Forgive me if this has been talked about already, but I have a question regarding the Predicting Booms and Busts podcast by Mark Thornton. His very last comment of podcast regards illegal immigration and the housing bubble. His explanation, that illegal immigration from Mexico and the remittances are directly related to the housing bubble, seems, to me, perfectly logical. In fact, I would like to hear his take on whether or not farm subsidies contributed in the same manner to the positive flow of illegal immigrants.
But, that's not my concern. My question is about how this figures in with Ron Paul's stated claims (that illegal immigration is the result of 'free' entitlements. Does this discredit Paul's claims? Augment them?
Entitlements is one incentive for immigrants to come here. However, anti-immigrationists (and yes, I'm sticking by this term, since I find the legal/illegal distinction to be disingeuous) tend to ignore the primary incentive: simply put, better economic conditions such as higher paying jobs. If I only made the equivolent of a dollar an hour (or less) in Mexico, you bet I'd have quite an incentive to hop the border to America where even a job under the minimum wage at about four or five dollars an hour would be a huge improvement in my well-being. I despise the liberals who say that they are being "exploited" as "cheap labor". Some of them are being given an oppurtunity to increase their well-being three fold or more in comparison to their prior situation. More power to them.
Also, in accordance with the most obvious of prohibition theory, "illegal" immigration is the result of existing prohibitions or limits on immigration. The bereaucratic process is so inadequate that people may be put on waiting lists for years on end, and there are regulatory requirements to become a citezen (not to mention the quota system). This is an incentive for them to come "illegally", since waiting forever and hopping through a billion hoops doesn't seem like a tolerable option to some people. Prohibiting something will not get rid of the demand side, it will only provide an incentive for a black market in the given area. People on this site of all places should very well know this. So, in short, "illegal" immigration exists because immigration is (partially) illegal, and desperate people will resort to desperate means when the requirements to "legally" immigrate are frankly horse dung.
I think that's one of Paul's arguments, but it fits within a larger framework. Immigration is only a "problem" because of the welfare state. Otherwise it's an unmitigated good. From what I've seen working along side illegals, most of them completely ignore the majority of the welfare state, often performing tricks that natives would never even dream of doing in significant numbers, like sharing social security numbers and using multiple false names.
People should support illegal immigration over the legal process. Tax dollars pay for all the DHS-INS bureaucrats, and it integrates the newcomers into the welfare system. Illegals still pay most taxes, yet they don't take nearly as much from the welfare state. I think it's a political pose by Ron Paul, although perhaps it's a reasonable one if you believe that the welfare state merely needs to be smothered to death over the course of a few years rather than murdering it immediately or having it collapse under its own weight.
J.C. Hewitt:I think that's one of Paul's arguments, but it fits within a larger framework. Immigration is only a "problem" because of the welfare state. Otherwise it's an unmitigated good. From what I've seen working along side illegals, most of them completely ignore the majority of the welfare state, often performing tricks that natives would never even dream of doing in significant numbers, like sharing social security numbers and using multiple false names.
I tend to think any action that undermines the current corrupt system is a good thing. More power to them for taking advantage of the inherent idiocies of the system. "Illegal" immigrants are more clear eyed that most Americans, it seems.
J.C. Hewitt: People should support illegal immigration over the legal process. Tax dollars pay for all the DHS-INS bureaucrats, and it integrates the newcomers into the welfare system. Illegals still pay most taxes, yet they don't take nearly as much from the welfare state. I think it's a political pose by Ron Paul, although perhaps it's a reasonable one if you believe that the welfare state merely needs to be smothered to death over the course of a few years rather than murdering it immediately or having it collapse under its own weight.
Well, but you have to remember that the taxes illegals tend to pay are federal (via SS#), while the services they consume (mostly hospital ERs for health care) are local. So you have a situation where the Feds benefit, but the local govts (and thus the local citizenry) pay. Therefore, there's no real incentive for the Feds to do anything because the burden is felt locally. Additionally, the Feds get the bonus of being able to scare citizens into accepting the RealID card by convincing them that illegals are going to steal their jobs, rape their women, scarf up welfare, blah, blah, blah...
As for the welfare state smothering itself, I understand this line of thinking, but I don't think that we are anywhere near that - the American sheeple will tolerate a LOT more expropriation for welfare/warfare state before they start squealing. So that may be a long wait. Just look at France or Italy.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe