Isn't part of the problem with this issue is its relationship to globalization?  Like illegal drugs there has been for virtually my entire lifetime an effort and desire to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the United States. However, like drugs the demand for workers, and in the case of the workers themselves their demand for better pay, most plans no matter how good on paper or fair and equitiable tend to founder in real life.

As Greg says American economic magnetism is likely to continue to draw people here regardless of the law and the risks.  In a sense as the way to deal with drugs is to get Americans to stop using them the way to reduce immigration is the improve the economic conditions in Mexico, China and elsewhere.  When this issue first hit the radar here in the East though less spoken about there were a lot of Irish illegal immigrants.  As Ireland has become an economic powerhouse you do not hear about Irish immigrants so much.  Would not a full out drive to help empower the economies of elsewhere do more than anything else to reduce illegal immigrants?  This runs into the fear of foreign developement and workers.  

Would not Democrats be better off while supporting the law speak to Americans hopes instead of our fears.  Instead of railing against the poor from other countries who want to make money to send home we ought to find ways that Mexico, the Dominican Republic and other countries and Americans can all be made better off.

Sorry if I missed this discussion, but where are the sanctions against employers of illegal aliens?  My solution to the "been here a long time" problem would be to announce stiff new penalties for the employment of illegals, but allow an amnesty period where businesses could sponsor long-term employees for some sort of visa.

even more needs to be done at the borders - and that's obviously true. But without some kind of complementary strategy to go along with improving border and internal U.S. enforcement efforts, America's economic magnetism will be likely to continue to pull up millions of individuals willing to risk their lives in the process.

Thanks for brings some reality back to this discussion.

On SS I have to disagree that the facts are as cut and dried as Greg Anrig suggests. There are conflicting views on when SS may run into trouble, IF at all, and the more historically accurate scenario predicts much less trouble, much further out. Something like 2070 from what I recall from reading the reports.

Regardless, the questions of whether immigration "fixes" SS, or whether SS is even broken, are only of secondary importance regarding immigration.

I think everybody agrees immigration does help SS in every scenario, whether is marginal help, or great help, it’s help. It’s another way in which immigration is a good thing for SS. That is the important point.

I don’t think anyone should “pocket” that point. It’s a perfectly valid reason to be pro-immigration for wide populist reasons.

Libertine-

I think conflating border control with "xenophobia" is playing pretty loose with the populist rhetoric.

Actually, unless I've mistaken their views, I think you just called Josh, Matt, and others potentially "xenophobes."

I usually enjoy your posts, but I'm disappointed you’re whistling the immigrant populist tune, rather than dealing with the hard issues of possible solutions that will lead to incremental improvements.

It's all well and good to say we need an amnesty program because that’s going to be popular here. I happen to agree actually.

But it's also rather cynical to ignore the political likelihood of that happening without other more realistic solutions like a multifaceted coalition to improve the problem, which most certainly will have to include border control.

NickDoe,

I should have put in the link to the relevant part of the SS Trustees' report. Go here and look at Table VI.D.3. I agree with you that many of the assumptions in the Trustees report are overly pessimistic about the program's future -- particular those they make about future productivity growth. But regardless of whether any particular assumptions  turn out to be right or wrong, the main point for this discussion is that rates of immigration turn out not to make much of a difference one way or the other for Social Security's future. Even at high levels, the share of new immigrants coming into the country is a relatively small portion of the overall population. No one has much of a clue about what will happen over the course of the next 75 years, as the Trustees are obligated to speculate about. But we do know that other factors will dwarf immigration in their effects on the finances of SS.    

Libertine-  I don't think you specified Linds views.

You said "It seems that there are so many who want to look at this problem through a xenophobic prism" and then went on to throw around words like "razorwire" and "heavilly armed guards" and summed up  that general attack on border control as a waste of time becasue "if all that was implemented we would still have a problem"

It seems that was a pretty clear attack on the concept of border control as xenophobic, at least it sounded that way.

You did add "increased border security should be part of our strategy provided there are increased quotas for Mexicans who want to immigrate to north of the border" which I agree with as a goal, but relaistically it's not likly to develop simultaneously I suspect.

Border control and then increased quotas as business starts complaining seems far more likely.

Btw, yes there is a degree of xenophobia in Linds argument, I agree with that. Ironically though it's part of why it's possible to acheive. It will take widespread political support o break the immigration logjam, even some xenophobe support.

Once the logjam is broken I think Democrats allied with business will be able to manipulate the situation to gain the upper hand against xenophobes. But in the meanwhile, idealistic plans like Amnesty alone, seem to basically go nowhere. 

I'd just like to add that most of the businesses employing undocumented workers are not small businesses. They are giant agribusiness conglomerates.

anrig- thanks for the table.

So, I don't think we're in disagreement about the basic points, right?

SS isn't necessarily as troubled as many people claim, for partisan agendas.  Regardless, one has to assert SS needs fixing before it's possible to assert immigration fails to fix SS.

Immigration will only help SS, whether it's marginal help, or more help, it's still help. Historically immigration has helped boost SS and the economy generally. All economists I’m aware of agree on that. It increases working age population, increasing the worker to elderly ratio, and without prior welfare costs such as schooling and medical care while growing up.

Other issues pertaining to SS, and it’s potential problems, are unrelated to immigration. For example the Bush tax cut is far greater a fiscal dent than even the most pessimistic SS scenario. But that has nothing to do with immigration.

BTW, a problem with that table IMO is it assumes slow/steady immigrant growth. An alternative scenario could include a more rapid assimilation of existing immigrants, which would front load much of the SS contribution and increase net contributions over the next 25-50 years.

If Michael is going to group liberals with David Brooks, The Wall Street Journal, and Tom Delay, it's only fair to put him in the same camp with Pat Buchanan, Mark Krikorian of The National Review, and Tom Tancredo.

Ok Nick back to the start.  Above is the text from Greg which I cited as the basis of my original comments.  Greg seems to put Lind in the "illustrious" anti-immigrant company of Buchanan, Krikorian and Trancredo.  And the last I knew Lind was part of the left, albeit at it's farthest right edge... 

No, but when you envision deliberately depending on xenophobic support to pass policy, yes, you are part of what's responsible for what is wrong in the world.

When you argue:  "It will take widespread political support to break the immigration logjam, even some xenophobe support," you are pulling the same old politics of alliances with racists.

You are arguing for breaking alliances with a large chunk of the union movement and civil rights movement in pursuit of your policies-- since they are explicitly committed to earned legalization as part of any compromise that might be devised.  

Enforcement first, amnesty maybe later is not pragmatic politics-- it's arguing for making a center-right immigration reform alliance based on, as you argue, building alliances with racists.

Which of course has been the subtext of your comments all along, but I'm glad you were finally explict it about it.

Well whatever. I think we basically see eye to eye now, at least I hope so. Glad that's cleared up, no hard feeling on my part, and I look forward to hearing you articulate your views on border control further, sans the "razor wire."

I'll just add that I don't consider Lind on the left at all. He's a moderate generally, or a "radical centrist" as he calls himself, and on this issue he happens to lean a bit right on occasion. Anyways, he's not arguing we round up all the immigrants or such, which was the whole point, nobody is except those on the fringe of the right.

There is a continuum between the fringe on the right who are totally racist, and the fringe on the left who call anyone not supporting abolition of borders racist.

The majority of the country is in the middle, generally pro-immigrant/pro-American dream, and also pro-law enforcement, and anti-exploitation, and lastly pro-labor, and pro-small business. That's why border control can begin to break the logjam, and arrive at something which is a compromise between those goals, and why the fringe left and fringe right will be discarded.

