I have thought that the only reason some illegals resort to crime here is that we have criminalized their search for good jobs that allow them to support their families. By declaring their efforts illegal, we prevent them from trusting legal sources of work that they would otherwise prefer, and we make them distrustful of legal authorities.

That makes it seem safer to operate in the varius off-the-books economies which are by definition themselves illegal.

The recent raids on workers at the meatpacking plants are an example. Those raids got people who were providing value to our economy (and ham products for our tables.) They were working people providing good value for their efforts, not criminals breaking into homes and stealing. They should be provided a clear path away from the criminal underclass.

Instead, all the proposed legislation closes off reasonable choices they could make to become legal citizens and forces them into the legal shadows, then declares war on them. Even at that, though, the life here is likely to be more lucrative and productive than where they came from. The Mexican and Latin American immigrants, in particular, are taking the several hundred year tradition of leaving unproductive farms to move to the cities where they can get jobs in the money economy. Their problem is that all the cities with jobs are in the U.S. and Canada where a different language is spoken and their traditional cultures are not dominant. But why did the Irish move to England and the U.S.? They left their own cultures, language, and farms and moved to the city.

The total population increase in the world since about 1950 has all moved to cities for exactly the same set of reasons. Trying to stop this wave of people who want only a better life is both inpossible and self-defeating. A Taoist would say that the course of action being attempted by the anti-immigration people violates "The Way" and they'd be correct.

It's time to stop demonizing and criminalizing economic immigration and instead set up government policies that makes the inevitable movement of people off unproductive rural land into the money economies easier and more productive. Anything else is a waste of lives and effort.

Republicans think they have a lock on the racist vote (they don't but that's irrelevant). Ergo, immmigants with the wrong skin color will find it tougher and tougher to vote for a party that hates them. But then that makes the republicans (who can do the math about demographics, and the math tells them that white anglos are too busy blogging to have sex (just a joke) and are losing the numbers battle), yep, that makes the republicans very very nervous. minority party and all that.
they've talked to nancy pelosi and she told them how NOT FUN it is...

that's the immigration "problem"

You are all wrong.

Immigration should be halted immediately --the freeze should continue for 10 years -- and immigration allowed after that only at low levels (100,000 per year or less) in order to admit people with high capital (monetary or intellectual).

This country cannot continue as a Republic if it is overpopulated with people in the manner of India or China. Those countries have authoritarian governments because the disruptions characteristic of free societies have too high a cost in overpopulated countries living on the margin of survival.

In my opinion, Max Sawicky is being deeply dishonest. Compare the cost in resources of the American standard of living and tell me how our country can handle an increase in population.

How long can our wide open spaces -- our National Forests and Parks -- our wilderness areas -- survive as our population grows and grows?

In my opinion, immigration advocates like Sawicky are traitors to this country and should be stripped of their citizenship and exiled. Certainly, US citizens should turn on the immigration movement with fury and destroy it -- because it is destroying us.

You just fear change. Don't sweat it. There is not going to be a massive population increase, though the U.S. is still a rather unpopulated land.

We can expect that in about a generation the North American continent will be an economic and travel free trade area much like the European Union is today. Many in the EU were treating Spain, Portugal and Southern Italy much like you want to treat Mexico. It's a funny thing - Italy now has a declining population and Spain and Portugal are vacation paradises and retirement areas for much of Northern Europe.

Oh, and India is actually a democracy. A bit messy, but a real democracy. China is still reacting to two centuries of Imperialist attack by western nations and has to work like Hell to avoid being ungovernable at all, but the increase in their economy together with their successful population reduction policies will cause it to become a democracy within a generation or two, much as the dictatorships of Taiwan and South Korea have done.

The only way immigrants might "destroy" America is to make it a minority white nation - and if that is your definition of destroying America, you are too late. People like my daughter-in-law from Thailand are coming here, as she did in 1999, and she got her citizenship last March and her Masters degree in Accounting sunday night. She now is taking her younger cousin around Austin, San Antonio, and Houston the rest of this month and then he will start his year-long English program in January.

The graduation program of the School of Business at the University of Texas at Arlington Sunday night would horrify you. Asian faces and Black faces (both American and African) outnumbered white faces, especially the MBAs. Asians were predominant in Accounting and the computer and mathematical disciplines. But that is the future of America. A large number of those Asian faces come attached to Texas accents. Last March the immigration person told the new citizens that at this time, 30% of the people living in Texas were born outside the United States.

