I thought I'd muscle in on Mungo's turf and post about a guaranteed income for all Americans.
In principle, I'm in favor. Shall we say $12,000 / year for every American 18 and over?
But as always, the devil is in the details.
(1) Is this going to add to our current mish-mash of "safety net" programs or replace it?
Obviously, I'd like to see it replace the current set of arrangements. I would think many libertarians would love this. Reduce paternalism, shrink the size of the state, what's not to like? If we used it to replace the current system, it wouldn't even be all that expensive. If we also phased out social security, we could up the annual guaranteed number to maybe $16,000 or so?
(2) Can a guaranteed income be compatible with significantly increased immigration?
In other words, if we allow more immigration must we restrict the guaranteed income program only to citizens for fear that masses of people would show up just to collect the 12 large and sit on their butts?
But I think there is a fundamental unfairness of collecting taxes from people to pay for a "universal" program that excludes them.
And, even if we did limit it to citizens, would we still fear that masses of people would show up, wait to become citizens, and then collect the 12 dimes and sit on their butts?
We could only allow increased immigration for higher skilled immigrants for whom $12,000 would not be a magnet, but that really reduces the incredible poverty-fighting power of allowing increased numbers of low-skilled immigrants.
If a guaranteed income program was an addition to existing safety net programs and required choking off immigration, I am not sure it would be worthwhile, no matter how attractive it is to me in the abstract.
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Friday, December 13, 2013
Friday, November 22, 2013
Bed Mandate
We have written about this before. But it's pretty remarkable.
"In the past five years, Homeland Security officials have jailed record numbers of immigrants, driven by a little-known congressional directive known on Capitol Hill as the 'bed mandate.' The policy requires U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to keep an average of 34,000 detainees per day in its custody, a quota that has steadily risen since it was established in 2006 by conservative lawmakers who insisted that the agency wasn’t doing enough to deport unlawful immigrants. But as illegal crossings from Mexico have fallen to near their lowest levels since the early 1970s, ICE has been meeting Congress’s immigration detention goals by reaching deeper into the criminal justice system to vacuum up foreign-born, legal U.S. residents convicted of any crimes that could render them eligible for deportation. The agency also has greatly expanded the number of undocumented immigrants it takes into custody after traffic stops by local police...With federal spending on immigration detention and deportation reaching $2.8 billion a year, more than doubling since 2006, the mandate has met growing skepticism from budget hawks in both parties, particularly after DHS officials told Congress during the 'sequestration' debate in April that the agency could save money by lowering the bed mandate to 31,800 and relying on cheaper alternatives to jails. But House Republicans successfully pushed back, set the mandate at 34,000 detainees and ordered ICE officials to spend nearly $400 million more than they requested." WaPo.
Apparently, the whole thing is really due to the fact that Robert Byrd hated brown people. (You know how they are...all..brown.) Actually, there is another explanation. The prison-industrial complex makes a fortune out of running these "hotels" for their desperate guests.
Nod to Kevin Lewis
"In the past five years, Homeland Security officials have jailed record numbers of immigrants, driven by a little-known congressional directive known on Capitol Hill as the 'bed mandate.' The policy requires U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to keep an average of 34,000 detainees per day in its custody, a quota that has steadily risen since it was established in 2006 by conservative lawmakers who insisted that the agency wasn’t doing enough to deport unlawful immigrants. But as illegal crossings from Mexico have fallen to near their lowest levels since the early 1970s, ICE has been meeting Congress’s immigration detention goals by reaching deeper into the criminal justice system to vacuum up foreign-born, legal U.S. residents convicted of any crimes that could render them eligible for deportation. The agency also has greatly expanded the number of undocumented immigrants it takes into custody after traffic stops by local police...With federal spending on immigration detention and deportation reaching $2.8 billion a year, more than doubling since 2006, the mandate has met growing skepticism from budget hawks in both parties, particularly after DHS officials told Congress during the 'sequestration' debate in April that the agency could save money by lowering the bed mandate to 31,800 and relying on cheaper alternatives to jails. But House Republicans successfully pushed back, set the mandate at 34,000 detainees and ordered ICE officials to spend nearly $400 million more than they requested." WaPo.
Apparently, the whole thing is really due to the fact that Robert Byrd hated brown people. (You know how they are...all..brown.) Actually, there is another explanation. The prison-industrial complex makes a fortune out of running these "hotels" for their desperate guests.
Nod to Kevin Lewis
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Wow! They Just Made It Up!
The U.S. government found it could not mistreat Mexicans enough under the actual U.S. law. So they used a provision of the "Mexican Constitution" to make it easier to abuse people under Mexican law.
But they. just. made. it. up.
I understand that our government has done this to Native Americans residents, Chinese immigrants, the waves of southern and eastern European immigrants, and of course (most egregiously) Africans who "immigrated" in chains. But I thought we had made some progress, at least toward rule of law.
