| With the departure of so many people, the local economy suffered. Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet; several closed. Once-boarded-up storefronts downtown were boarded up again. |
| Rival advocacy groups in the immigration debate turned this otherwise sleepy town into a litmus test for their causes. As the television cameras rolled, Riverside was branded, in turns, a racist enclave and a town fighting for American values. Some residents who backed the ban last year were reluctant to discuss their stance now, though they uniformly blamed outsiders for misrepresenting their motives. By and large, they said the ordinance was a success because it drove out illegal immigrants, even if it hurt the town's economy. "It changed the face of Riverside a little bit," said Charles Hilton, the former mayor who pushed for the ordinance. (He was voted out of office last fall but said it was not because he had supported the law.) "The business district is fairly vacant now, but it's not the legitimate businesses that are gone," he said. "It's all the ones that were supporting the illegal immigrants, or, as I like to call them, the criminal aliens." |
| Numerous storefronts on Scott Street are boarded up or are empty, with For Sale by Owner signs in the windows. Business is down by half at Luis Ordonez's River Dance Music Store, which sells Western Union wire transfers, cellphones and perfume. Next door, his restaurant, the Scott Street Family Cafe, which has a multiethnic menu in English, Spanish and Portuguese, was empty at lunchtime. |
Small town mainstreets are being boarded up because people no longer shop there. Been that way as long as farms are turned into subdivisions and strip malls and box stores move closer to where the people live.
Perhaps the town fathers should rent out store fronts to drug dealers, as long as criminal activity is good for the economy and alll.
Perhaps the town fathers should rent out store fronts to drug dealers, as long as criminal activity is good for the economy and alll.
nothing racist about that.
Perhaps the town fathers should rent out store fronts to segregationists and the John Birch Society since separating ourselves and protecting American virtue is so important and all.
Or we simply decriminalize drug dealing.
That seems like a separate issue.
The common denominator seems to be that you have problems with both sets of laws and their prosecution.
| Anti-foreign bias is easier to spot nowadays. To take one prominent example, immigration is far more of an issue now than it was in [Adam] Smith's time. Economists are predictably quick to see the benefits of immigration. Trade in labor is roughly the same as trade in goods. Specialization and exchange raise output--for instance, by letting skilled American moms return to work by hiring Mexican nannies. In terms of the balance of payments, immigration is a nonissue. If an immigrant moves from Mexico City to New York and spends all his earnings in his new homeland, the balance of trade does not change. Yet the public still looks on immigration as a bald misfortune: jobs lost, wages reduced, public services consumed. Many in the general public see immigration as a distinct danger, independent of, and more frightening than, an unfavorable balance of trade. People feel all the more vulnerable when they reflect that these foreigners are not just selling us their products. They live among us. It is misleading to think of "foreignness" as a simple either/or. From the viewpoint of the typical American, Canadians are less foreign than the British, who are in turn less foreign than the Japanese. From 1983 to 1987, 28 percent of Americans in the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey admitted they disliked Japan, but only 8 percent disliked England, and a scant 3 percent disliked Canada. Objective measures like the volume of trade or the trade deficit are often secondary to physical, linguistic, and cultural similarity. Trade with Canada or Great Britain generates only mild alarm compared to trade with Mexico or Japan. U.S. imports from and trade deficits with Canada exceeded those with Mexico every year from 1985 to 2004. During the anti-Japan hysteria of the 1980s, British foreign direct investment in the U.S. always exceeded that of the Japanese by at least 50 percent. Foreigners who look like us and speak English are hardly foreign at all. Calm reflection on the international economy reveals much to be thankful for and little to fear. On this point, economists past and present agree. But an important proviso lurks beneath the surface. Yes, there is little to fear about the international economy itself. But modern researchers rarely mention that attitudes about the international economy are another story. Paul Krugman hits the nail on the head: "The conflict among nations that so many policy intellectuals imagine prevails is an illusion; but it is an illusion that can destroy the reality of mutual gains from trade." We can see this today most vividly in the absurdly overblown political reactions to the immigration issue, from walls to forcing illegal workers currently in America to leave before they can begin an onerous procedure to gain paper legality. |
separating ourselves and protecting American virtue is so important and all
Prince's article details the unintended consequences of legislative acts. My response focuses whether these acts are legitimate uses of government power. They are related.
Much depends on what one expects the government to do.
Much depends on a clear understanding of what the powers of the United States Government as laid out in the constitution really is.
Are drug laws constitutional?
Are immigration laws constitutional?
It is not the ideal which we must pine for, it is the real ( as defined by the courts) that we have to deal with.
So if some government action can be argued to not be unconstitutional, that is enough to make it a legitimate use of government in your opinion?
