Against the Wall
2005-10-18 11:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
archershipsRandall Parker, in his futurepundit persona, finds an enormous number of fascinating science articles. As parapundit, he's virulently anti-immigration. Most of the time I resist the temptation to respond to his parapundit posts, but this time I couldn't resist:
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003053.html
Randall,
I've been reading your blog (via the Livejournal RSS feed) for over a year, so I'm familiar with many of your arguments. (And I have great admiration for the breadth of your reading -- futurepundit is quite fascinating.)
That said, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to a suggestion to read a book-length archive of blog posts. So instead I'll respond to the specific points you raised.
1) Whether or not poor Mexicans can pay for the bonds depends on a) the amount of the bond b) the expected earnings of the Mexican in the U.S. Assuming for the moment that the purchase of such bonds could be enforced, how much of a bond would you require before allowing the average Mexican into the U.S.?
2) You claim that a barrier could be erected for between $2 - $8 billion. Leaving aside whether such a barrier would be effective, proponents of government initiatives are not known for their accuracy in estimating the costs. For example, In September 2002, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Iraq war would cost $1.5 billion to $4 billion per month. In fact, it costs between $5 billion and $8 billion per month. Moreover,
"Prior to the war, White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay estimated the war would be about 1 to 2 percent of the gross national product, or about $200 billion on the high end. Lindsey left the White House post several months later. Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels called Lindsay's estimate "very, very high" and told news organizations the cost would likely be between $50 billion and $60 billion." (5)
The U.S. has already spent $312 billion on the war, and current CBO estimates put the final tally at $700 billion. (2) The costs of all earlier wars have been similarly underestimated. (2)
And it's not just war -- the costs of Medicare, Social Security, and other great society programs have been similarly vastly underestimated. For example:
"At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion," wrote Steven Hayward and Erik Peterson in a 1993 Reason article. "The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was supposedly a 'conservative' estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion." (4)
Why should I believe that your projected costs are not similarly underestimated?
3) Even if such a wall were built at your projected costs, I have no confidence that it will work. The U.S. has spent $40 billion so far this year alone in the "War on Drugs" (3) (up from $1 billion/year in 1980), yet the street cost and purity of drugs has remained the about the same as it was 20 years ago (in inflation-adjusted terms).
Why should I believe that a "War on Illegal Immigrants" will be any more effective?
You write:
"Nearly half of all illegals came in through legals ports of entry. So the construction of a barrier on the border with Mexico would probably cut illegal immigration by about half."
This assumes that immigrant behavior is static. Do you think that immigrants will just throw up their hands? Illegals already pay large bribes to coyotes to take them across the desert. How much more would it cost to bribe a border guard? And what about the thousands of commercial vehicles that cross into the U.S. every day? The tourists and businessmen?
In my opinion, so long as there is a large differential between median U.S. and Mexican wages, there will be an inexorable pressure for immigrants to come to the U.S.
Ironically, I think that immigration restrictions make it more likely that immigrants will stay in the U.S. than they would otherwise. Since crossing the border is so risky, once an immigrant makes it into the U.S., they stay and build new lives here. If it were easier to cross the border, I think a lot of immigrants would come here to build up a nest egg, then move back to Mexico to start their own businesses, secure in the knowledge that they could come back to the U.S. if their venture doesn't work out. This would a) provide venture capital, thus allowing Mexicans to build up their own economy b) create demand in Mexicans for a U.S. style legal environment (instead of the current cronyism and corruption that characterizes Mexican law now) c) raise living standards so that Mexicans have enough time, money, and energy to lobby for political reform d) reduce pressure on Mexicans to move to the U.S. in the first place.
3) Just as the War on Drugs has caused enormous damage to our civil liberties, I expect a War on Illegals would have similar consequences. You write:
"The solution to our immigration problem is to build a wall and then start deporting all the illegals."
So first you want to build a Berlin Wall around the United States. Assuming you agree with Krikorian's proposals, you also support stepped up "document audits", asset forfeiture, and a national id card system required to own a car, start a business, go to school, or do pretty much anything. Doesn't this ring any alarm bells for you? Are you so confident in the benevolence of government officials that you would give them the power to track your every move?
4) You complain about the costs of uninsured llegals. But how exactly is an illegal immigrant supposed to get a good paying job with insurance without documentation? Most high paying jobs don't pay cash under the table. And what value is a good education if you can't get a job doing anything other than menial labor?