But they. just. made. it. up.
I understand that our government has done this to Native Americans residents, Chinese immigrants, the waves of southern and eastern European immigrants, and of course (most egregiously) Africans who "immigrated" in chains. But I thought we had made some progress, at least toward rule of law.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Don B on Immigration
Don Boudreaux on immigration....
Excerpt:
A few friends whose opinions I hold in the highest regard have challenged me recently to reconsider my support for open immigration. Their challenge springs neither from the economically uninformed Luddite view that immigrants will steal ‘American jobs’ (or lower Americans’ wages) nor the worry that more immigrants will be a net drain, through their direct use of the existing welfare state, on the public fisc. Their challenge springs instead from the more plausible concern that immigrants will use their growing political power to vote for government policies that are more interventionist and less respectful of individual freedoms.
This concern isn’t absurd (especially to those of us who believe that culture and rhetoric play a leading role in determining the actual law and policy of society and the performance of the economy). If too many people from countries less free and economies less dynamic than America come to the U.S. and then vote for the same policies that condemn their native countries to second- or third-world status – policies based chiefly on envy, zero-sum thinking, hostility to bourgeois pursuits, belief in secular salvation by Great Leaders, and mountains of plain old economic ignorance – then the very commitment to freedom that leads me to support open immigration might be inconsistent with the long-run maintenance of freedom.
His answer is interesting. ATSRTWT
Excerpt:
A few friends whose opinions I hold in the highest regard have challenged me recently to reconsider my support for open immigration. Their challenge springs neither from the economically uninformed Luddite view that immigrants will steal ‘American jobs’ (or lower Americans’ wages) nor the worry that more immigrants will be a net drain, through their direct use of the existing welfare state, on the public fisc. Their challenge springs instead from the more plausible concern that immigrants will use their growing political power to vote for government policies that are more interventionist and less respectful of individual freedoms.
This concern isn’t absurd (especially to those of us who believe that culture and rhetoric play a leading role in determining the actual law and policy of society and the performance of the economy). If too many people from countries less free and economies less dynamic than America come to the U.S. and then vote for the same policies that condemn their native countries to second- or third-world status – policies based chiefly on envy, zero-sum thinking, hostility to bourgeois pursuits, belief in secular salvation by Great Leaders, and mountains of plain old economic ignorance – then the very commitment to freedom that leads me to support open immigration might be inconsistent with the long-run maintenance of freedom.
His answer is interesting. ATSRTWT
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Rootless Cosmopolitans
Nice article by N. Gregory in the NY Times about immigration and the economics profession. He uses his own department (Harvard) to show just how open academic economics is to foreign talent. But it's not just Harvard.
Take my own department in the middle of nowhere. I've already written about its cosmopolitan composition here.
This year, we are hiring an assistant professor. The three finalists are Canadian, Portuguese, and Korean.
The only real barrier to entry in the academic economic market is ability to speak English.
I once worked in a university in Mexico. The Econ department had professors from the US, Guatemala, Spain, & Peru.
The barrier there was the ability to speak Spanish (though when they first hired me, I really was a terrible Spanish speaker).
Take my own department in the middle of nowhere. I've already written about its cosmopolitan composition here.
This year, we are hiring an assistant professor. The three finalists are Canadian, Portuguese, and Korean.
The only real barrier to entry in the academic economic market is ability to speak English.
I once worked in a university in Mexico. The Econ department had professors from the US, Guatemala, Spain, & Peru.
The barrier there was the ability to speak Spanish (though when they first hired me, I really was a terrible Spanish speaker).
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
Buy a Condo, Get a Green Card!
"Investment" in a ski resort in Vermont. William Stenger is building a new resort town, using citizenship as a sweetener. Generally, I am skeptical of incentive programs for investments, but I am pretty strongly FOR letting rich people emigrate to the U.S.
Excerpt:
The price tag for the entire project, which Mr. Stenger says will create
10,000 direct and indirect jobs over several years, is $865 million.
But even more unusual than the size of the undertaking is the method by
which Mr. Stenger and his business partner, Ariel Quiros, are financing
it. They have tapped into a federal program that gives green cards, or
permanent residency, to foreigners who invest at least $500,000 in an American business — the reward for the investment is a chance at United States citizenship.
Mr. Stenger has already attracted 550 foreign investors from 60
countries to put up $275 million for the first phase: a hotel at the Jay
Peak ski complex, an indoor water park the size of a football field, an
ice hockey arena, condominiums, restaurants and stores.
The second and third phases, now under way, require 1,000 additional
foreign investors to put up $500 million to overhaul Newport and to
develop the nearby Burke Mountain ski area.
Mr. Stenger and Mr. Quiros are putting up $90 million themselves. But
even at $785 million, this is one of the single biggest projects in the
country financed under the investor program.