As long as that future is based on an American middle class, American will grow and improve. It is the American Conservative Republicans of the Bush, Limbaugh, and Grover Norquist stripe who are attempting to destroy the middle class and create a domestic aristocracy who are working to destroy America, not immigrants.

It is Bush, Cheney, DeLay, Gingrich and the massive conservative machine built up by about a dozen wealthy families like Coors, Perry and Mellon-Scaife who are traitors to America. You can tell because they do not want to live by the law, and they are destroying America as a nation under law. If there was ever a case made for a 100% inheritance tax, this last 12 years of conservative domination of the Congress and the Bush administration have certainly proven it to be valid and important to America as a democracy under the Rule of Law.

Kinky!

Seems like some people think of our founding principles as a meaningless sop to the dispossessed; they assume the true character of our nation is ethnic (and class-based), not political.

Unfortunately, the Declaration and the Constitution encourage all ethnicities and exclude none.So America's population will be what it will be, and it may not be very English/White in the future. This does not do any damage to our political aspiratons, rather, it exemplifies them, it puts them into practice.

I'm puzzled. What's the controversy about?

ILLEGAL immigration.

Illegal immigration which gives defacto preference to Central Americans to the immigrant spaces desired by people from many other countries in in world. It's a preference they get because they have geographic luck. (You can't argue that many Africans don't have more need--just ask Spain.) Many other economic refugess are forced to make up stories about political persecution in order to avoid a stint in the immigration brig followed by deportation.

Extra added agitprop value: homeland security. Every run over the border is a slap in the face on that issue. At least the dubai ports deal would have involved someone pretending to try to enforce the idea of borders.

Mr. Sawicky's given some very nice bullet points here about the benefits of immigration. I agree nearly 100% with them. I live in a nabe in the Bronx with perhaps 50 immigrant nationalities in a few square miles. I love it, am all for it. So does someone like Guiliani. All very nice, but not addressing the source of the fire.

By avoiding the illegal question, Mr. Sawicki is arguing against a strawman, a minority of racist zenophobes like Buchanan that have always been with us. And their numbers will always increase when there is an influx of immigrants from a single area and culture within a short time span. "No Irish need apply" came from there being far too many of them. Legal immigration policy that shows preference for multi-cultural and multi-class (the gamut from farm laborers to doctors and philosophers) is the way to avoid the culture shock that enables a "racist" backlash. It's been developed learning from experiences of the past. You can't have Mexico flooding into the Southwestern U.S. and expect smiley face welcome signs. You need more Thais in the mix like RickB's sister-in-law here.

Rick, I really endorse the spirit of what you are saying, but I think the backstory to the economic conditions of Mexicans needs to be stated.  After Cardenas nationalized Mexico's oil and railroads (1938) the U.S. "retaliated" with The Green Revolution (1943). The benefits of crop improvement are obvious (in Mexico it was focused on maiz and wheat) but it was the economic component in the program that has proved disasterous for Mexicans.  Simply put, growing these improved strains required large capital investment and bank credit to pay for machinery, pesticides and chemical fertilizers.  Not surprisingly, the program was developed at the Rockefellow Foundation and the farm credit was supplied by Wall Street.

There were a group of dissenting Mexican economists who were very unpopular at the time the program was introduced in Mexico. Who could oppose improved crops?  But their concern was the impact the program would have on the Mexican economy.  Taking the domestic economy on its face, these economists predicted that due to the high capital investment required for "agribusiness" the product that Mexico produced on its farms would be too expensive for domestic consumption and would have to be marketed on the international commodities exchanges in order to be profitable.  What they saw was a day in the future when Mexicans couldn't afford the beans grown in Mexico.  That day arrived somewhere around 1970, following a long decline of local subsistance agriculture that was located within the confines or the domestic economy.  

As noble as Cardenas' land reform program (Ejido) was, the beneficiaries were not given credit (or even land title, for that matter) and infrastructure problems (transportation and capital) guaranteed failure.  That's why poor Mexican farmers failed.  Conversely, the benefactors of The Green Revolution were large landowners (who were formerly "land rich but money poor") succeeded with capital and credit and became a powerful conservative economic force in Mexico (largely evolving into the PAN party, I might add.)