IMO Newman is in hysterics because he realizes that if moderates and the left come together to actually start solving this problem, it pretty much dashes his dreams of open borders and such. Not that is ever was a possibility.

Newman- imo Josh made a mistake inviting you to TPMC, I'll register my vote now. Your open borders stuff is nothing like anything I ever read on TPM.

Josh has always been a reasonable left leaning person, hence his popularity, which makes this site possible. You're way out on the fringe with the "no borders" stuff, and despite the small cult following of the "more radical than thou" you seem to have collected, your views have close to zero popular support among Americans, Mexicans, or anyone else.

If you're going to use TPMC to espouse your out-there “no border” ideals, with no attempt to address reality, it's my hope it'll be short lived. I don’t think you’ve done anything to help the plight of immigrants in your posting here. I think you’re basically an activist’s activist for activism sake.

Go ahead and attack my pragmatism. All you do is attack the vast majority of Americans, as well as Mexicans and the rest of the world, who I’m sure you know have no interest in your ideals whatsoever.

I've lived surrounded by activists, and I think I can tell the clear headed get things done pragmatic type, from the idealogical angst motivated get nothing done type. Your "no borders" stuff is just that: going nowhere.

Glad that's cleared up, no hard feeling on my part

I am going to say "no hard feelings" on my part too Nick.  I don't look at disagreements on politics as personal attacks, unless it is made so.  Provided I never see something like this ever again, it won't get personal...

"Actually, unless I've mistaken their views, I think you just called Josh, Matt, and others potentially "xenophobes.""



Now about the "razor wire", let's face it Nick there are some hateful people in our country who want to see that.  But so there are no misunderstandings this time, I am not saying anyone here (at TPM Cafe, author or reader) is advocating that...

The odd thing is that I've never advocated open borders in practice,

That's a dodge, and not factually accurate. You advocated for it here. The reason we know it's your ideology, is because you told us. Just because you've admitted it's not happening anytime soon, doesn't change your advocating for it, and all your policy views converge on that point. 

And as far as who is more pragmatic... you need to get out more.

Generally the control of borders is popular across the spectrum, from left to right. You keep attempting to conflate controlling the border with closing the border in a racist manner, which is just another of your straw men.

Regarding Sweeny, he said nothing to support your position at all. You just threw up a general speech aimed at criticizing the Bush guest worker policy. Amazing.

Anyways like i said, I think you're way out on the fringe, and for a lawyer I'd at least expect better straw men.

When are people going to realize they have to come with votes, not just ideology, before they can start making demands?

What votes? All the ones the "sensible" Democrats have won over the last 5 years?

Or are you talking about Clinton? Because whenever a Democrat bashes the Left, it's always the Clinton defense.

Let's make a deal: you find another DLC moderate that's as smart, charming and politically savvy as Clinton, and I'll vote for him/her.

Until then, let's just leave the "votes" out of it, because you haven't won anything, either.

And no one's making "demands," either. Cite one remark that DanielGree made in his post that came close to a "demand." He simply stated his opinion in a calm, measured tone.

Ack!  Come on, Nick!  Fact is, he was invited and he's contributed.   I get that you disagree.  I mostly think it's a smart disagreement.  But, let me tell you why, even if I agree with you that open borders is not feasible in this political environment, why the open borders point of view should be part of the debate:  it establishes a goal worth working towards.  You've said you're looking for lefties who will compromise.  Fine.  But the compromise has to come from somewhere and the philosophical belief that borders are ethically questionable is a place where compromise can come from.  All you have to do is say, "Boy, I wish we didn't have borders surrounded by the military but, given that we do, I'd accept this set of policies."

You have no reason to claim that the idea shouldn't be expressed here. 

Gracias.  I totally admit to being a little childish there, but, it isn't without purpose.  Nick's point of view is not that he disagrees, it's that certain ideas are out of bounds or, in his mind, not relevant to the discussion.  But he hasn't proven that, he's only called the ideas in question implausible in terms of implementation and, I call him One Note NIck because that's his favorite argument.  Really, though, he's trying to set the terms of the discussion without the permission or willingness of anyone else in the discussion.