Yes, Mexicans use social services (healthcare, education). Why shouldn't they? We allow them to use them. We should stop subsidizing them. Of course, you could argue that there is now a voting constituency for tax-subsidized healthcare and government schools, and it would therefore be quite difficult to eliminate the subsidies. And I would agree. But I see them as problems regardless of whether immigrants come to the U.S. or not.
5) You wrote:
"Take away the Mexicans and rebuilding would stll get done. But it would get done by American citizens at higher wages."
If a Mexican and a U.S. citizen of equal skill applied for the same job, and assuming that each imposed the same level of externality, would it matter to you who got the job?
1) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/17/MNG5GDPEK31.DTL&type=printable
2) http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0321/p02s02-woiq.html
3) http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
4) http://www.reason.com/sullum/112803.shtml
5) http://zfacts.com/p/447.html
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003053.html
Randall,
I've been reading your blog (via the Livejournal RSS feed) for over a year, so I'm familiar with many of your arguments. (And I have great admiration for the breadth of your reading -- futurepundit is quite fascinating.)
That said, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to a suggestion to read a book-length archive of blog posts. So instead I'll respond to the specific points you raised.
1) Whether or not poor Mexicans can pay for the bonds depends on a) the amount of the bond b) the expected earnings of the Mexican in the U.S. Assuming for the moment that the purchase of such bonds could be enforced, how much of a bond would you require before allowing the average Mexican into the U.S.?
2) You claim that a barrier could be erected for between $2 - $8 billion. Leaving aside whether such a barrier would be effective, proponents of government initiatives are not known for their accuracy in estimating the costs. For example, In September 2002, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Iraq war would cost $1.5 billion to $4 billion per month. In fact, it costs between $5 billion and $8 billion per month. Moreover,
"Prior to the war, White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay estimated the war would be about 1 to 2 percent of the gross national product, or about $200 billion on the high end. Lindsey left the White House post several months later. Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels called Lindsay's estimate "very, very high" and told news organizations the cost would likely be between $50 billion and $60 billion." (5)
The U.S. has already spent $312 billion on the war, and current CBO estimates put the final tally at $700 billion. (2) The costs of all earlier wars have been similarly underestimated. (2)
And it's not just war -- the costs of Medicare, Social Security, and other great society programs have been similarly vastly underestimated. For example:
"At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion," wrote Steven Hayward and Erik Peterson in a 1993 Reason article. "The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was supposedly a 'conservative' estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion." (4)
Why should I believe that your projected costs are not similarly underestimated?
3) Even if such a wall were built at your projected costs, I have no confidence that it will work. The U.S. has spent $40 billion so far this year alone in the "War on Drugs" (3) (up from $1 billion/year in 1980), yet the street cost and purity of drugs has remained the about the same as it was 20 years ago (in inflation-adjusted terms).
Why should I believe that a "War on Illegal Immigrants" will be any more effective?
You write:
"Nearly half of all illegals came in through legals ports of entry. So the construction of a barrier on the border with Mexico would probably cut illegal immigration by about half."
This assumes that immigrant behavior is static. Do you think that immigrants will just throw up their hands? Illegals already pay large bribes to coyotes to take them across the desert. How much more would it cost to bribe a border guard? And what about the thousands of commercial vehicles that cross into the U.S. every day? The tourists and businessmen?
In my opinion, so long as there is a large differential between median U.S. and Mexican wages, there will be an inexorable pressure for immigrants to come to the U.S.
Ironically, I think that immigration restrictions make it more likely that immigrants will stay in the U.S. than they would otherwise. Since crossing the border is so risky, once an immigrant makes it into the U.S., they stay and build new lives here. If it were easier to cross the border, I think a lot of immigrants would come here to build up a nest egg, then move back to Mexico to start their own businesses, secure in the knowledge that they could come back to the U.S. if their venture doesn't work out. This would a) provide venture capital, thus allowing Mexicans to build up their own economy b) create demand in Mexicans for a U.S. style legal environment (instead of the current cronyism and corruption that characterizes Mexican law now) c) raise living standards so that Mexicans have enough time, money, and energy to lobby for political reform d) reduce pressure on Mexicans to move to the U.S. in the first place.
3) Just as the War on Drugs has caused enormous damage to our civil liberties, I expect a War on Illegals would have similar consequences. You write:
"The solution to our immigration problem is to build a wall and then start deporting all the illegals."
