[zkhalique]

I would express the same sentiment about illegal immigrants. This is to all the people who support Donald Trump's rhetoric about deporting all 11 million undocumented immigrants. These people fled the drug gangs and violence that our war on drugs helped create (think fleeing ISIS) and came to work jobs no one else would take and make a better life for their family. Yes technically they broke a law.

If you're going to argue that we as a country of laws should deport them all back, then I hope you and your family never smoked pot because you broke a law. And since we are a nation of laws - including minimum sentencing laws which the prison industrial complex loves - how would you like it if they looked for you and put you in jail for a victimless crime? Drop your double standard. The Mexican immigrant is better than the potsmoker because they fled violence, wanted to make a better life for their family AND helped do the jobs no one else would. The potsmoker chose to smoke and helped no one except the drug dealers.

Plus we did that already, and it was a disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation -- an estimated 1.2 million US citizens were deported. Plus until 1965, immigration was unrestricted from Mexico and Canada so many of the 11 million broke a law by staying, but not by coming.

You have heard all these myths. The fact is, immigrants have higher labor participation, lower crime rate than the native born population. Especially the illegal immigrants who are afraid of being caught by police and deported. Illegal immigrants do NOT get money from the federal government - if your city pays them take it up with your city. But they pay taxes like everyone else, including sales tax and property taxes. So they pay into the system and get nothing back. You want to deport them all and break up their families so you will end up picking crops, and think this is the way to bring jobs to USA?

[Kadin]

> came to work jobs no one else would take

This is a particular piece of rhetoric I find distasteful. If there are jobs that are structured such that only an illegal immigrant, who by definition exists outside the normal labor pool and its protections, will take, that job should not exist in that form or at that pay rate. Full stop.

So the fact that jobs that "no one else would take" exist and are being taken by illegal immigrants isn't a good thing. If you're in favor of expanded immigration, making that claim doesn't help your case. It substantiates the case that anti-immigration proponents have always made, which is that immigrants take the bottom out of the labor market and help keep salaries down.

After all, if nobody would take a job doing some particularly onerous job at a pittance per hour, then the employer would have to pay more, or automate, or find a more efficient way of doing the job. Refusing to do these jobs is the correct response when they are clearly undercompensated.

There are lots of people in the legal labor market who do terribly unpleasant, physically strenuous, or frankly dangerous jobs, but they typically (outside of illegal or exploitative markets) do them for reasonable wages. Someone who SCUBA dives in raw sewage or nuclear waste, for instance, is probably going to demand a fair compensation for the unpleasantness of the job. The same should be true with people who work in slaughterhouses or picking strawberries or tarring asphalt roofs. The narrative that "Americans just won't do" certain jobs is one that is created by cheapskate, exploitative employers who don't want to pay the market rate for particularly ugly jobs. Parroting it is water-carrying for these exploitative industries.

[hackuser]

>> came to work jobs no one else would take

> If there are jobs that are structured such that only an illegal immigrant, who by definition exists outside the normal labor pool and its protections, will take

Typically, that statement also refers to jobs that are perfectly legal, but most Americans wouldn't take anyway. For example, many of the experienced people reading this wouldn't drive a cab, deliver pizzas, work as unskilled construction labor, a dishwasher or a janitor if they became unemployed. They'd continue to look for their next IT job. And they'd be choosy about that - not selling computers at Best Buy, for example.

(I'm not putting down those jobs; personally I respect any work.)

[EGreg]

I disagree, on liberal and humanitarian grounds.

These people make the risky and grueling trip to the US and try to make it as an illegal immigrant, for a reason: they feel the alternative is worse. They'd rather be picking crops and remitting money to their family back home, doing the jobs Americans don't do. You should be blaming the drug war that caused the Sinaloa cartel and others to take over entire cities, and resort to violence we now know from ISIS.

It's a bit like blaming the Koch brothers for hiring convicts for jobs because the convicts would be happy with less. When properly you should be blaming all the other employers whose refusal to hire convicts leads to them CHOOSING to take these jobs.