And that is of course your opinion.

I've been trying to have a realistic conversation on the situation. I've put forward plans and discussed the logistics of how things could play out, who whould benefit, what the improvemtns would be.

You still have not put forth any plan, and as far as I can tell have nothing but hollow words you share with Newman, which is a go no where, fringe ideology. 

You of course are welcome to prove me wrong with some specifics on your plan, anytime. But I notice that no one in your camp has provided anything other than vague rhetoric. 

I do think we are living in an era of fear.  I think this is dangerous.  I did not mean to suggest that this was particularly a Democratic  problem.  I think Bush has used fear to the great detriment of all of us.  I have no problem with the idea of trying to control the borders. I just think it is a bit like the drug war.  The United States spends lots of war in Columbia and else where in order to stop drugs. However, as long as their is an enormous demand there is a huge profit so someone is going to be willing to take the risk.  So too with illegal immigration.  That is a lot to be gained by employers, by those smuggled in, their families and their home countries.  There fore I think that no matter what the law, no matter what the effort it will be met with limited success.

Therefore, I think the United States and Democrats should offer a more hopeful solution.  We should look for ways at improving economic conditions elsewhere.  Just as Indians and Chinese don't come here we could limit illegal immigration here if we fought for a larger economic pie everywhere.

So not I don't think Democratics are using fear on the issue of immigraton.  I believe it is fear of globalization that makes a successful law unlikey.  I am sorry if I was not clear.

Nathan,

There’s an old saying that you should never try to teach a pig to sing -- it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Nick is in his own way a well-intentioned guy, obviously concerned enough about issues of contemporary events to want to participate in the discussions here. And, like any reasonable person, he’s probably sufficiently upset about the manifold injustices in the world that he needs some cathartic release that surfing the net and posting comments gives. Don’t we all.  

Yes, I believe he’s terribly misguided and ignorant on the question of immigration.     

But far more problematic, as I learned in a previous discussion on rating posts, is that Nick has extraordinarily low reading comprehension skills. Of course he can read, but he can’t understand what’s written. Or rather, it is as if everything he reads is filtered through some previous understanding of the world. Or maybe it’s simply that he can’t understand the purpose of a discussion that isn’t a debate.  I had friends like that in college -- they could never learn because they could only discuss through arguing, and since their primary goal was debating, not learning, the arguing never ended.  Whatever the reasons, you’re right, he has low reading comprehension skills. Or maybe it’s that he is incapable of capturing the nuances of language (anyone who can’t be bothered to spell “right” or “in my opinion” obviously isn’t much of a fan of the English language) and thus has to simplify every nuanced argument into it’s simplest proposition.  

I’m pedantic by nature, so I always assume that if you can just simplify any problem enough you can make it understandable to anyone.  You might not be able to get them to agree, but at least you can get them to understand what you are saying; at least you can get them to disagree based on the facts of the case.  Sadly, sometimes that’s not possible.

CH

PS And by the way, I think I’m going to start a Mexicans for Newman support group.

Thanks for the defense CSCS.  My mother thinks I am to the right of her and a good friend of mine thinks I am a leftie.  This site makes me feel right at home I have been accused of being Limbaughian and Leftwing. I see myself in the agressive Middle where there is no room for the lying dihonest evil of George Bush.

I am sure I will upset someone but wouldn't we be better off with at least porous borders?  Part of the problem today is that capital can be shifted around the world in seconds.  Good, especially intellectual ones can also be transfered in momements. Labor finds it harder to move.  Within the United States we are used to the idea that if there are layoffs in Detroit you can move down South to where the oil and gas business is hotter.  To some extent workers that can use commputers can immigrate without going anywhere.  If workers who still work with there hands could move, at least a bit more easily, would it not remove some of the pressures?  I thought that was one of the issue that was being worked on and causing problems in the EU?