So first you want to build a Berlin Wall around the United States. Assuming you agree with Krikorian's proposals, you also support stepped up "document audits", asset forfeiture, and a national id card system required to own a car, start a business, go to school, or do pretty much anything. Doesn't this ring any alarm bells for you? Are you so confident in the benevolence of government officials that you would give them the power to track your every move?
4) You complain about the costs of uninsured llegals. But how exactly is an illegal immigrant supposed to get a good paying job with insurance without documentation? Most high paying jobs don't pay cash under the table. And what value is a good education if you can't get a job doing anything other than menial labor?
Yes, Mexicans use social services (healthcare, education). Why shouldn't they? We allow them to use them. We should stop subsidizing them. Of course, you could argue that there is now a voting constituency for tax-subsidized healthcare and government schools, and it would therefore be quite difficult to eliminate the subsidies. And I would agree. But I see them as problems regardless of whether immigrants come to the U.S. or not.
5) You wrote:
"Take away the Mexicans and rebuilding would stll get done. But it would get done by American citizens at higher wages."
If a Mexican and a U.S. citizen of equal skill applied for the same job, and assuming that each imposed the same level of externality, would it matter to you who got the job?
1) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/17/MNG5GDPEK31.DTL&type=printable
2) http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0321/p02s02-woiq.html
3) http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
4) http://www.reason.com/sullum/112803.shtml
5) http://zfacts.com/p/447.html
no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 04:55 am (UTC)tax-subsidized healthcare and government schools, and it would therefore
be quite difficult to eliminate the subsidies. And I would agree. But I
see them as problems regardless of whether immigrants come to the U.S. or
not.
This is the part of your argument that I find the most disingenuous. You
write as if the issue is whether or not such a constituency exists.
But the key issue is the size of the constituency.
If that isn't obvious, think about your plans to move to New Hampshire. I
know for a fact that there is "a constituency" for libertarianism in North
Carolina. But you joined the FSP to create a more concentrated (aka
more sizable) constituency in one place, where like-minded people
can influence public policy.
Do you think with open borders we'd have an influx of largely
libertarian-minded people? Or of people looking to vote themselves
largesse?
no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 06:03 am (UTC)However, I see increased immigration as only accelerating a trend that already exists. Even if no more immigrants moved into the U.S., existing macro parasites will continue to vote themselves increasing political largesse until there is a crisis and the system collapses. I don't think that will change unless you can somehow figure out a way to change the political process such that the public choice problems (rational ignorance, diffuse costs/concentrated benefits) can be solved.
I think that the immigration controls that Parker proposes will be a costly failure, just as the drug war has been a costly failure. And as I pointed out in my response to Parker, as in the drug war, I think a lot of the problems immigrants cause are created or exacerbated by their illegal status itself.
Although I didn't go into it much, I also think that Parker doesn't value sufficiently a lot of the benefits of open borders:
* land values, particularly in border states, would increase
* higher population densities would make more niche goods and services possible
* millions of Mexicans, Indians, Chinese and others would be able to escape corrupt, inefficient governments. Even if it means a decrease in the utility of existing U.S. citizens, it would mean a massive increase in global utility. As I noted, I'm no nationalist.
* lower enforcement costs for border control
* it would put pressure on poor governments to reform their systems or lose their tax base
* lower costs of goods and services provided by immigrants (think Korean nail salons)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 03:43 pm (UTC)How on earth is this a "benefit"? I mean, it's good for those who currently own the land, but it's bad for those who don't and would like to (or for those whose rents will go up).
Make sure to give an answer that I can't turn around and use to justify why protective tariffs (which, for instance, increase "sugar values") are good.
it would put pressure on poor governments to reform their systems or lose their tax base
After all your invocation of "public choice", I don't know where you get the idea (*cough* Zimbabwe *cough* South Africa *cough*) that corrupt governments are really interested in "maintaining their tax base", or even that they'd respond to that kind of pressure (rather than, say, just plundering).
no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 04:41 pm (UTC)Home ownership rates in the U.S. are currently around 65 - 70%. I assumed that higher housing prices will help existing homeowners more than higher rents will hurt current non-home owners.