Asia is a very very large continent. Indians are Asians, Iranians are Asians, and so are most Turks, Kazakhs, and even Israelis. Lots and lots of Asians are not Chinese at all.
In American English we typically refer to the Far East when we use the term "Asian." Though, I agree that it only goes to show how bizarre our view of race is.
Hundreds of thousands of immigrants are a drain on Britain and its economy, not a benefit, says a Left-leaning think tank.
Migrants from many developing nations fail to pay their way, while those from wealthy countries, such as the United States and Australia, provide a boost for the economy.
The report, published today by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), sets out to reveal which nationalities are "a debit on Britain's balance sheet".
It found that fewer than half of Britain's 650,000 Somalis, Bangladeshis, Turks and Pakistanis, have jobs and the four communities have the highest levels of benefit dependency.
Britain's fastest-growing migrant group, the Poles, score above-average for employment, but have the lowest hourly pay and make a below-average tax contribution.
The IPPR, which has close links to Labour, insisted that its report "is not an attempt to cast immigrant communities in a bad or good light". However, its findings will be seized on by those campaigning for tighter immigration controls.
New government statistics predict a two million rise in population over the next decade due to immigration, more than previous projections.
Liam Byrne, the immigration minister, said last week that the forecast "underlines the need for swift and sweeping changes to the immigration system".
"Second, you're reading this out of The Telegraph so you are going to get the
right wing view of everything, though better than The Daily Mail I'll grant you"
it clearly states in the article this study was done by a "Left-leaning think tank"
Hundreds of thousands of immigrants are a drain on Britain and its economy, not a benefit, says a Left-leaning think tank.
yes I read your garbage
you are trying to imply the findings are "right wing"
which in fact is not at all true
leftist brit study or not
people(Bush included) that do not think the united states has or should have a sovereign boder and know
and control who crosses that sovereign border are going to eventually cause a civil war in the country,
because this non-sense that is going on at the border is going to stop
still sore
most americans do not like being invaded by a flood of illegal non-citizens
as the illegal invaders become a larger group the two sides will clash over a variety of issues
pockets of many large us cities now look like el salvador or mexico city
most americans do not want to live in el salvador or mexico city
most americans do not want english replaced with spanish as the primary language
most americans do not wish to "press one for english" and why should they?
thus as more and more americans attempt to flee from the "el salvadorization of america"
the two sides will (imo) eventually settle their differences with a civil war
i hope i am wrong, but i doubt i am
insanity usually has a reckoning day
But Latin is otherwise dead, not because of any attempts to block changes in it, but because people just quit speaking it.
most americans do not like being invaded by a flood of illegal non-citizens
Then perhaps, immigration being a relatively harmless action in and of itself, they shouldn't see how many legal barriers they can put in the way of immigration.
You have to love the modal libertarian conception of freedom - "Americans should be free to have exactly what they don't want rammed down their throats."
Essentially, it amounts to a declaration that the fish are free to swim in the pond, while draining the pond out from under them....
You have to love the modal libertarian conception of freedom - "Americans should be free to have exactly what they don't want rammed down their throats."
I'm sure you could make a more ignorant comment if you tried, but you'd have to try really hard.
[/quote]
Essentially, it amounts to a declaration that the fish are free to swim in the pond, while draining the pond out from under them....
Not in the least. What I said was, "Then perhaps, immigration being a relatively harmless action in and of itself, they shouldn't see how many legal barriers they can put in the way of immigration." Which amounts to a suggestion that they stop trying to interfere with trade. No one is "draining the pond". In point of fact, the general idea is to raise the level of "the pond." I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding this.
I'm sure I could, but you haven't explained why it's ignorant.
Does not freedom, in the political sense, include the right of a population to self-determination? Do not free societies, all the way from your local bowling team up to the United Nations have the right to decide who may become a member and who will have use of their facilities?
Apparently your flavor of libertarianism believes the preferences of specific individuals preempts the right of a population to self-determination.
Given that even the laughable "libertarianism" promoted by the modals would be reliant on the authority of society at large to enforce it's tenants, that's a rather self-destructive proposition.
First, immigration and trade are two different things. It's entirely possible to trade without immigrating, and the right to trade does not exempt one from compliance with applicable laws, the rights of other individuals, or the sovereign rights of the law. My right to trade does not include a right to run a whore-house out of your living room without your consent.
Second, your assertion that immigration is "relatively harmless action in and of itself" and "raises the level of the pond" is only your opinion, it is not a point of agreement even among economists, especially libertarian economists not on the payroll of the Cato Institute.