In short, even though I am a liberal, I recognize that these arguments about "exploitation" are myopic. They don't look 1 step beyond the "exploiter" to see whatconditions make people CHOOSE to be "exploited". Always, the real fix is to fix the conditions at large, not the employer.

So it is with the jobs that "no one wants". I would rather Mexicans come and do them for less, and American citizens get freed up to study other subjects and get higher paying jobs.

In fact I'd advocate for taxing 20-30% of the money saved from hiring overseas workers and automating jobs away and redistributing it as basic income on the federal level. That would help transition our economy from the one we had 20 years ago to one where aggregate demand for human labor has droppd by 10x.

[redwood]

While I see what you're saying, it's disingenuous with respect to American history, to pretend the nation has ever not aggressively brought people in to work "who by definition exists outside the normal labor pool"

[imagist]

> This is a particular piece of rhetoric I find distasteful. If there are jobs that are structured such that only an illegal immigrant, who by definition exists outside the normal labor pool and its protections, will take, that job should not exist in that form or at that pay rate. Full stop.

Agreed. There was a pretty good article on this in N+1 magazine a few months back that I found insightful enough to copy down:

> Both American and Mexican labor are cheaper for being divided, and there is no obvious reason to believe that more labor laws, like raising the minimum wage, will change the fact if there remains a surplus of undocumented workers to whom these laws technically apply, though in practice they are unenforced. The real wage, calculated as the average rate paid to documented and undocumented workers alike, explains Trump's rise more than his virulent racism does. Racism is a side effect of a regime that keeps labor laws on the books only to look the other way when millions of brown people are subjected to conditions far beneath these standards.

> The wall isn't racist; the border is racist. The wall is an effort to force a broader recognition of the privileges the border grants to professionals, who are the primary beneficiaries of American immigration and trade policy, and to redistribute some of its racist benefits downward. The only solution to this problem is to raise the price of labor power in Mexico, and then everywhere else. But given the limited political horizon of the professional left, for whom a higher minimum wage for American citizens is the best that can be hoped for, perhaps the unemployed people of Indiana can be forgiven for thinking that the wall is more realistic.

[brokenmachine]

Excellent post.

[fiblye]

One thing I find worrying about arguments in favor of illegal immigration/very lax immigration policies is how easily it can come across as being in favor of indentured servitude and having a lower class to support the upper class. We say they do jobs "nobody else wants to do" for suboptimal wages, and they do it right because they fear what'll happen if they don't. And we proudly say that they contribute by paying taxes that support citizens while taking nothing in return.

You could honestly make a solid argument in favor of slavery using the same exact points. Go to a poor, dangerous country like Yemen, offer someone a contract saying they can live in a safe country so long as they accept that they get zero benefits, they'll be deported should they mess up their job, and a large portion of their income will support their citizens. Of course, this sounds terrible, because you're making them sign a contract and this is seen as taking advantage of them, when it's entirely their choice to go for it. But when no written contract is involved, we sweep it under the rug and even get people saying it's great because it boosts our economy.

[ap3]

Unfortunately there will always be those for whom this modern day slavery is better than the prospects they have at home.

You do them no favors by keeping them out because they never had access to "benefits" in the first place

[bruno_samar]

I think this comes down to the contract really, and you could make an argument about many contracts which are not morally right (like marrying a 50 year old grandma on her death-bed and going away with all the inheritance. Is that right?). Sweeping under a rug will not be solved by banning immigration, or making it stricter, that would exclusively make it worse. Lax laws would actually tremendously help those kind of modern slaves. So i dont really see your point.

[drcode]

Your argument is basically "everybody's doing it, everybody is breaking a law somewhere" and that it's OK for people to break one law because other people are breaking a different law.

I think a more sensible approach than saying "lawbreaking is OK" is for the parties on Capitol Hill to forge a compromise that involves (1) easier legal immigration (2) better funding and more enforcement of existing immigration laws (yes, including significant deportation for illegal immigrants that moved to the US as an adult)

The only way to make progress is to move further away from casual law breaking, not to continue encouraging it. (And yes, a "one time amnesty" as you suggest would encourage more people to break the law.)