Congress created the visa program in 1990 to help stimulate the economy.
Because of a cumbersome process and complaints of fraud and corruption,
it was long underused.
But a confluence of events in recent years has led to its rather sudden
revival: the program was improved; the financial crisis of 2008 made it
hard for developers to get loans from commercial banks; and foreign
nationals, especially in China, were accumulating vast wealth and were
eager for their children to study and live in the United States.
In 2006, the government issued just 802 of these EB-5 visas to investors
and their families; this year, it granted 7,818.
The program is now growing so rapidly that in the next year or two the
number issued will probably reach the annual limit of 10,000. For the
first time in the program’s history, applicants may be turned away.
Good program, bad program?
Nod to JR
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Bret Stephens
I don't always agree with Bret Stephens. But he nails so many things in this post...well, it's good. That's what I'm sayin', it's good. Excerpt:
Can we, as the GOP base, demand an IQ exam as well as a test of basic knowledge from our congressional and presidential candidates? This is not a flippant suggestion: There were at least five Senate seats in this election cycle that might have been occupied by a Republican come January had not the invincible stupidity of the candidate stood in the way.
On the subject of idiocy, can someone explain where’s the political gold in demonizing Latin American immigrants? California’s Prop 187, passed in 1994, helped destroy the GOP in a once-reliable state. Yet Republicans have been trying to replicate that fiasco on a national scale ever since.
If the argument is that illegal immigrants are overtaxing the welfare state, then that’s an argument for paring back the welfare state, not deporting 12 million people. If the argument is that these immigrants “steal” jobs, then that’s an argument by someone who either doesn’t understand the free market or aspires for his children to become busboys and chambermaids.
And if the argument is that these immigrants don’t share our values, then religiosity, hard work, personal stoicism and the sense of family obligation expressed through billions of dollars in remittances aren’t American values.
Friday, November 09, 2012
Immigration reform?
Sean Hannity and John Boehner both say they now want to tackle immigration reform.
Cool beans. Welcome to the club lads.
What should this reform look like?
1. an easy path to citizenship for current "illegals"
2. all college diplomas earned by foreigners come with a green card stapled to them
3. a massive (triple? quadruple?) increase in the amount of visas for skilled workers
4. make the process for getting green cards and becoming citizens faster and cheaper
5. a gradually increasing flow of "unskilled" immigrants from around the world
What am I missing? Tell me in the comments.
It would be awesome if a side benefit of Mittens' drubbing was real reform. But, I am not holding my breath.
Cool beans. Welcome to the club lads.
What should this reform look like?
1. an easy path to citizenship for current "illegals"
2. all college diplomas earned by foreigners come with a green card stapled to them
3. a massive (triple? quadruple?) increase in the amount of visas for skilled workers
4. make the process for getting green cards and becoming citizens faster and cheaper
5. a gradually increasing flow of "unskilled" immigrants from around the world
What am I missing? Tell me in the comments.
It would be awesome if a side benefit of Mittens' drubbing was real reform. But, I am not holding my breath.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Transmissions from the satellite heart
The World Bank estimates that remittances to developing countries in 2011 exceeded $370 billion. Here's some context, from the "Migration & Development Brief":
It's interesting to see just how thoroughly remittances dominate ODA (official development assistance) as a source of funds in developing countries. The chart also shows the explosion of FDI in the developing world over the last 10 years (interrupted by the financial crisis but recovering quickly).
Hat tip to the Roving Bandit!
It's interesting to see just how thoroughly remittances dominate ODA (official development assistance) as a source of funds in developing countries. The chart also shows the explosion of FDI in the developing world over the last 10 years (interrupted by the financial crisis but recovering quickly).
Hat tip to the Roving Bandit!
Monday, August 15, 2011
Dutch Resistance
Dutch Boy sends this article from the NYT.
Interesting, but grim, reading.
Dutch Boy, deep down inside, is very nearly a bed-wetting leftie. He believes in extreme stuff like actual rights for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. He believes in reproductive rights, and thinks capital punishment is barbaric. He would likely treat immigrants more like humans than cattle.
But living in Holland also made him a realist about Muslim immigration in Europe. To be fair, the problem is not so much the immigrants themselves as the bizarre Dutch reaction to it. Also the Danish/Swedish/Norse/French/German/etc. reaction.
From the NYT article: Dutch politicians were promoting economic integration — language training, job training. “They didn’t understand the importance of religious identity among the immigrants,” he said. They dismissed it as backward even as they failed to understand the anger a growing immigrant population was creating.
The problem has two parts:
1. A deep shame the Dutch feel about Western institutions. They are not remotely willing to defend markets, political liberties, or anything. Perversely, since by their birthright as Dutchmen they are entitled to these things, they feel no need whatsoever to protect them. Let someone else do it. I'm tired.