Third, declaring that individuals are free to act as they choose while rendering them powerless to protect the social/cultural/political infrastructure that permits free-trade and freedom of action to the extent that they do is indeed draining the pond from under the fish.
Does not freedom, in the political sense, include the right of a population to self-determination? Do not free societies, all the way from your local bowling team up to the United Nations have the right to decide who may become a member and who will have use of their facilities?
I'm not the one arguing against self-determination. You are.
Arguing that people should be allowed to immigrate with less hindrance is not arguing that everyone should be made a member, which in this case would be citizenship. And secondly, you're confusing free societies with private organizations. Do private organizations have a right to decide who gets to be there? Sure. Is the U.S. a private club? No. Does the U.S. government own the country? No. If it does, then private property does not exist within the U.S. You don't get it both ways.
In any case, your example works in my favor. Does the local bowling team have a right to decide who joins the team? Sure. But then by the same reasoning, the local business owners have a right to decide who they hire for work. Do individuals have a right to decide to enter into private agreements to trade labor for monetary compensation? Or is that something the government should decide? Should the government decide whether or not you can be employed? If you're going to argue that people have a right to decide for themselves with whom they associate and do business, then why would you want to trample over that right with onerous laws? Your position is not tenable because it is self-contradictory.[/color]
Apparently your flavor of libertarianism believes the preferences of specific individuals preempts the right of a population to self-determination.
Not quite. My "flavor" of libertarianism believes that a population is not a collective mind but a group of individuals. And the rights of individuals are the rights of the population and therefore the rights of the population do not trump the rights of individuals. You seem to disagree. Which leads me to question where you have any room to criticize anyone else's concept of freedom because apparently you prefer a collective will enforced on others.
First, immigration and trade are two different things. It's entirely possible to trade without immigrating, and the right to trade does not exempt one from compliance with applicable laws, the rights of other individuals, or the sovereign rights of the law. My right to trade does not include a right to run a whore-house out of your living room without your consent.
You're overlooking one simple fact. Most immigration to the U.S. is about achieving trade. Yes, immigrants are trading labor, not goods, but it is trade all the same. Yes, your right to trade does not include a right to run a whore-house out of my living room without my consent. But then my right to privacy does not include preventing you from having having someone over to your house to remodel your kitchen even if I don't like the person you hired for the job.
Second, your assertion that immigration is "relatively harmless action in and of itself" and "raises the level of the pond" is only your opinion, it is not a point of agreement even among economists, especially libertarian economists not on the payroll of the Cato Institute.
I have yet to see demonstrated any harmful effects of allowing people to come here to trade labor for recompense. Everyone keeps saying it's so awful, but so far the best anyone can do to support this idea is to say that it is a drain on government run social programs, programs which we really should not have in the first place, this drain being one of the reasons why the programs are a bad idea. So obviously the fault lies with the programs, not the immigrants. I have, on the other hand, seen evidence of the detrimental effects of interfering with the trade that immigration brings and I have seen the beneficial effects of trade, so until you can show me something besides your weak appeal to authority, I have no reason to believe you're right.
Third, declaring that individuals are free to act as they choose while rendering them powerless to protect the social/cultural/political infrastructure that permits free-trade and freedom of action to the extent that they do is indeed draining the pond from under the fish.
I'm sure it would. However, no one here declared that or rendered anyone powerless. So your whole argument falls as flat a man made of straw. Too bad.
I'm not the one mistaking private property for legal sovereignty, either.
As a matter of fact, every sovereign nation is a private club.
Every sovereign nation has the right to determine who will and who won't be admitted. Every sovereign nation has the right to determine who will and who won't be granted citizenship. And not only does every sovereign nation on earth do exactly that, in democratic nations they're obviously doing it with the full consent of the governed.
In not a single nation on earth is there a popular demand to abandon control of it's borders.
So you equate private property with sovereignty?
Ok, then - does the government have the legitimate authority to make and enforce laws preventing you from killing people or molesting children on your property?
Would you have the right to construct and operate a machine that would emit deadly radiation for a hundred mile radius from your property? If not, why not?
Where does the government derive the authority to prevent you from doing those things on your own property?
QuoteIn any case, your example works in my favor. Does the local bowling team have a right to decide who joins the team? Sure. But then by the same reasoning, the local business owners have a right to decide who they hire for work. Do individuals have a right to decide to enter into private agreements to trade labor for monetary compensation? Or is that something the government should decide? Should the government decide whether or not you can be employed? If you're going to argue that people have a right to decide for themselves with whom they associate and do business, then why would you want to trample over that right with onerous laws? Your position is not tenable because it is self-contradictory.
And here we have Dishonest Argument #11315 from the open borders advocates.