But in a broader sense, you're right. I'm not sure that increased immigration would be a net benefit, looking at housing prices alone. However, I want people to be able to be free to go where they believe they can maximize their productivity and happiness. So I think that prices should reflect the intersection of the natural scarcity and worldwide demand, regardless of what that price may be. I don't think that sellers should be able to artificially inflate the price by legally depressing supply (zoning laws), and I don't think that buyers should be able to artificially deflate the price by legally depressing demand (immigration restrictions).
After all your invocation of "public choice", I don't know where you get the idea (*cough* Zimbabwe *cough* South Africa *cough*) that corrupt governments are really interested in "maintaining their tax base", or even that they'd respond to that kind of pressure (rather than, say, just plundering).
If immigration restrictions were not so stringent, the populations of Zimbabwe and South Africa could flee. Because they can't, those governments are free to plunder as they wish.
If the other 49 states closed their borders to California residents, what do you predict would happen to California tax rates?
no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 12:36 pm (UTC)Were I writing to him, I wouldn't have Salient Points #1 through 5, and would instead harp largely on Aghast Point #6 - "A Wall? Are You Fucking Serious?" So it's probably better that a level-headed gent like yourself talks to him. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 01:36 pm (UTC)"A wall? Are You Fucking Serious?" -My sentiments exactly...
no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 03:15 pm (UTC)Oh, I'm saying that with my inside voice too. Unfortunately, that appears to be a minority reaction. The number of people who think a giant wall around the border is a good idea is astonishing.
Racism
Date: 2005-10-19 01:33 pm (UTC)There will be those like
-or is it somehow OK for local-born people with white skin to vote for largesse but foreign-born people with dark skin who would do so are somehow inferior?
Racism.
Cut out the possibility of largesse. Destroy the mechanism for such tax&spend social progressiveness and there is no problem.
No borders, no state, no laws.
Government = theft.
Re: Racism
Date: 2005-10-19 02:56 pm (UTC)Re: Racism
Date: 2005-10-19 03:34 pm (UTC)But I refuse to let it color my views under the Zero Agression Principle. All people are equal under the ZAP. I recognize no governments, no borders and no laws that violate the ZAP. I am stronger than the racism that was soaked up with my mother's milk.
Re: Racism
Date: 2005-10-19 03:21 pm (UTC)And I don't think
Re: Racism
Date: 2005-10-19 03:36 pm (UTC)Re: Racism
Date: 2005-10-19 03:56 pm (UTC)Read on..
no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 03:14 pm (UTC)Its not that we can't end illegal entrants or drug trafficking but rather that we are unwilling to take the steps required to do so.
Drug dealing, for example, was ended in China in a matter of weeks after the Reds took over. They simply rounded up every drug dealer they could find and executed them with a minimum of legal process. They made it clear that drug users would suffer the same fate. People took them seriously and that was that. You can say that this was immoral, evil or whatever else you feel like. But it worked.
You want to end drug dealing in the United States? Do the same thing. Send out death squads and kill every dealer you find. If you don't know where the drug dealers are then you're not much of a cop but you can always go to the local high school and ask any kid. They'll tell you.
You want to end illegal immigration? Don't send illegal entrants back. Shoot them and put their heads on poles in neat lines at the border. Would that be a nice thing to do? Of course not. would it work? Of course it would.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 03:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 03:48 pm (UTC)We presumably want people to live longer and saying "not dying of old age" implies that. so killing them at 30 is not a solution.
Why are death squads a bigger problem? Because they aren't nice? I agree they aren't nice but that's not the issue.
The argument I see here is as follows:
1. We should (build a wall/ increase border patrols/ etc) to stop illegal immigration
2. That (anything involving preventing entrance by illegals) won't work AND THEREFORE
3. We should let them in
I dispute the second part. One can stop illegal immigration by the use of force. Just start killing tens of thousands of people a day and it will stop.
Now if you want to say that won't stop immigration then fine. But don't try to change the subject.
Lets make it clear that we COULD stop illegal immigration but that you don't want to (for whatever reason) and that it is your refusal to employ the needed methods and NOT the impossibility of doing so that leads you to your conclusion.
silly analogy?
Date: 2005-10-19 03:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 04:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 04:33 pm (UTC)Be that as it may, will you concede that immigration control or the elimination of drug traffic could be acheived with force?
no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 04:48 pm (UTC)And no, I don't believe that force would necessarily work. Totalitarian states are not known for the accuracy of their official statistics. (Although it seems more plausible that it would work to prevent immigration than it would work to prevent drug trafficking, since drugs are easier to conceal.)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 09:40 pm (UTC)