2. A weakness of the spirit, a disease of the soul, so pervasive that they cannot imagine that anyone could really be serious about believing in that primitive religious crap. To be fair, they doubt across the board, from Christian to Jew to Muslim. They just wallow in weltschmerz, and justify their national spiritual laziness as a sign of sophistication.
So, it comes down to this: Christopher Caldwell, REFLECTIONS ON THE REVOLUTION IN EUROPE. I had not read this book until two years ago, when Dutch Boy sent it to me. But if you have not read it, you should. This is not a partisan issue, it's just the facts.
Interesting, but grim, reading.
Dutch Boy, deep down inside, is very nearly a bed-wetting leftie. He believes in extreme stuff like actual rights for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. He believes in reproductive rights, and thinks capital punishment is barbaric. He would likely treat immigrants more like humans than cattle.
But living in Holland also made him a realist about Muslim immigration in Europe. To be fair, the problem is not so much the immigrants themselves as the bizarre Dutch reaction to it. Also the Danish/Swedish/Norse/French/German/etc. reaction.
From the NYT article: Dutch politicians were promoting economic integration — language training, job training. “They didn’t understand the importance of religious identity among the immigrants,” he said. They dismissed it as backward even as they failed to understand the anger a growing immigrant population was creating.
The problem has two parts:
1. A deep shame the Dutch feel about Western institutions. They are not remotely willing to defend markets, political liberties, or anything. Perversely, since by their birthright as Dutchmen they are entitled to these things, they feel no need whatsoever to protect them. Let someone else do it. I'm tired.
2. A weakness of the spirit, a disease of the soul, so pervasive that they cannot imagine that anyone could really be serious about believing in that primitive religious crap. To be fair, they doubt across the board, from Christian to Jew to Muslim. They just wallow in weltschmerz, and justify their national spiritual laziness as a sign of sophistication.
So, it comes down to this: Christopher Caldwell, REFLECTIONS ON THE REVOLUTION IN EUROPE. I had not read this book until two years ago, when Dutch Boy sent it to me. But if you have not read it, you should. This is not a partisan issue, it's just the facts.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
New Americans Proud, Dept Homeland Security Americans Not So Much
An account from a reader, about citizenship. He is a citizen; his spouse, Alician, has a green card and has finally qualified for full U.S. citizenship. (No, Alician is not her real name). I have inserted some comments in [ ] branckets.
[A while ago ] at 5pm Alician got a call from the gubmint. Homeland Security said that they finally found her file [misplaced for six weeks! No explanation...] and to show up at 3pm the next day at the [regional] office, to be sworn in as a U.S. citizen. We showed up at 3 and were herded into a windowless conference room with about 20 other people. I started to think this was a set-up and everyone was going to be handcuffed and led onto a bus [or maybe a "shower"?].
But then a clearly bored "official" turned on the dvd player and left. We watched a 20 minute video showing pictures of 19th century immigrants while inspiring piano music played. After that another video began, which consisted of more pictures of immigrants with "I'm proud to be an American" as the soundtrack...the entire song!
[If you want the experience, here is the Lee Greenwood video...]
I think DHS saw this as their last chance to torture foreigners before they become citizens. After that video ended nothing happened, no actual person was around, and so we waited half an hour. Eventually, some soon to be ex-immigrant showed the entrepreneurial spirit [and that's why we need immigrants!] and flagged someone down to point out that we were all waiting to be sworn in.
Finally a woman showed up looking completely flustered and proceeded muy rapidamente to give the oath and pass out certificates. Then we were told to leave, quite abruptly. I think she was too busy not processing paperwork to be interrupted from not swearing in new citizens. Balancing the not-doing of all that work has to be pretty stressful.
So: After over five years, thousands of dollars in fees (as it's not supposed to cost the taxpayers any $), and hundreds of documents, it came down to this... "Would you just take your pathetic certificate and leave? We don't really have time for this, and we don't have any more awful videos to show you. We certainly don't have time to say anything, because then you would see we ourselves don't believe in all this patriotism crap. We at DHS actually hate Americans."
I felt bad for the people in uniform [a number of U.S. soldiers were gaining their citizenship for the first time] and from war-torn countries. They should have been treated better on their first day as U.S. citizens. Alician had the perfect one-word description: "Graceless." Still, she actually is proud to be an American, even if those DHS folks aren't.
[A while ago ] at 5pm Alician got a call from the gubmint. Homeland Security said that they finally found her file [misplaced for six weeks! No explanation...] and to show up at 3pm the next day at the [regional] office, to be sworn in as a U.S. citizen. We showed up at 3 and were herded into a windowless conference room with about 20 other people. I started to think this was a set-up and everyone was going to be handcuffed and led onto a bus [or maybe a "shower"?].