So in a sense, our contemporary illegal immigration situation is historical blowback, in which the US itself bears considerable responsibility.   

Neoboho

OF COURSE immigrants take jobs from Americans. OF COURSE immigrants hold down wages by competing for jobs. I don't see how Max or anyone can argue otherwise. This is the most elementary Econ 101. If labor is plentiful it gets cheap. Then property is the highest value.

There are many other factors for labor and statistics are malleable, so you (or Max) can prove either case. But here is my view.

The US is "rather unpopulated" compared to what? This is obviously a matter of preference. Really the question is "What lifestyle do you choose and what population is sustainable at that lifestyle?" Right now, Americans are much more profligate than almost any other people in the world in consuming natural resources. For most of our history, that didn't matter too much, there was plenty of coal, water, farmland, and just pure elbow room for most of us. Immigration is not a problem in a world of infinite resources.

The reality is, every new immigrant is an eventual convert to the American way of life. They want air conditioning, automobiles (eventually SUVs or trucks) to drive 12,000 miles a year, disposible packaging, disposible electronics, even laptops, just like the rest of us.

For sustainability at a level I would personally like to live, the US population should be rather lower than it is now, and the world population should be much lower than it is now. I put my money where my mind is. I don't donate to the Cancer Fund or to my college, I donate to NPG. www.npg.org/notables.html

I know that Max and most of you have the humanistic position. Each immigrant is a total person, as worthy as I am. How can I deny their right? I know that every one of us humans is equally valuable, equally needy, and equally entitled to the good things in life. That argues for less, not more population, in the US but especially worldwide.

Aside from the unfortunate but very human "ugly duckling" syndrome - if it doesn't look like me, it's a threat - the objections to illegal immigration may be misplaced.

Mexican immigration is a lesson in capitalism which needs cheap labor and resources and impoverished workers needing jobs. Illegals will generally work for less than their legal counterparts so they're hired, thereby satisfying one of the criteria of a well-functioning capitalistic system. If you object, you should object to this principle of capitalism, not the guy who's willling to take the job.

The cry for a global living wage - one way to eliminate impoverished workers - (even though it strikes terror in the heart of a capitalist) doesn't seem inconsistent to a global economy. Of course, globalization is a process mediated according to corporate interests, so we can doubt that a global living wage will ever be on that table.

I appreciate the comment. I'm usually on the other side of this argument, so I may have overstated to concede a point and get to the main issue, which is the impact of undocumented workers on the working class. I have often argued with sociologist Chip Berlet, who has a book on right-wing populism with a more jaundiced view.

In any case, I do not think Watson was an isolated example. At different times he was the best and worst of Southern populism. Race made for segregated populist movements for the most part, with the African-American component less chronicled.

Nativism is always dumb on the part of nativists in America, since nobody is a native (or everybody is). It's not irrational for anybody to be nativist because nativism is irrational.

My understanding is that the populists were predominantly agrarian and Protestant and prey to anti-Catholic sentiment and some delusions about Jews in finance. As you know, the urban Democratic machines were dominated by Catholics.

No I don't buy into Stirling's history of this (nor Hofstader). If you look you'll see I've been arguing with him about it in other threads. You sound like you're into the primary sources, unlike me, so I look forward to what you come up with. Prove what I said to be really really wrong, and nobody will be happier than me.

Max B. Sawicky

I agree with you, but I wouldn't worry too much about the dominance of the English Language. It is the most spoken second language in the world, and most Latin American nations start teaching English to everyone in Elementary school.

I have a friend who is a teacher in Peru, and they started teaching all science and math courses in English about ten years ago. Think about that! Their Engineers will speak English and their Lawyers will speak Spanish. What a great way to make Lawyers irrelevant!

Business schools all over the world teach graduate courses and many undergraduate ones in English. English is the language of aviation, and that's not going to change.

The hispanic immigrants I know here in Fort Worth almost all speak good English - their wives don't pick it up so soon, but the kids are bilingual from the second year of school - as was my father in Albuquerque. Only his family language was English and he learned Spanish from his neighbors. Since having a parent who speaks Spanish as a native language is the definition of Hispanic, I guess I am Hispanic in spite of all my German ancestors.

English is the language of the American middle class, so if the conservatives can be stopped from destroying the middle class [consider a 100% inheritance tax, and a return to a progressive income tax] America will remain an English-speaking nation.

I meant English culture, which the dominates the European contribution.

