here. That's what has to be stopped. The military is the least likely group to be bribed into letting a few people slip through. The military has the equipment, manpower, and training to shut the border completely, something "law enforcement" can't do. The military is responsible for national security. The military should be manning the borders during the war on terror. Once the border's closed, we can let Congress decide how many of what type of people to let into the country, and why.

OP, I particularly liked this paragraph from your site:

The reason so many people want to come to the United States is usually because opportunities are limited in their home nation. The biggest reason such opportunities don't exist at "home" is because the local government doesn't provide the same degree of personal freedom the United States does. Individual freedoms, the right to acquire and keep personal property including real estate, the right to engage in business without unnecessary start-up costs, red tape, and regulation - all these things are required to ensure that people can succeed, regardless of where they live. If their home nations provide these freedoms, the people will be less anxious to go somewhere else. The United States needs to continue to put the pressure on governments to make the necessary changes to their own governments to ensure their citizens these freedoms. Not only will that keep more of their most productive citizens at home, it will improve the wealth and productivity of their nation as a whole.

1) bordercontrol with no army on the other side is about the worse you can use your military for
2) impossible
3) They may be good a stopping bribery by the enemy but the military is not good at dealing with smalltime bribery (see boeing for example)

AMac, i was more thinking about the fruit pickers etc. They don't make $9

Okay, a (#31), but the point remains the same either way: Per Bart Hall (#9), illegal immigration gets a very powerful push from circumstances in the home countries, social and (mostly) economic. And it gets a very powerful pull on the American side. Employers want to hire illegals for their own economic and social reasons. The money -- >$9 or <$9 -- is attractive to the illegals in comparison to opportunities at home, and it's attractive to American employers too.

Overall a net benefit to the US economy, or the Mexican economy? Hard to say. Easy to identify the biggest losers, though. Lower-skilled and lower-paid legal, native, American citizens who are willing to work.

Illegal do too kinds of work.

1) Work in which they may be cheaper but their main advantage is that they are better for what you can buy for the same price with legal residents

2) Work in which they are so much cheaper that legals and technology isn't competitive.

Construction uses 1) more while agro uses 2) more. !) can be reduced by allowing more immigrants but with 2) the pay is to low for any legal immigrant

It's time you Americans stopped TRUSTING everything you are being fed by your government re: your secure borders.

Now I certainly cannot comment on Canada or Mexico, but I CAN comment on coming in via airplane.

To me, the USA (and France, but that's another matter) is one of the easiest countries to gain access to. I travel reguarly between my country and yours on business and pleasure.

Maybe you should come to Australia, who do security with far more 'security' than the USA.

For instance - seperate arrival and departure halls for International passengers... mandatory checking of passports by official customs agents not just on the way in, but on the way out as well. Not just a few x ray machines over baggage, but backed up by sniffer dogs and baggage searches.

I have NEVER EVER EVER had my baggaged searched by a customs official coming into the USA. I certainly have been searched returning to Australia, and for that I am thankful. At least my country is doing its job.

Don't believe the lie that you are safe - the USA borders are WIDE open!!

Al-Zarqawi's aide also revealed that his boss, after pondering the absence of attacks in the U.S. in recent years, concluded that a lack of "willing martyrs" was to blame.

Does this mean WoT has produced a significant decline on terrorism (specifically US targets at home and abroad) or does this mean the ranks of terrorists are depleting due to a reduction in recruitment / membership?

I do believe WoT plays a significant role in the current status of terrorists / terrorism. What we have not been able to do is quantify appropriately on either side of the equation.

As to porous borders and potential threats of terrorists entering the US I agree with Mike on his assessment. The trip the wife and I took to Ireland after 9/11 did little in the way of verification when arriving back in the USA. This was coming through Logan Airport BTW - one of the worst airports in US in my opinion.

I read through some of these postings and I can't believe all the talk about illegal immigrants is always connected to Mexico. I understand that the vast majority of illegal immigrants come form Mexico but what about all those coming from Asia? Especially Vietnam? From experiences I've had, these people have no manners. They come over here and want to take over certain communities. They want everything for free or for a significant discount. But no one talks about them. Always about the Mexicans. Mexicans have always been here. Did everyone forget that California once belonged to Mexico? Many cities througout Western states (especially California)have Spanish names (San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, Paso Robles, Corona Dela Mar, San Juan Capistrano Rancho Santa Margarita, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, San Clemente, and so on and so forth...... I agree that they should come here LEGALLY. But they are not the only ones flooding our country with poverty. Think about the Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, and then all those from all other countries like the ones that came here and used our own planes against us.