But then a clearly bored "official" turned on the dvd player and left. We watched a 20 minute video showing pictures of 19th century immigrants while inspiring piano music played. After that another video began, which consisted of more pictures of immigrants with "I'm proud to be an American" as the soundtrack...the entire song!
[If you want the experience, here is the Lee Greenwood video...]
I think DHS saw this as their last chance to torture foreigners before they become citizens. After that video ended nothing happened, no actual person was around, and so we waited half an hour. Eventually, some soon to be ex-immigrant showed the entrepreneurial spirit [and that's why we need immigrants!] and flagged someone down to point out that we were all waiting to be sworn in.
Finally a woman showed up looking completely flustered and proceeded muy rapidamente to give the oath and pass out certificates. Then we were told to leave, quite abruptly. I think she was too busy not processing paperwork to be interrupted from not swearing in new citizens. Balancing the not-doing of all that work has to be pretty stressful.
So: After over five years, thousands of dollars in fees (as it's not supposed to cost the taxpayers any $), and hundreds of documents, it came down to this... "Would you just take your pathetic certificate and leave? We don't really have time for this, and we don't have any more awful videos to show you. We certainly don't have time to say anything, because then you would see we ourselves don't believe in all this patriotism crap. We at DHS actually hate Americans."
I felt bad for the people in uniform [a number of U.S. soldiers were gaining their citizenship for the first time] and from war-torn countries. They should have been treated better on their first day as U.S. citizens. Alician had the perfect one-word description: "Graceless." Still, she actually is proud to be an American, even if those DHS folks aren't.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Immigration Studies
What Drives U.S. Immigration Policy? Evidence from Congressional Roll Call
Votes
Giovanni Facchini & Max Friedrich Steinhardt
Journal of Public Economics, forthcoming
Abstract: Immigration is one of the most hotly debated policy issues in the United States today. Despite marked divergence of opinions within political parties, several important immigration reforms were introduced in the post 1965 era. The purpose of this paper is to systematically analyze the drivers of congressional voting behavior on immigration policy during the period 1970-2006, and in particular, to assess the role of economic factors at the district level. Our findings provide robust evidence that representatives of more skilled labor abundant constituencies are more likely to support an open immigration policy concerning unskilled labor. Thus, a simple factor-proportions-analysis model provides useful insights regarding the policy making process on one of the most controversial facets of globalization.
-------------------------
Migration from Mexico to the United States: Wage Benefits of Crossing the
Border and Going to the U.S. Interior
Ernesto Aguayo-Tellez & Christian Rivera-Mendoza
Politics & Policy, February 2011, Pages 119-140
Abstract: Emigrating from Mexico to the United States requires three steps: going to the border, crossing it, and going to the final U.S. destination. This article attempts to measure the earnings benefits of each migration step, focusing particularly on the second step: crossing the border. Using U.S and Mexican microdata of workers living in Mexico and in the United States, this article compares wages of identical individuals on both sides of the border after controlling for unobserved differences between migrants and nonmigrants. On average, Mexican workers increase their wages 1.22 times by moving to the Mexican side of the border, 4.15 times by crossing it, and 1.12 times by moving to an interior location in the United States. Gains are larger for unskilled workers. Also, gains for crossing the border are larger for illegal workers, while gains for going to the U.S. interior are larger for legal workers.
-------------------------
The typification of Hispanics as criminals and support for punitive crime
control policies
Kelly Welch et al.
Social Science Research, May 2011, Pages 822-840
Abstract: The Hispanic population is now the largest and fastest growing minority in the United States, so it is not surprising that ethnic threat linked to Hispanics has been associated with harsher crime control. While minority threat research has found that individuals who associate blacks with crime are more likely to support harsh criminal policies, the possibility that this relationship exists for those who typify Hispanics as criminal has yet to be examined. Using a national random sample, this study is the first to use HLM to find that perceptions of Hispanics as criminals do increase support for punitive crime control measures, controlling for various individual and state influences. Moderated and contextual analyses indicate this relationship is most applicable for individuals who are less apt to typify criminals as black, less prejudiced, less fearful of victimization, politically liberal or moderate, not parents, and living in states with relatively fewer Latin American immigrants.
(nod to Kevin Lewis)
Votes
Giovanni Facchini & Max Friedrich Steinhardt
Journal of Public Economics, forthcoming
Abstract: Immigration is one of the most hotly debated policy issues in the United States today. Despite marked divergence of opinions within political parties, several important immigration reforms were introduced in the post 1965 era. The purpose of this paper is to systematically analyze the drivers of congressional voting behavior on immigration policy during the period 1970-2006, and in particular, to assess the role of economic factors at the district level. Our findings provide robust evidence that representatives of more skilled labor abundant constituencies are more likely to support an open immigration policy concerning unskilled labor. Thus, a simple factor-proportions-analysis model provides useful insights regarding the policy making process on one of the most controversial facets of globalization.