Oh? And in America, the difference is what?

The English speakers here carry the English and German culture which is characteristic of America. The reverse is also true. The individuals here who carry forward the surviving parts of the English and German cultures speak English. As do the Irish, Italian, and others who have joined us here.

Of course, I am unsure what part of the English culture that is represented by Rock and Roll, or the Blues.

Similarly, I find it extremely difficult here in Texas to find good Indian take-away. And the Anerican berr culture should be buried and the location forgotten. There is no good American mass produced beer, once you have tried German, English, or Thai beer (a German brewmaster went to Thailand about 150 years ago which is why they produce great beer there.)

What parts of English (American) culture do you want to take into the future with us? Please God let it not include the Pilsner crap that Americans mistakenly call beer!! Anyone who can stand Budweiser or its American competitors simply does not understand how beer and weak diswater differ. [Some microbreweries excepted, of course.] Or midwestern Illinois cooking with the over cooked vegatables and no spices!

Despite a predominant English heritage courtesy my parents, I hold no brief for the mundane aspects of UK culture, such as beer (lame), cooking (worse), or British music like Elgar. Britten's OK, and I'll make an exception for English and Irish cheddar cheese, which destroys anything we attempt.

I meant, mainly, the legal code and governmental heritage around the time of the Revolution. Not to be forgotten is the Celtic foundation for our folk music, excepting your German/Texas polka version down there. The two strains of American folk music are hill music, from Scotland, and the blues/spiritual. R&R is mostly blues, but has bits of Celtic added into it by us white purveyors.

We may be a mixed slad in the neighborhoods, but we're definitely a melting pot re cultural products like popular music, movies and Broadway, with both Hollywood and Broadway graced by the genius of European or Russian Jews like Bernstein, Gershwin, and Berlin. African-Americans of course contributed at the high levels of Broadway and popular hits, from Scott Joplin and Fats Waller to Louis Armstrong.

I like to argue that our popular culture is so world-dominant because it reflects both European sophistication and the universal beauty of African musical and dance heritage, which is in everyone's bones. 

Interesting.  I saw on the history channel recently the story: Ignacio "Nacho" Anaya of Piedras Negras, Cohuilla, invented them for the wives of US Airman from Eagle Pass, Tx.  It strengthens my crazy theory that everything from Tierra del Fuego to the Berring Straight is "American."  That's why I use "gringo" - to differentiate, not insult, without using the term "American" to falsely designate US people.  In Scandanavia, the term "Usaians" is getting popular.

Around here I like the "Donas" painted on shop windows that sell doughnuts.  And signs like one I saw in Calexico: "Parking, ten minutos only". 

Neoboho

No need to waste yen on Kobe when Korean BBQ is so tasty.

I'll pretty much buy that. I also don't see much of it being threatened by Hispanic imports. Especially not the legal system.

The English common law and the history of English Law are practiced daily in 49 and a half states and the territories, and will not be replaced by Napoleonic Code. That's true if for no other reason that too many lawyers in America have too much invested in learning and understanding the existing system.

New Mexico is officially bilingual, but there is no question whether the legal system there is English or Spanish - unlike Louisiana where the Napoleonic Code is used for Civil Law. Even that hasn't threatened our system of government. (Louisana does not use any system of government. It's all based on who you know, and there is a legislature made up of the largest and richest crooks. They meet in Baton Rouge, tax the oil companies and give the langniappe away to their friends. But this is American French which predates the existance of America. No danger from immigrants. You have to be there two or more generations to "know" anyone who matters. Or start out very rich.)

If you want to know what culture predominates anywhere in the U.S., check to see where most of the people graduated from High School. If they graduated from an American High School at normal age, they are acculterated Americans. [Which is why the efforts of the anti-immigrants to stop the children of illegals from getting public education is cutting our nose off our face.] The next thing that creates Americans is U.S. military service.

America will not be swamped. Mexico has a population of 106,202,903 and the U.S. was recently reported to have clicked over 300,000,000. Most Mexicans do not want to leave Mexico, and the ones who do are either professionals or non-middle class. Professionals already fit into America, and laborers will not change our culture - unless the Republicans destroy our middle class as they are trying to do. That latter threat is from American conservatives, not from immigrants.

Though I will admit that the Hispanic people I know do sometimes bring that je ne sais pas that is really an improvement to the American culture.