Side note: My own personal opinion is that legal immigration should be so easy that virtually anyone can come to our country who doesn't have a criminal history, but that's not on the table as a viable option.

[dwaxe]

Sometimes a law is detrimental to human good. In such cases we should break it.

[drewrv]

I think the major disagreement isn't whether law breaking is ok or not. The question is whether violating US immigration laws is a serious crime that requires harsh punishment or a minor crime the requires a slap on the wrist.

The "apologize, pay a token fine, get a work permit" crowd thinks violating immigration laws are like speeding, pot, or jaywalking laws. The "deport them all" crowd thinks violating immigration laws is like stealing or committing fraud.

That's why this issue won't be resolved any time soon. If liberals get a big enough majority there may be a one time amnesty or a change that allows new immigrants in. If the right got a big enough majority there would be a one time mass deportation or maybe a stupid wall. But the bottom line is that some people see it as no big deal, the others see it as a heinous crime, and it's a Rorschach test: agreement on who's right will never happen.

[refurb]

the parties on Capitol Hill to forge a compromise

I was actually pretty impressed with the immigration reform GW Bush tried to pass, but failed. Increase enforcement along with a process to legalize the ones already here. My memory is hazy on the details, but unless you've lived illegally in the US for more than X years (those people get legalized within the US), you need to leave the country, then apply and return. Of course this is dependent on having a good enough process to let them back in (which I remember it was), but it seemed a good compromise between enforcement and increased immigration.

[mc32]

A fair immigration policy for US citizens would take into account the effects of immigration on them and also take their concerns into account --with rigorous studies, not just cherry picked ones (higher income immigrants, for example, contribute more to the economy than unskilled immigrants, irrespective of country)

That said, to be fair to all potential immigrants, we should grant all of them equal potential access (i.e. someone from South Africa having the same chance to legally ingress into the US as a Canadian or Mexican who are right next door --it might also take into account their population, so someone form Indonesia has the same odds as someone from Belize.

And, to be fair to the American population, we should ensure those who come here are here to fill gaps in our society --so ensuring they don't undercut Americans jobs (that is let meat packers have to pay $25/hr to get locals to do that job rather than say have them say that no American wants to do that job. I'd bet many poor whites as well as many poor blacks would take those jobs at those wages.

Also, any underdeveloped population which moves to the US (or Kuwait or Chile) will typically increase their own per capita consumption (from a global perspective) also if they come from a country wallowing in economic mismanagement (say Albania) allowing Albanians (or Georgians) to flee means even less stability for those locales as it takes their motivated people and transplant them into a place that doesn't need them as much. There are many incidental things which a policy can affect. We're not a nation of 120 million or 200, we're at 330 and climbing and most with a voracious appetite for consumption (including the fast learning newcomers).

That said, fairness in immigration should be a priority rather than just allow those who runt the gauntlet successfully. And in addition, tie it to the ease of Americans's ability to migrate into these other countries, if we choose.

[JoeAltmaier]

Fair? You mean, maximum benefit to Americans. We're supposed to believe all people have inalienable rights to life, liberty etc. I'm willing to allow folks suffering abroad to find a haven here. That sounds fair to me.

[partycoder]

The trend is that more Mexicans have left the US rather than entered it. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-...

Then, you used Mexican immigrant and illegal immigrant interchangeably. Not all Mexican immigrants are illegal or financially distressed, or seeking to do jobs that no one else wants to do.

This pisses me off.

The US entertainment industry is hostile towards Mexico in a very passive aggressive way. It spends significant resources reinforcing the idea of Mexico being poor and unsafe, as well as Mexicans being poor, violent and unattractive by designing characters and casting for actors with substantially different traits.

[elboru]

You made a great point, I'm Mexican so I'm aware of all the ideas and stereotypes the entertainment industry spread to the whole globe about Mexicans.