-------------------------
Migration from Mexico to the United States: Wage Benefits of Crossing the
Border and Going to the U.S. Interior
Ernesto Aguayo-Tellez & Christian Rivera-Mendoza
Politics & Policy, February 2011, Pages 119-140
Abstract: Emigrating from Mexico to the United States requires three steps: going to the border, crossing it, and going to the final U.S. destination. This article attempts to measure the earnings benefits of each migration step, focusing particularly on the second step: crossing the border. Using U.S and Mexican microdata of workers living in Mexico and in the United States, this article compares wages of identical individuals on both sides of the border after controlling for unobserved differences between migrants and nonmigrants. On average, Mexican workers increase their wages 1.22 times by moving to the Mexican side of the border, 4.15 times by crossing it, and 1.12 times by moving to an interior location in the United States. Gains are larger for unskilled workers. Also, gains for crossing the border are larger for illegal workers, while gains for going to the U.S. interior are larger for legal workers.
-------------------------
The typification of Hispanics as criminals and support for punitive crime
control policies
Kelly Welch et al.
Social Science Research, May 2011, Pages 822-840
Abstract: The Hispanic population is now the largest and fastest growing minority in the United States, so it is not surprising that ethnic threat linked to Hispanics has been associated with harsher crime control. While minority threat research has found that individuals who associate blacks with crime are more likely to support harsh criminal policies, the possibility that this relationship exists for those who typify Hispanics as criminal has yet to be examined. Using a national random sample, this study is the first to use HLM to find that perceptions of Hispanics as criminals do increase support for punitive crime control measures, controlling for various individual and state influences. Moderated and contextual analyses indicate this relationship is most applicable for individuals who are less apt to typify criminals as black, less prejudiced, less fearful of victimization, politically liberal or moderate, not parents, and living in states with relatively fewer Latin American immigrants.
(nod to Kevin Lewis)
Thursday, December 16, 2010
This is the last straw
As you people know, I've been a big advocate of increased immigration and, yes, of amnesty and a path to citizenship for our "illegals".
But no more!
Not after reading the Fox News Latino report that Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem are having an anchor baby.
In what can only be interpreted as a bearish move on the future of their homeland, the couple is planning to give birth in Los Angeles.
Let's just repeal ALL the amendments just to make sure this crap can't happen any more!
FNL in their infinite wisdom, took the story down, but it's cached, people, it's cached.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Grand Game: Immigration Edition
In this case, the article itself (in WaPo) plays it straight. In fact, this is great, fair journalism.
The amazing stuff is the content of the article. I'm not sure the author, Andrew Becker, was going for this. But each successive revelation about how ICE "broke" the record is more preposterous and outrageous. Have we completely lost respect for the basic rule of law? And then to have these bureaucrats just LIE....Wow. I mean, the guy who outed the administration's fibs is the head of their own union. The admin lied about changing the rules, and artificially decreed that the year would be longer, on both ends. Good lord.
WaPo is hardly some right wing blogger. There actually appears to be something moving, where fair-minded people on the left are sick and tired of the Obama shenanigans.
Anyway... your favorite parts, highlighted in comments. Go!
(Nod to Anonyman)
The amazing stuff is the content of the article. I'm not sure the author, Andrew Becker, was going for this. But each successive revelation about how ICE "broke" the record is more preposterous and outrageous. Have we completely lost respect for the basic rule of law? And then to have these bureaucrats just LIE....Wow. I mean, the guy who outed the administration's fibs is the head of their own union. The admin lied about changing the rules, and artificially decreed that the year would be longer, on both ends. Good lord.
WaPo is hardly some right wing blogger. There actually appears to be something moving, where fair-minded people on the left are sick and tired of the Obama shenanigans.
Anyway... your favorite parts, highlighted in comments. Go!
(Nod to Anonyman)
Friday, December 03, 2010
So near but yet so far
Dean Baker gets a lot of stuff right early, but then heads off the rails again Ozzie-style:
China's government is saying is that it has no better use for its money than subsidising the consumption of people in the United States and other wealthy countries, by propping up the value of the dollar. That may seem surprising since per capita income in China is less than $8,000 a year, while it is over $45,000 a year in the United States, but if this is what China's leaders insist, who are we to argue?
In effect, China is subsidising its exports to the United States. This is very generous of the Chinese government, since the United States can take advantage of China's generosity to enjoy a higher standard of living. Currently, our deficit with China is equal to 2% of GDP. This means that China is handing us goods and services that are worth roughly $280bn a year more than the value of goods and services we give them in exchange.
While this displaces a large amount of domestic production, we can ensure that the displacement does not result in unemployment by simply shortening working weeks. If everyone's working week was shortened by 2.0% (the equivalent of one week per year of vacation), we could keep the workforce fully employed even in the case of reduced demand.