No, my "OF COURSE" refers to the Law of Supply and Demand. That Law says "If labor is plentiful it gets cheap." I have never seen any convincing argument otherwise.

I agree with your reply. It doesn't doesn't address wage levels. I agree with you that the absolute population size of the US is irrelevant to economics. But note that you assume a world of infinite resources.

We're at risk of definition-war, so I'll preempt by agreeing that there must be a transient, local drop in wage pressure. I'm quibbling because we should be careful about where we draw our lines, and looking only at that short time/distance scale is misleading.

Your point gets more weight when one considers that a drop in wages is not easily reversed, and the lag is felt by those at the bottom, not the owners. I've been emphasizing intercepting the job dilution at the focus, the workplace. I would prefer to use a very large number of inspectors, simply being a bit intrusive and constant in their presence. What is not really needed is high-publicity raids and draconian penalties. Consider that if the ideal of perfect identity validation was achieved, no penalty at all would be needed to enforce against illegal immigration. There would no jobs and no services--ergo, no illegal immigration.

Short of that ideal, some compromise is the target. Laws with penalties mainly serve to multiply enforcement effects. If enforcement is more complete, penalties can be milder or trivial. So we don't automatically have to be viciously punitive on employers, or inhumanely punitive on illegals. We should measure the cost of a large, intrusive workplace enforcement staff against the cost of police actions, court cases, detentions, and guarded transport of deportees.

If, instead of holding an illegal for some time in jail ($$), having a hearing ($$), and either administering a sentence ($$) or deporting, we simply gave the guy a bus ticket, the same problem is addressed for peanuts. Fences and penalties aren't working. Time for something different.

I think it is a red herring -- a smear actually -- to cast opposition to massive immigration as race-based bigotry.

The nation-state is the only entity which has worked in the past 1000 years. While I think we should avoid irrational conflict with the rest of the world --that, in the words of our Founders, we should have a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind" -- I have no loyalty to foreign nations or to international organizations like the UN --because they have no loyalty to me. I can't depend upon them for anything. Look at Rawanda if you doubt me.

I have loyalty to my fellow US citizens, regardless of their race, religion or national origin.

I don't think a SINGLE immigrant should be allowed into the US as long as a single Afro-American does not have a job which allows him or her to support their family --to feed and educate their children.

I think US corporations owe a deep obligation to the citizens of this country who fight this country's war and whose hard work has produced this country's wealth. The major purpose of our government is to force the wealthy and powerful to live up to those obligations --to provide jobs with living wages to every US citizens. And if that lessens profits, then that's too damm bad.
Those corporations would not exist if not for our protection.

What is RACIST is a newly minted Hispanic citizen NOT sharing that loyalty to Afro-American citizens-- a Hispanic citizen arguing that an illegal worker from Mexico should be allowed to come in and take wages /opportunity away from a black kid in a ghetto -- a black kid whose father may well have been drafted and fought in Vietnam.

Our government demands a great deal from US citizens ==it claims the right to draft us into military service and spend our lives in the defense of the nation. It claims the right to demand our obediance to laws it passes and makes us responsible for paying the debts it incurs.

Consequently, that government --all of us actually -- owe a great responsibility to every one of our fellow citizens. To the people of Mexico and other nations we owe nothing.

Anyone who can't see this --who can't pledge this allegiance to their fellow countrymen --is not fit to be a US citizen.

I noticed most posters who responded to my post failed to address one of my primary points -- that we do not have the resources to sustain the traditional American middle class if our population continues to expand.

Our food surplus depends upon a heavily exploited farmland with injection of massive amounts of chemicals. To see why this is not sustainable, Google "Peak Oil"

ILLEGAL immigration.

Citizenship is something to be considered at a later time, after we learn through workplace enforcement and registration how many undocumented workers are here. Only then can we study the forseeable (long and short term, local and national) consequences of proposed policies and design citizenship and worker policies with known consequences.

What, tri-lingualism?

Laissez les bon mots roulez!

No, I was just demonstrating how English speakers are glad to use things from other languages, and it doesn't seem to damage the language or the Culture any.

Yours was funnier.