I've met people from other countries who really think we live in a desert (old west style), with a poncho and a sombrero. I can't really count all the American movies or shows where they show Mexico in a old west style, sepia background, sand and cactus everywhere, women using old style dresses, people armed everywhere. I love Terminator and Breaking bad, but the way they show Mexico, wow, it's so laughable.

People tend to think we all Mexicans are just looking for an opportunity to go to the US, they don't stop for a second and think that that might not be true for most cases, I have family over there that would give everything to come back to Mexico if they could find a good job.

You know it's not easy crossing a desert risking your life, leaving your whole family behind, knowing that you might never see them again, just to take an unpleasant job cleaning someone's else toilet, just to live in a small house in an ugly neighborhood, experiencing racism, facing cultural and language barriers, praying God for good health.

I'm a developer so I have a reasonably good job over here, I've had a lot of offers from American companies but I've rejected all of them because I just don't see it as a necessity, right know money is not a factor to consider facing all the downsides a Mexican will face in the US, here I have everything that I need and want.

[andrewflnr]

To be fair, I'm guessing most of the hard line conservatives advocating mass deportation actually don't smoke pot at all.

[CydeWeys]

I think you'd be surprised how many older staunch conservatives nevertheless experimented with drugs at some point earlier in their lives. And if not drugs, something else that is illegal and carries stiff penalties. The point is the hypocrisy of demanding such stiff penalties for classes of crimes that most people are guilty of at least one at some point in their lives.

[InclinedPlane]

You're right, they're much more likely to have a prescription opiate habit.

[prostoalex]

Are you then in favor of removing visa entry requirements for the citizens of Mexico?

The current status quo of mandating that legal visitors to the United States adhere to the terms of their visas, but looking the other way for anyone entering illegally seems just a tiny bit hypocritical to someone on the Mexican side.

[TheBeardKing]

I've never taken an economics class so forgive me, but hypothetically, what would the effects be if everyone was given citizenship today? All jobs in agriculture, construction, services, etc. would require minimum wages and benefits and the costs of many basic things would increase drastically. Imported produce would be much cheaper than domestic, making it ineffective for farmers here to compete. That would severely reduce the number of agricultural jobs here, further reducing the low skill labor market. What do you do with all these people, who now qualify for unemployment insurance? Not to mention that low income people can no longer afford basic goods and services, and housing prices would go up.

Perhaps I'm way off base, but would appreciate some clarification on these issues.

[brokenmachine]

> All jobs in agriculture, construction, services, etc. would require minimum wages and benefits

Aren't all jobs meant to require minimum wages and benefits now? Just kidding, of course not! We have immigrants to do those jobs!

[jethro_tell]

Another benefit of immigration (legal and illegal) you didn't mention is that they cover the population shrinkage from being heavily populated in the boomer age range. That's actually good for the economy. In some places that's a crisis.

[IndianAstronaut]

Another important note is every worker is also a consumer. Every worker will consume food, movies, construction services, etc.

[icc97]

I actually think it would be a great idea to explicitly start a company that only wanted to hire immigrants especially Syrian refugees:

- they're more motivated (they have people lives depending on them making money and sending it back, they actually want to move here rather than just being born here)

- they're often richer (i.e. they don't come to live off the state) than those that stay in their own country as they have to have the money to pay the people to get them across [1]

- the fact that they got through demonstrates a level skill and intelligence. It's not just luck that means people survive 5,000-mile, 2-month journeys illegally

I'd say any of these tasks are way above what would be asked on The Apprentice.

  [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20160305124312/http://www.rescue.org/blog/mapping-syrian-refugees-danger-filled-journey-europe

[dummkopf99]

You ignore the most important characteristic of these refugees.

[frozenport]

>>The fact is, immigrants have higher labor participation, lower crime rate than the native born population.

Do you believe their higher labor participation is due to the pressures we put on them? What about their children?

At face value, the proposition for wholesale legalization of illegal immigrants is to create several million low income Americans.