At present, China's trade policy primary hurts non-college-educated workers, since those with college and professional degrees are largely protected from the same sort of competition that manufacturing workers face. It is important to eliminate the barriers that protect doctors, lawyers and university professors from competition with their lower-paid counterparts in the developing world. This way, trade with China would put downward pressure on the wages of professionals, not just manufacturing workers.
I wouldn't put it exactly this way, but kudos, Dean, you're nailing it!
Then there's this:
While this displaces a large amount of domestic production, we can ensure that the displacement does not result in unemployment by simply shortening working weeks. If everyone's working week was shortened by 2.0% (the equivalent of one week per year of vacation), we could keep the workforce fully employed even in the case of reduced demand.
People, the idea that every $ of the trade deficit with China represents a $ of lost domestic production is risible. Does Dean really think the next cheapest producer of Walmart products operates plants in the USA? What about Indonesia, Vietnam, India, Sri Lanka, even Mexico? Bilateral trade is not a leak-proof iron pipe. Reductions in a trade deficit with a single country does not guarantee reductions in the overall trade deficit. That's just econ 101.
Dean is also a bit confused about where most low education workers in the USA work:
At present, China's trade policy primary hurts non-college-educated workers, since those with college and professional degrees are largely protected from the same sort of competition that manufacturing workers face. It is important to eliminate the barriers that protect doctors, lawyers and university professors from competition with their lower-paid counterparts in the developing world. This way, trade with China would put downward pressure on the wages of professionals, not just manufacturing workers.
First, most non college educated workers do NOT work in manufacturing. Manufacturing employment is a small fraction of overall employment. Many non-college educated workers work in the service sector and thus are largely "sheltered" from import competition.
Second, as Dean knows full well, American university professors in the USA face tremendous competition from foreign workers. In our small department in Oklahoma we have a Greek, an Argentine, a Turk, and three Chinese professors; about one third of the department lived abroad before starting grad school. Go look at the home page of the Harvard economics department and count the foreigners.
I fully support increased immigration for professionals (and indeed for almost everyone), but Dean just does not have his facts straight here.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Social Security: a third way?
The debate (and by debate I mean scream-fest) on social security has largely been between people who want to cut benefits and people who want to raise tax rates or do away with the cap on how much income is subject to the tax, with each side disparaging the other.
But, there is another alternative. Social security takes $$ from current workers and gives it to the current elderly. We are in trouble partly because the ratio of elderly to workers is rising (and also because benefits have been increasing).
No, people, I am NOT suggesting euthanasia. Shame on you!
I am suggesting getting more workers via immigration!
It's win-win-win. Grandma gets her check, tax rates don't rise, and more people get to come to America and better provide for themselves and their families.
Let's take some baby steps. How about tripling the quotas on H1-B visas and easing the path to permanent residence from them? How about making an easy path to permanent residence for anyone who graduates from a US university. If that's too "liberal" for you how about anyone who gets an advanced degree from a US university?
There are a lot of things we can do to let wealth generating people "in".
And so I say unto you: tear down that wall! Grandma needs the money!
Amen.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Overtime Party: We lost your paperwork again!
We DO get letters....
From Anonyman:
I've been reading your postings on citizenship issues. And I think I've found a clear method to resolve the debate - have everyone who advocates repealing the 14th amendment go through the citizenship process at CIS (formerly INS).
My wife went to take the citizenship test this morning. After thousands of $s in fees (as this isn't supposed to cost the tax-payer anything) this is about the 25th trip we've made due to unreadable fingerprints (done on the computer, which by definition should be readable), lost forms, incorrect info printed on her green card, interviews, etc.
The first thing the clerk says is that he can give her the test, but canNOT make a determination on her citizenship as CIS has 3 files (for unexplained reasons) on her containing the thousands (literally!) of pages we've submitted to support her application BUT, they can't find any of them. Two are supposed to be in DC and one says it's in Nebraska. So if no one can find them in the next 30 days they'll be declared lost, and then he'll need to make a determination based on the very thin file in front of him.
We were prepared and brought copies of all the vital documents, but he said it would still take at least 30 days as he would need the files to be officially declared lost. I then asked how long would it take from that point for her to be sworn in, and he said they are behind on their processing stats and are starting to work overtime to meet their target by the end of the fiscal year (Oct. 1). So it should be before then, but may be on a Sat. as they are working 14 hour days 6 days a week. Not being able to shut up, I then ask how often this happens and he said last year he was able to buy a new car AND motorcycle based on his overtime for Sept. I was going to ask him if this happens every year, but my wife was shooting daggers and me through her eyes.
We thanked him and got up to leave, and he said he would let us know as soon as they do, or don't, find the three missing files. I then asked if our fees could be refunded if none are found, and he smiled and said no one had ever asked that before.
So, if people really won't to repeal the 14th amendment and have every single person in the US apply for citizenship, I think they process would change a lot of people's minds.
Two lost, one in Nebraska. Once again, for all you half-wits who jabber about the people who "try to do things right," we make it IM. POSS. IBLE. for people to do it right. What part of illegal don't I understand? What part of stupid f*****g law don't YOU understand? The goal of our policy is to make legal immigration hard, and illegal immigration easy, for the economic benefit of corporate interests and the political benefit of xenophobic demagogues. It is the Babtist and bootlegger coalition reborn.
From Anonyman:
I've been reading your postings on citizenship issues. And I think I've found a clear method to resolve the debate - have everyone who advocates repealing the 14th amendment go through the citizenship process at CIS (formerly INS).
My wife went to take the citizenship test this morning. After thousands of $s in fees (as this isn't supposed to cost the tax-payer anything) this is about the 25th trip we've made due to unreadable fingerprints (done on the computer, which by definition should be readable), lost forms, incorrect info printed on her green card, interviews, etc.
The first thing the clerk says is that he can give her the test, but canNOT make a determination on her citizenship as CIS has 3 files (for unexplained reasons) on her containing the thousands (literally!) of pages we've submitted to support her application BUT, they can't find any of them. Two are supposed to be in DC and one says it's in Nebraska. So if no one can find them in the next 30 days they'll be declared lost, and then he'll need to make a determination based on the very thin file in front of him.
We were prepared and brought copies of all the vital documents, but he said it would still take at least 30 days as he would need the files to be officially declared lost. I then asked how long would it take from that point for her to be sworn in, and he said they are behind on their processing stats and are starting to work overtime to meet their target by the end of the fiscal year (Oct. 1). So it should be before then, but may be on a Sat. as they are working 14 hour days 6 days a week. Not being able to shut up, I then ask how often this happens and he said last year he was able to buy a new car AND motorcycle based on his overtime for Sept. I was going to ask him if this happens every year, but my wife was shooting daggers and me through her eyes.
We thanked him and got up to leave, and he said he would let us know as soon as they do, or don't, find the three missing files. I then asked if our fees could be refunded if none are found, and he smiled and said no one had ever asked that before.
So, if people really won't to repeal the 14th amendment and have every single person in the US apply for citizenship, I think they process would change a lot of people's minds.
Two lost, one in Nebraska. Once again, for all you half-wits who jabber about the people who "try to do things right," we make it IM. POSS. IBLE. for people to do it right. What part of illegal don't I understand? What part of stupid f*****g law don't YOU understand? The goal of our policy is to make legal immigration hard, and illegal immigration easy, for the economic benefit of corporate interests and the political benefit of xenophobic demagogues. It is the Babtist and bootlegger coalition reborn.
Monday, August 16, 2010
What We Need is an IDIOT tax
In their effort to improve border security, the Obama admin / Dem Congress has seen fit to find new sources of funding.
So, to finance enforcement efforts against ILLEGAL aliens....
...these half-wits are going to tax LEGAL aliens.
Makes perfect sense, right? Well, except that:
1. These are people with PhDs, advanced skills, highly trained and motivated. In short, exactly the people that even the most xenophobic Americans would likely still admit into the country.
2. These are the people who are trying to do things LEGALLY. They are paying their fees, filling out their paperwork, and standing in line.
3. Could anyone actually believe that raising the cost, and extending the wait time, for legal immigration will discourage illegal immigration?
As always, we make it more difficult to immigrate legally, so that we can continue to encourage illegal immigration, thereby enslaving tens of thousands for the benefit of meat-packing, construction, and agricultural interests. The so-called "border enforcement" will have no impact, because the Dems have no interest in a border control policy.
An idiot tax, even a small one, would raise BILLIIONS, I tell you, BILLIONS. Taxing members of Congress alone would pay for a lot of new border guards.
So, to finance enforcement efforts against ILLEGAL aliens....
...these half-wits are going to tax LEGAL aliens.
Makes perfect sense, right? Well, except that:
1. These are people with PhDs, advanced skills, highly trained and motivated. In short, exactly the people that even the most xenophobic Americans would likely still admit into the country.
2. These are the people who are trying to do things LEGALLY. They are paying their fees, filling out their paperwork, and standing in line.
3. Could anyone actually believe that raising the cost, and extending the wait time, for legal immigration will discourage illegal immigration?
As always, we make it more difficult to immigrate legally, so that we can continue to encourage illegal immigration, thereby enslaving tens of thousands for the benefit of meat-packing, construction, and agricultural interests. The so-called "border enforcement" will have no impact, because the Dems have no interest in a border control policy.
An idiot tax, even a small one, would raise BILLIIONS, I tell you, BILLIONS. Taxing members of Congress alone would pay for a lot of new border guards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)