Outstanding comment, Seth.  It really hit home because as I write, there is a Mexican crew building my new house next door.  Andres is a pretty decent carpenter, and his crew are his sons and a nephew.  I wanted to build the house myself, but the banks seem to hold all the power, so I had to get a contractor (who earns the lion's share of the package).  I've always been pro-union, but if I had to borrow to pay union wages I would not be building this rather modest house.  That causes me some pangs of remorse, indeed.  But I live right here on the border - sometimes it is rather unclear if this area is the US or Mexico.  Sort of a DMZ between those obnoxious concepts of first and third worlds.  But the union rafter apes get to come down from LA when there's a big project afoot.  I'll bet the guys building our version of the Berlin Wall are all union, unless the
Bushistas have found their way around that particular requirement.

Your neighborhood reminds me of my living in the Haight-Asbury in San Francisco a few years before the Hippy blight descended on this neighboorhood.  It was noted as the International neighborhood of the city in those days.  It was terrific, I thought.  You could walk down Haight and enjoy shops representing cultures from every part of the world.  Well...for really good rye bread you had to leave the neighboorhood - the Ukraine bakery.  And you had to go down to Fillmore to get the best BBQ - Leonards - plus sweet potato pie.  The star in my opinion was the Carribean restuarant on the corner of Haight and Masonic.  Christ - all those wonderful shops were replaced with Head Shops reeking of frangipani.  What a loss.

BTW - speaking of passports.  Homeland Security caused a new law that we will have to have passports to enter Mexico - I think it goes into effect sometime soon. So I'll have to renew mine in order to drive two hours to San Felipe on the gulf to enjoy fresh Cabrilla at one of those waterfront restaurants.  Right now I can drive down there sin papeles, not even a visa.  The kids around here really like to party in Mexicali, so that is going to cramp their style a bit.  

You are a thousand percent right about the solution - some equinamity between the US economy and the Mexican economy. Mexico, strangely, is set up in a way that Republicans in this country push for.  A relatively weak federal government with a lot of strong regional power, a conspicuous lack of regulation - laissez-faire economy - a serious lack of social mobility and so on.  And of course a huge gap in wealth, even between middle-class and poor.  

Hmmm...I wonder if Calderon has plans to privitize Pemex and the railroads? 

Neoboho

It looks good on paper, Tom, but what about practice.  Employers are going to hire cheap labor whenever possible.  I mean they are motivated by profit - the more the merrier - and every loophole in the book, plus cheating, will be utilized to insure cheap labor, and, by extension, greater profit.

And domestic employment is interesting to ponder.  Middle class folks can actually afford to employ servants - the more "illegal" the cheaper.  This did not exist before, therefore the job category can only exist with cheap labor.  So it doesn't really compete with US labor.  The same with landscaping - middle class US citizens used to mow there own lawns.  

But even in farm work, domestic work and construction, the big profits go to the contractors. And that's one factor that is seldom discussed in the immigration debate.  Here in Imperial Valley, whose economy was founded on a cheap labor supply, the growers go to and pay labor contractors for agricultural services.  The wage relationship between the contractor and campesinos he employs is largely private and unknown.  There are busses that pick up laborers at the border every morning and takes them back to the border every evening.  

I know one grower who took his operations to China because the labor cost was dwindling his profits down and down.  He told me "anybody who can't make money in China is a fool." Yet he's been in the position for years to advantage the farm labor situation here, and he's seen his profits dwindle even with illegal immigration - due to the way labor has developed over the years.  It's just a guess, but I think that many of the contractors also earn significant profits forging documents.  I once supervised a contractor that was caught doing this and penalized by our courts by being required to do two months of community service work.

I think it was Arizona, last year, that moved to short-circut the deportation protocol by giving each apprehended immigrant an airline ticket to Mexico City.  The theory was that if they were sent that far south, they wouldn't return.  But a bus ticket from La Capital to la linea is about 20 bucks. 

Neoboho

You'll note I referred to the "ideal" hopefully implying it was only that. Consider inspections in the food industry. Some meat-packing plants get daily inspections by USDA, (but not by Customs and Immigration.) Surely having to hose down all surfaces wtith superheated steam three times a day is a burden, but we demand it, and that's that.

Why is the labor contract between the contractor and his day workers unknown? Because there is no wage minimum requirement, thus no enforcement mechanism.

I grew up in a family with one wage earner holding a GS 13. We had a maid, so illegals in middle-class domestic employ is hardly revolutionary. Raise the minimum and there is no payoff in hiring the illegal, unless the employer keeps the work off the books. If he does, he foregoes the labor cost deduction.