Tell me - are you planning to escort your workers up from the border, house them on your property, absorb the expense for any needs they might have, and escort them back to the border after work?
Oh wait - you aren't planning to do that! You're asserting that your right to property is the right to introduce elements to the public sphere, where they'll have an impact on everyone else, whether they like it or not.
And I suppose your right to keep and bear arms also equates to the right to discharge them out of your window into a crowd? The gun and the window, after all, are your property, right?
Try this one on for size: my family and I would like to have a Bengal tiger. Since we own the property, nobody should be able to tell us whether or not we can keep a Bengal tiger.
By the way, my family and I are going to be busy, so we're only going to be keeping the tiger on our premises from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday thru Friday, and the rest of the time we're going to let it wander the streets so everyone else can enjoy it, too.
Apparently you're arguing that ownership of property gives you the right to preempt public judgement on very public impacts that you're use of that property will entail. I call bullshit! This has nothing to do with your property, and everything to do with the public impact you're proposing to inflict on your fellow citizens without their consent. You're standing on your right to the use of your private property while abdicating the responsibility for the public impacts of that usage.
In addition, you're rights to free association and free enterprise are tempered by your obligations to the rights of others and to the law.
You may very well have the right to associate and trade with Charles Manson, but you don't have a right to demand the State of California grants him his liberty to convenience your doing so. Given the current legal restrictions on Mr. Manson's movements, you are obliged to have to visit him in the penitentiary where he currently resides.
You're perfectly free to associate and do business with anyone you please.
There are few American laws that actually restrict such associations. However, in the case that the person you wish to associate or do business with is not legally permitted to enter the United States, then you are going to be obliged to visit them in their country.
To argue that right's to free association and free enterprise are license to usurp the right of a sovereign nation to control it's borders is like arguing that a right to drive your car across town is license to run over any pedestrians who happen to be in your way.
If you want to burn down your own house, knock yourself out. If you're disposing of toxic wastes in your backyard such that they contaminate the neighborhood water supply, then you're damn right I think the public has a legitimate input into how you're using your property.
And I submit that your flavor of libertarianism isn't libertarianism at all, but a bastardized third-way socialism that's basically replaced the individual with the nation-state as the unit of redistribution.
Sure we won't tax the individual. Sure we won't tell him he can't smoke dope. We don't need to. Having already stripped him of the legal, political and economic means to affect any input as to what kind of country and society he lives in, why bother?
He's like a lizard in a terrarium. He can do anything he likes inside the confines of the terrarium. Unfortunately, if someone decides to fill that terrarium with methane and ammonia, he's just shit out of luck. We wouldn't want to restrict the freedom of people who want to poison terrariums, would we?
And the simple fact that you're overlooking is that nobody much gives a shit who remodels your kitchen. What they give a shit about is that you're aiding, abetting and encouraging people to enter the country illegally.
you're abetting an impact to the public environment such that the public, i.e. the collection of individuals that constitute your fellow citizenry, has deemed undesirable.
If you were leaving rotten foodstuffs out on your property such that it attracted rats, do you not think your neighbors might have a legitimate complaint?
You forgot to mention that the major economic damage done in the article you posted was due to lawsuits against the city.
Quick question - if our economy is so short of labor that we need to import it, as our Susan Sontag libertarians assert, how is it that the cost of labor hasn't risen in this country in nearly a decade? When the demand for something outstrips the supply, the price of that something rises, right?
Further, you might want to consider that the costs that "everyone keeps saying are so awful" might be of the variety that economics is inadequate to quantify. Social capital, cultural integrity, political environment, crime rates, etc.
Despite the fact that most Americans understand that illegal immigration helps provide them with cheap produce, most of them are willing to forfeit that benefit in return for securing the borders.
If immigration provides such an abundance of benefits, why is that? Perhaps people are willing to trade tangible values for some intangible ones that elude the economists....
QuoteThird, declaring that individuals are free to act as they choose while rendering them powerless to protect the social/cultural/political infrastructure that permits free-trade and freedom of action to the extent that they do is indeed draining the pond from under the fish.QuoteI'm sure it would. However, no one here declared that or rendered anyone powerless. So your whole argument falls as flat a man made of straw. Too bad.
Really? You've asserted that your fellow citizens don't have the right to prevent you from preemptively admitting laborers to this country over their objections,
You've asserted that your fellow citizens don't have the right to prevent you from preemptively admitting laborers to this country over their objections, a situation which would effectively force them to confront the resulting social, cultural, political and economic public effects that by a substantial majority they have, through their elected representatives, expressed a desire not to be confronted with.
If that isn't stripping them of their legitimate power as sovereigns of the republic, I don't know what would be.
Lizards in a terrarium.