Amy,

I enjoy your blog, but this post is problematic for several reasons.

1) Why would someone move to the U.S. just to live in a slum? People move to the U.S. because they have employment possibilities.

2) Minimum wages create unemployment, hence the demand for cheap labour from immigrants. You want to reduce illegal immigration? Get rid of minimum wages. Minimum wages are an assault on the poor anyway. They lead to unemployment, deficits (which lead to inflation which most certainly screws over the poor) and deprive people of a chance at attaining better real wages over the long term.

3) Most economists are twits ... seriously. Cheap labour coming from other countries does result in a shift of the supply curve of labour to the right. But those immigrants spend and invest their paychecks, resulting in a shift in the demand curve for labour to the right. Using your logic, you'd have to condemn women for entering the workforce and pushing down wages. Again using your logic, wages should have been falling in real terms all throughout the 19th century.

4) Employers have a right to hire these people if they so choose. Preventing them from doing so is a violation of employer property rights.

The following study from the Cato Institute gives you a good idea of what I'm talking about:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10438

My only concern with a physical fence is the effect on local wild life.

I'd also like to say something about this boycott of AZ over the SB1070 law.

AZ has 30 districts, 1 state senator and 2 state represenitives per.

Which means that a grand total of 91 people were involved in the passing of this bill. 91 out of 6.5 million.

Meanwhile according to this article
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2010-05-20/music/arizona-shouldn-t-worry-about-boycotting-bands-we-should-worry-about-bands-that-will-quietly-do-so/

Still, Arizona's new immigration law has been called "eerily similar" to California's old law by the Center for American Progress.
&
Did anyone in the entertainment industry boycott California over Proposition 187, as some musicians are now doing to Arizona? No. Did anyone even seriously consider it? Not that I can find. That law was actually approved by voters — winning 58 percent of overall votes and a majority in every California county outside the Bay Area — not signed into law by an unelected governor.

Whats the difference between 60% of CA ppulation vs 91 people? BTW of the 91 State legislators and the govener involved in the debate and passage of this law nearly half voted againts it

1) Why would someone move to the U.S. just to live in a slum? People move to the U.S. because they have employment possibilities.

Amy, would you like those of us near migrant comunites to send you photos of the slums for charles to see?

4) Employers have a right to hire these people if they so choose. Preventing them from doing so is a violation of employer property rights.

Not if hiring them is a violation of US law. You hire someone you have to pay payroll taxed, which means they need a tax ID. By knowingly hiring an illegal you are comminting tax fraud

Mickey is saying Los Angeles, etc., will BECOME a slum with open borders. He's right.

Enforce our borders and immigration laws. Don't reward people who are criminals -- illegal immigrants -- with anything more than a bus ride back to their country of origin. And while you're firing up the buses, get the prison buses to dump all the convicts we're supporting in US prisons.

control the border? The Horror!

All immigration policy has to flow from this. Oddly enough, the people who are most against a border, profit the most from having it remain like this. I wonder if any of the useful dupes have noticed this.

"Amy, would you like those of us near migrant comunites to send you photos of the slums for charles to see?"

How about you send me the pics of all the slums which do not consist of immigrants? Perhaps they should be throw out as well. Poor people have been coming to the U.S. to build a better life since the beginning of the Republic.

"Not if hiring them is a violation of US law. You hire someone you have to pay payroll taxed, which means they need a tax ID. By knowingly hiring an illegal you are comminting tax fraud"

Perhaps I was not clear. I'm arguing that employers should have the right to hire anyone they please. What the law currently is is not relevant here (in fact it's circular). So how about the U.S. eliminate payroll taxes (which are unjust and economically destructive anyway)? We all know that probably won't happen so how about the U.S. liberalize immigration? Being legal immigrants, employers would pay for their payroll taxes. See how your argument is circular? If you want to justify restricted immigration, you're going to have to come up with an argument that shows that immigration is bad in and of itself.

"How about you send me the pics of all the slums which do not consist of immigrants?"

Because it doesn't exist. Which you would know if you actually knew what you were talking about.
Take a walk to one of your local slums. A hispanic one preferably since the majority of the immigrants are hispanic nowadays. You will likely notice that a one bedroom apartment or house will house multiple people of foreign desent. There will be multiple children who go to public school and another other adult will likely work off the books, therefore not paying any taxes to pay for that public school their children are attending. And you will also likely find one of their other family members (parent, cousin, nephew/niece, sibling) living with them as well. At least one of them is likely not to speak any English and doesn't work at all therefore, not contributing to the system they live off of in any way. And I would be willing to bet that only one adult member of that dwelling actually has any documentation at all. The rest likely got Visa's to visit, if they even did that, and just never left. I see it everyday. (I actually lived in a Spanish slum in my early 20's. The rent was cheap and I lived wiht my DOCUMENTED at the time boyfriend who spent his off the books money supporting his family who was my example above). This isn't an exception. This is pretty much how it is.

Charles, No one is ANTI immigration. We are anti ILLEGAL immigration. THAT is the difference. We oppose legislation that allows a free ride to those who crossed the border illegally. Not to those who did the right thing, got their Visa's and earn an honest living.

By your argument, we should just let anyone come over here, and do anything they want, and just give them citizenship and the right to work whenever and wherever they please at whatever wage they want becuase they are poor and just want to make a better life for themselves here. Tough. I want a better life too. But I have to actually pay my taxes to have the right to pursue it.

Yes. People have been immigrating for generations. But, it didn't make it right for them to sneak in either. We have laws now. Those laws must be enforced. You don't like em? Move to another country. Oh wait. You probably couldn't do that either. Because other countries also have immigrations laws. Stict ones. More strict than ours. And they enforce them regularly. Why is it so awful for us to do the same?

"By your argument, we should just let anyone come over here, and do anything they want, and just give them citizenship and the right to work whenever and wherever they please at whatever wage they want becuase they are poor and just want to make a better life for themselves here."

Yes. What's the problem with this, again? Also, Sabrina, the existence of a law doesn't make it just.

Charles, the problem with your reasoning is that you assume that everyone seeks to be employed and self-sufficient. Sadly, some people don't. And the more the U.S. becomes a social welfare state, the more attractive it becomes to people who do not want to work. As for why they would desire to live in a slum: well, if you spend your every waking hour drunk or stoned, how much shelter do you really need? As long as you don't freeze to death, which you won't in L.A., it doesn't really matter.

I'm surprised that Kaus didn't bring up the national security issue, which is the other major point. If our borders are open to all of Mexico, then they are equally open to Iran, Hezbollah, and Al Queda. We must get the borders under control for that reason alone, since Mexico does not have the ability to control its borders.

Ever seen the slums of a third world country?

And why should we treat immigrants from any country any differently from the way their country treats immigrants?

My question is why none of the $700 Billion could be carved out to build or finish building a fence on the border?

One of the basic problems is that, in general, Americans aren't required to document their citizenship on demand. In many cases, as Mexican-looking Americans in Arizona are discovering, proving their citizenship can be difficult (See the Puerto Rico-born man who they wanted to deport "back" to Mexico).

I'll be the first to admit that I don't have a solution to this basic problem which doesn't violate my gut-level revulsion for national IDs and an acceptance of "papers, please?"

Jim P: "My question is why none of the $700 Billion could be carved out to build or finish building a fence on the border?"

The only workers they could find willing to dig fence post holes in the desert were illegal, ;-)

The only workers they could find willing to dig fence post holes in the desert were illegal, ;-)

Trust me: give me $500K (to pay for beer (or other beverages), lunch and dinner), 40-100 tractors with post-hole diggers, a crap load of bagged cement, chain link fence, and razor wire -- I'd bet you that I wouldn't have to actually pay real money in labor costs. I'd have volunteers lining up to build it for free.

And that includes the "climbing/ lifelines" on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande.

And I bet it would be done by the end of summer.

"Ever seen the slums of a third world country?"

I've seen East St. Louis. Does that count?

Jim P,

I like that idea! A volunteer "army" of fence-builders.

But, don't let the unions find out or they will get you shut down for "taking away their jobs".

"By your argument, we should just let anyone come over here, and do anything they want, and just give them citizenship and the right to work whenever and wherever they please at whatever wage they want because they are poor and just want to make a better life for themselves here."

"Yes. What's the problem with this, again? Also, Sabrina, the existence of a law doesn't make it just."

It's not just to protect our resources, people, and jobs? It's not just to protect our border? Really? How? I am genuanly curious how it's unjust?

The problem is that you can't safely have a free for all country. That spreads disease, violence, poverty, etc... The majority of the people coming over here aren't looking to make better by working anyway. They are looking for a free ride. They want us to take care of them and feel sorry for them because they come from such poverty and such awful conditions. We are suppossed to open our arms and give them whatever they want, rights of citizens and all, for nothing. UUUUM no.

I doesn't work that way for us to go to other countries so it surely shouldn't work that way here. Tell you what, I'll go tit for tat. As soon as Mexico and UK change their immigration policies and let me go over there and do what I want when I want at the wage that I want, and not demand that I provide documentation of my legal status in the country, and not force me to pay taxes, then I will agree with you. But that isn't gonna happen. Because they got it right. If it isn't your country of origin, you aren't automatically granted the same rights as those who belong there. You have to get them the RIGHT way. The LEGAL way.

I don't really care if it's not PC. It's the truth.

But, don't let the unions find out or they will get you shut down for "taking away their jobs".

Very true.

I had another thought:

Ask the tea party groups to sponsor the builder's trip. Skilled work being appreciated, anyone willing to work is welcome. ;-)

I also remember in Korea, the houses (compounds) were surrounded by concrete walls with glass and nails embedded in the top (and upper edges) with glass and nails.

You know what?

It is all very simple.
There is a demand for being in the U.S.,

So put a value on it; maybe call it a fine(? $20,000 or more) for being in the country illegal. Do tighter i.d. checks, catch people here illegal, and make them decide if it is really worth it for them to be here. Let them decide. Free ride back home or enter a payment and legalizatin scheme. Let people decide before even setting one foot in the U.S.

It is all very simple

Oh and really,

Why so much concern with people paying social security to a fictitious or somebody else's real social security number. Persecute identity theft with real negatives.