no subject

[archerships]

Opponent of immigration often cite the negative externalities that Hispanic immigrants impose on the rest of us as reason to deport them.

However, if it's worth preventing Mexicans from crossing the border, would not the same logic apply to preventing Mexicans from crossing vaginas? Yet, you rarely hear immigration foes calling for compulsory birth control.

Also, if the negative externalities are the issue, why export only Mexicans? After all, native born poor blacks also impose similar externalities. Shouldn't we also have a policy of exporting them back to Africa?

And why stop at national borders? If it's good prevent Hispanics from entering the U.S., then it should also be good to prevent them from leaving the states where they are already concentrated. Perhaps we should have a policy of internal border control?

Comments

:-)

[ehintz.livejournal.com]

Re: :-)

[mermeridith555.livejournal.com]

clever editorial.

Funny how it seems that most problems are caused by low education (and thereby low income), rather than more people using government programs (although most of those programs look like a waste of money anyway).

Re: :-)

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Great cartoon!

Re: :-)

[ehintz.livejournal.com]

One of my all time favorites...

[candid.livejournal.com]

"Proponents of Policy X [which is already law] often cite Consequence A as a reason for their support. However, if Policy X is worthwhile, why don't they support Policy Y and Policy Z [which would never in a million years become law], which would also entail Consequence A [as well as a number of other consequences, which I'm not going to mention, as they'd further confuse my argument]?"

[crasch.livejournal.com]

My point was to illustrate that "blocking the borders" was not the only policy implication of the negative externalities argument. It was not intended to be a comprehensive defense of those implications.

I'm trying to get people to think: once you abandon a principled stand for individual freedom, how exactly do you draw the line? If it's okay to forcibly stop peaceful people from living where they wish to live, or working for whom they wish, why stop there? Of course, you would never forcibly sterilize someone; I'm not so sure of our leaders.

Policy implications that were once thought ridiculous and "could never become law" have a disturbing tendency to become law eventually.

Moreover, any border control sufficiently capable of keeping people out will also be sufficiently capable of keeping people in. Many immigration opponents support building a wall across the entire 2000 mile U.S./Mexico border. This gives me the willies.

[candid.livejournal.com]

My point was to illustrate that "blocking the borders" was not the only policy implication of the negative externalities argument.

I can't see why that's an interesting point. There are plenty of unattractive policy implications of the "murder is wrong" argument (i.e. stupid policies we could enact to prevent murders), but I don't think that's a good reason to disparage murder opponents.

once you abandon a principled stand for individual freedom, how exactly do you draw the line?

Then who exactly is your post aimed at? Me? Because 99% of the people out there have never taken (let alone "abandoned") "a principled stand for individual freedom."

What's more, taking a principled stand for anything itself involves drawing lines. So you've decided that your principles necessitate protection of "life, liberty, and property," and nothing more. This is a line already.

And your principled stand says nothing to do about what happens when these principles conflict, when your right to liberty and my right to property suddenly become incompatible. But we need some sort of plan. Oops, that's another line right there.

You can't function in this world without "drawing lines," and it's naive to believe that doctrinaire adherence to libertarian principles allows you to avoid doing so.

[discopete1.livejournal.com]

As a revenue-positive immigrant, do I get to kick some lazy-ass Americans out of the country?

Seriously though, I doubt they take into account the economic benefit that is gleaned by industries in the South West. This is potentially a lot more than $10 billion when you consider the lower cost of food, construction, and manufacturing that is available through taking advantage of cheap illegal labor. Not to mention the cost of enforcing a ban on illegal immigration...all in all, $10 billion is a pretty low price to pay for the current situation. I'm surprised they couldn't inflate the numbers even more.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yep, you're probably right. Also, Parker argues that illegals are on welfare and commit crimes at a higher rate because they're illiterate, don't speak English, and have poor paying jobs.

Yet how is an illegal supposed to get a better paying job? Companies that pay well aren't going to risk a visit from the INS, because they can hire legal citizens/immigrants.

And because single individual can't earn very much money, the kids drop out of high school to work.

How is an illegal supposed to integrate? The more contact they have outside the immigrant community, the higher their risk of deportation. So their English skills remain poor.

Like the drug war, I think many of the problems associated with illegal immigrants are problems caused by the immigration restrictions themselves.

Also, almost all of the costs Parker cites -- higher costs of schools, welfare, roads -- are self-inflicted. If we didn't have these programs to begin with, then we wouldn't be paying those costs.

[fare.livejournal.com]

Ken Schoolland of Jonathan Gullible fame already invoked the same argument as you do in this speech.