In economic-speak, impoverished and poorly educated immigrants impose significant "negative externalities" on the remainder of society.

In other words, they may only cost their employers $8 an hour, but the expensive government services they and their children consume mean that they cost society quite a bit more.

The invisible hand that governs the free market isn't perfect. We conservatives believe in free markets, but we recognize their limitations.

The hopelessly broken kluge of a system we have now needs to be fixed.

However, in the past every time we try and fix the unacceptable status quo things we have managed to make the immigration system worse.

One example of the complicated nature of the issue is that I'm not so sure that increased security on the border does not make things worse. It makes it more difficult for illegal immigrants to round trip back to their country of origin. So they bring their family to the US.

Immigration is a complicated issue and it would pay to look at the 1986 amnesty and see why it failed. Here is a concept maybe the politicians could actually learn from history and come up with an improved immigration system.

The only way to prevent illegal immigration is to let everyone into the U.S. who wants in. That is basically an open border policy and is what you are proposing. Adopting your ideas means that not only are millions migrating in from Mexico but they will also be coming from Pakistan, India, Egypt, Turkey, and the former Soviet Union. That means millions more people wanting to do yard work or put up dry walls, park cars or be servants.

If you want the entire U.S. to resemble Mexico City, your ideas are the best ideas around.

The only question to answer is where are the children of the current middle class suburbia Americans suppose to migrate after your policy makes a third world country out of the U.S. I doubt if giving everyone in El Paso a green would sudden make the economy great, the schools great, and the crime rate go down. it would just increase welfare spending, increase the unemployment rate, make the last of the middle class leave.

If you want to live in your world, you could move to El Paso today. It is close to what you propose as exists today.

I get the feeling from reading your posts that you feel that you are smart and clever enough to create a great life for yourself while living in a country overwhelmed with poor immigrants from third world countries. I just believe that you are very naive and in the end people like you will be the first ones to flee to some place like Australia after implementing a de facto open border policy.

Is our current system broke? You betcha. Whether you focus on border enforcement or the INS bureaucracy, our immigration system is broke and is in serious need of overhaul. I don't think anyone would argue that point, however, is the bill that the president is supporting an appropriate fix? I think that is what I doubt, not the need for immigration nor the immigrants' desire to get here.

I don't disagree that our current border security situation is broken. As for the current legislation, it probably sucks. Most legislation does, and it seems especially the case with Bush.

superdestroyer,

While those "homeless" people are in your home, if they steal personal information, trash the place, vandalize the home, and then steal your care, and when they show up the next day there are ten of them, you would not want them back.

So you did intend to come of as a racist with your previous comment?

Anyone who argues that open borders and massive illegal immigration is a good thing....

Why is it that people who are against immigration always cast their opponenets as open border supporters. I think stopping illegal crossings, making legal immigration less costly and instituting policies for assimilation is not all that unreasonable. Seriously, is it intellectual dishonesty or what?

Dave,

I don't doubt that there is a home bias effect. But that effect can be overcome as our current immigration situation indicates.

M1EK,

By importing tens of millions of new laborers, you tilt the balance of power so far towards capital that you'd need much stronger regulations than we currently have to maintain even half the relative power that labor has versus capital today.

Sorry I don't buy this psuedo-marxist stuff. I don't think it is as simple as you make it out to be.

Laurence,

And of course I'm not in favor of "Open Borders" either (as you seem to define it). Rather, I favor of an expanded and simplified immigration policy, wherein those wishing to immigrate would simply see no advantage to doing it illegally.

Exactly.

Bithead,

Nor, in fact, would we have the influx of Mexican immigrants that we do today. The problem, here, is both issues both singley, and more importantly, combined.

I disagree. I don't think that a guy in Guadalajara Mexicon decides to pull up stakes and head north simply so he can sit in an emergency room when he bashes his finger with a hammer or that if he gets married he can send his kids to LA Unified (actually considering LA Unified that might be a factor that would discourage him).

I think the main this is going from $15/day to $15/hour. It is a huge increase in income. Plus many goods are much cheaper in the U.S. than in Mexico. Our better urban development would mean better housing, probably more expensive, but not nearly as expensive as in Mexico. Better access to food, transportation, and entertainment.