What votes? All the ones the "sensible" Democrats have won over the last 5 years?

Democratic suffering hasn't been becasue they've been sensible.

Clinton was successful specifically becasue he was sensible. despite his troubles he left office with historically high approval rating.

Gore wasn't the greatest choice, and wasn't that sensible a choice either. He had no charisma. Regardless he still won the popular vote, and had there been a total recount of Florida probably would be president.

Bush has since done the "war President" thing and while that's running out, it did get him through 2004. And Kerry's positions we're basically well liked becasue thye were sensible,  but he was just another no-chrisma salesman who couldn't defend himself well and was kind of mushmouthed. Had he clearly endorsed a moderate stance and not waffled on it, he might be president.

Congress is elected locally, and those politicians are generally in touch with what their people want, so "sensibility" in terms of compromise doesn't figure much into it. unfortunatly the country has swung right due to a lot of things, the culture war being a big part of it, becasue it sure isn't economics.

So no, the Democratic party doesn't have a problem with being sensible. It's always been most successful when it's been sensible and moved things moderatly left where possible.

The people who usually complain the party is too sensible are those whose postions never have a chance nationally, but like to imagine if they just had someone to represent them they'd usher in a revolution. Well, I think Nader pretty much debunked that myth. He's probably the only person more hated than Bush.

The reality of the country is that we're huge, totally culturally fractured, and there are some people across this country that maybe shouldn't even be in the same nation their values are so different. I happen to be far left, but I'm a realist, and I know that the people who vote Bush, and moderates on the fence, are simply not going to vote for some of the positions i hold. Entertaining unrealistic dreams is just a waste of time.

 I have followed the immigration debate on each part of the site.And, I have many years of experience with immigration and immigration rights.  Basically, I agree with Nathan and the kennedy- Mc Caine bill. However, I raise an additional point. Almost all of this discussion has been about U.S. policy on immigration. I do not think that you can do alot about immigration with out taking up our economic policies, particularly in Latin America.  Even if you build a wall, it won't work.So, if you are serious about taking up immigration, you are going to have to deal with neo-liberalism and "free trade".  And, I don't like Mexican President Fox, but he is correct to say you have to deal with both sides of the border.  We cannot solve immigration in the U.S.alone.I recognize as accurate an earlier post by someone that in the 70's we had an immigration 'problem" from Ireland.  Then Ireland became very successful. Imagine, no more immigration problem. Germany used to have an immigration problem for Italy.  France used to have an immigration problem from Spain.

I didn't rate your post 5 because I've made the same points - but 4 because I think you stated it better than I. I suffer from "rating abuse" paranoia.

But I'll be interested if you get any comments.  I didn't - on the paticular issue of factoring in the country of origin in any immigration policy theory. This surprises me, it seems like a no brainer to me. 

Borders really bother me.  For example, trying to get a handle on the geographical overview on my area, the Colorado desert and Colorado delta, is very difficult because by some magic the Colorado River vanishes in a mystical time portal located as San Luis Rio Colorado.  So many of the maps - wonder topographical accounts of the land that the public can download for free - are blank just south of Grey's Well or Coyote Well, as if the edge of the flat world was exactly there on an imaginary line.  And out of this nether region thousands materialze in the brutal heat of our desert, risking it all to feed their babies.

But I wouldn't advocate an "open border" necessarily.  Controls are necessary, obviously.  But honestly, if you look at the fence over by Campo and Jacumba (where two Mexicans were shot a couple of weeks ago by rogue Minutemen) it's almost humorous.  The segments of fence which span across the swales in the rugged terrain simply end on the edge of each mountain.  My guess is that it was too steep for the construction equipment. So a Mexican doesn't even have to climb the fence.  He can simply walk around the ends of the segments, after actually hiding behind the fence until the coast is clear.