As always the most effective enforcement is to make the lawbreaking unprofitable. Make the white market easy and the black market difficult.

An example of off-the-books wages is waitressing. Waitresses make up a meager wage with tips. In Europe these days, that has been dispensed with, the staff is paid normal wages, and the former gratuity is part of the price. Restaurants are hardly a dying business there. So if construction contractors and agricultural contractors had to pay a reasonable minimum, it would also be a deductible labor cost, leading to efficient management as the sourse of profit instead of hostage labor. Given that we saw a monster building boom after WWII, with non-slave labor, it's hard to argue that would hurt the industry in a fundamental way. It would merely return it to its former condition. Ditto farming.

No reason to come here, no illegal immigration. This mechanism adds some weight to the service-denial initiatives, although they also make use of resentment and selfishness in voters. And since it is at least inhumane to deny emergency service, and arguably non-Christian, that's a non-starter. Fortunately it's not decisive, either. It must be the case that the majority of illegals don't come here for free bridgework or cosmetic surgery, but actual income. Take that away, problem solved. Eyes on the prize.

I think that one of the most incredible ironies in US history is that Richard Nixon was the first president that did what you write above, setting the stage for future presidents. But LBJ did some important work before Nixon, but returning land was not among his acomplishments. Here a link to a synopsis of Nixon's achievmenst: [link].

For a list of presidents who followed Nixon's initiatives try this: [link]. The author, Harjo, puts Jimmy Carter at the top of the list - but it depends on how one rates performance. My experience demonstrates clearly that Indian tribes and nations number one priority is land, and in that Nixon takes the cake. (Gerald Ford actually signed some or the projects that Nixon had started.

One dimension of the irony is that Nixon was very hard on Indian movements that were construed as civil disobediance and/or illegal - even though the objective of these movements were aimed at the very things Nixon's federal Indian policy sought to rectify. It may have been evidence of a large policy chasm between Nixon and his Attornery General Mitchell.

At any rate, Nixon's presidential papers clearly state his motives for a more liberal Federal Indian Policy - a point of honor of the US in terms of solemn obligations vis-a-vis treaties and agreements.

Here's something else that I found interesting. I read an archaeology report on an investigation at the Tula site in Hidalgo, Mexico, circa 1975. The Mexcan Government was constructing an irrigation canal that would transect a corner of the archaeological zone - a residental area that had never been surveyed. What was discovered was that Tula supported two distinct groups - one was the so-called Toltecs, who were the survivors of collapsed Teotihuacan culture, and the second were immigrants from the US Southwest, the so-called Anasazi. In fact these two groups were probably the contenders in a civil war that resulted in a Toltec migration to Yucatan, and joining with the Maya Itza people and the founding of Chichen Itza.

The report also speaks of the migration pattern of the Anasazi - it wasn't a tribal migration, but rather family based. Evidence shows that the Southwest experienced a terrible drought during the 10th century, and guys set out to find work elsewhere. Tula at this time was the main metropolis on the edge of the Valley of Mexico, so there was a lot of work. Then the new immigrants would go home and bring back family members. When I read this, I thought that was exactly the same immigration pattern that is going on now, only in reverse direction. A guy crosses and finds work at a ranch, and sends word home to his relatives that there is work to be had. So you see one ranch with hands all from some village in Guanajuato here, and the next ranch employs folks from Jalisco there.

But the topper was that the archaeologists were able to devine the diet of the people of Tula. Beans and tortillas! Who would have guessed?

Neoboho

Obviously, Sawicky is putting all instances of people coming to the U.S. under the "immigration" banner, when there are different types with different effects.

Here are three things he probably won't and can't answer:

1. The downsides to remittances include: creating an unnatural dependence between countries, encouraging the U.S. Federal Reserve and member banks to profit from illegal activity, and propping up the Mexican government.

2. Many of our "immigrants" come from Mexico, a country which used to own part of this country. 58% of Mexicans think the U.S. southwest (their "lost territories") rightfully belongs to Mexico. Only an ahistoric fool or a hack would try to downplay that major difference between current and past immigration.

3. Many companies profit from illegal immigration, and they donate money to politicians who support illegal immigration in one way or another. That is political corruption no matter how you want to look at it, and massive illegal immigration is leading to massive political corruption.

I look forward to Sawicky putting on price tag on those in a future post.