By two means, is it possible to do that. Apparently, amnesty is the easier way. The argument, is whether or not that's the more destructive way.

Most of the people here already are for the most part law abiding (yes the broke the law coming here illegally, but I just can't get up too much anger over people wanting a better life and breaking immigration laws to do it). Most of them are hard working and they engage in transactions with people here that are mutually advantageous--i.e. they are productive. What do we gain by deporting them? Some budgetary savings for government? How much is lost by the way in increased expenditures in finding them and deporting them? Further, we also lose all their productive capability as well. The net effect? I don't think anybody has a clear cut answer to that. My view is that it would actually be a loss, not a gain. I'm not above looking at evidence to the contrary.

Sounds like your real problem is with the Welfare state. After all, if there wasn't this public teat out there for people to suck on, like my neighbors who have 4 kids and could never afford their schooling if not for my property taxes and others have no kids, then you wouldn't have a problem.

Nor, in fact, would we have the influx of Mexican immigrants that we do today. The problem, here, is both issues both singley, and more importantly, combined.

I'm in favor of legal immigration. We need to remove the illegality of it.

By two means, is it possible to do that. Apparently, amnesty is the easier way. The argument, is whether or not that's the more destructive way.

Anyone who argues that open borders and massive illegal immigration is a good thing has never been to El Paso Texas. If your and St eve's arguments were anywhere near correct, they would be a boom town instead of the crime ridden, high unemployment, bad schools, barrios that virtually every white resident has fled.

It seems so silly that I would have to point this out, but... I have never argued (nor, I'm sure, has Steve) that "massive illegal immigration is a good thing". In fact I heartily agree that the slums of El Paso demonstrate the undesirability of illegal immigration. That's why I'm in favor of legal immigration. We need to remove the illegality of it.

And of course I'm not in favor of "Open Borders" either (as you seem to define it). Rather, I favor of an expanded and simplified immigration policy, wherein those wishing to immigrate would simply see no advantage to doing it illegally.

See: U.S. Immigration Policy Pre-1966.

Is it really necessary to shoot down these strawmen again and again and again? (sigh)

Advocating for markets that are not encumbered by undue and/or bad regulations, laws, and policies is not usually the way one goes about moving towards fuedalism. Fuedalism does not promote freedom. As such your assertion is simply laughable.

By importing tens of millions of new laborers, you tilt the balance of power so far towards capital that you'd need much stronger regulations than we currently have to maintain even half the relative power that labor has versus capital today. Without such regulations, such a slide would be inevitable, no matter how 'free' the market. Since you've previously (and frequently, and recently) declared your hatred for regulations, I find it unlikely you'd suddenly want MORE rather than LESS employment and environmental laws, so it's entirely reasonable to conclude that if we did what you want, we'd end up as serfs and lords.

Home Bias and Migration

While those "homeless" people are in your home, if they steal personal information, trash the place, vandalize the home, and then steal your care, and when they show up the next day there are ten of them, you would not want them back.

Anyone who argues that open borders and massive illegal immigration is a good thing has never been to El Paso Texas. If your and St eve's arguments were anywhere near correct, they would be a boom town instead of the crime ridden, high unemployment, bad schools, barrios that virtually every white resident has fled.

And that is the problem with the current batch of conservatives. They are fair weather market supporters. When it cuts in their favor, sure they support it. When it doesn't, why government, government and more government.

Yep. It's why anarcho-capitalists and minarchists will always be disappointed. And it will never change. Neither anarcho-capitalists nor minarchists have enough patience with organizations to do the spadeworks to gain influence.

So.. per the example, since homeless people would be better off living on your livingroom, they would be naturally drawn to enter your house. It's useless to lock your doors, as they'd come in a window or something.

The funny thing is that if such a thing occured, you'd immediately call the "just as prone to failure, and maybe more so, as the rest of us" government, in the form of the police, to save your idiotic ass.

To extend (and correct) the analogy:

Let's say I left the door unlocked one night and someone entered my house without my permission and promptly set about cleaning my kitchen, doing my laundry, organizing my garage, etc. Then in the morning they charged me a measly two dollars for all that work.

What would I do?

I would give them a key and ask them to come back tomorrow night.