Re last request for citation:
(The book does not name the Mexican city, but it is easy to figure out.)
That’s a book, and the blurb just says that it’s focusing on the impact on small American towns away from the border. Are you expecting me to purchase the book for 29.95 at your link? Am I just supposed to take your word for it that the book says what you say it says (does it also say that hundreds of millions of people will immigrate to the US? 
)
This doesn’t track for me. Why would an immigrant with the skills and credentials to do that job and who will be living in the same area with the same cost of living expenses as the current programmer accept the job for half the wage? Offshoring jobs for cheaper wages only works because the cost of living is much lower in those countries. It’s not the same thing.
A lot of prejudice in this thread against immigrants. Bottom line, if we want them to come to the United States instead of places like Japan, Germany, and Finland, we are going to have to make living and working in the US an attractive proposition compared to working in one of the many other countries that need immigrants.
Living in France and making $50k may be nicer than living in the USA and earning $100k. Depends.
I work in tech, and back in the 90’s I interacted with a lot of H-1B visa holders. They would often live 8 in a 2-bedroom apartment making less than 1/2 of what I did. They were sending money back home and were hoping that their work would lead to a green card. This was back before offshoring took off, so maybe those folks wouldn’t come over now since they could get work back home. But regardless, these were skilled workers who were living not much differently than migrant immigrants.
Also, their education costs less. They may have no student loans. They can afford to take less salary since they don’t have loans to pay back. Maybe it won’t be 1/2 the salary, but they can be more flexible on the salary they accept.
Yes, but that’s under the current immigration policy. We’re discussing what would happen if there was an open immigration policy, are we not?
We have to extrapolate from what we know to consider what will happen with open immigration. It seems like the immigrants do accept less income than Americans for the same work. Take the construction trades or kitchen work as examples. They are lots of immigrants in those jobs. It’s not that immigrants are inherently better at those jobs. It’s that Americans don’t want to work those jobs for the pay they offer. It seems like other professions would be affected the same way with regards to pay rates. I’m not sure why something like computer programming would be insulated from that effect.
H-1B visa immigrant workers for instance are supposed to be paid the prevailing wage or more. If they are being exploited for cheap labour then the companies engaging in those illegal practices should in principle be fined up the wazoo.
Actually, workers have had to fight hard since the late 19th/early 20th century not to be exploited as much as they could be; I hope nobody is suggesting any gains should be rolled back.
No, I was the one who said, with my link at the end of #78, that it would gradually happen with the right kind of comprehensive immigration reform, or suddenly and temporarily with the wrong kind.
The book is not a speculation like this thread, but a window into real life migration complexity. The only firm figures I have are for the number of current world refugees, 35 million.
The book does show a third to a half the people of the unnamed Mexican city (actually Moroleón) had migrated to Chester County Pennsylvania by 2010 – under migration conditions far more difficult for emigrants than that proposed in our debate topic. Moroleón is a more difficult-to-live-in city than most in Mexico, but there are dozens of more impoverished countries than Mexico. (I should repeat for anyone who sees the last link and did not see my earlier posts – immigrants from Moroleón have a very low crime rate in the U.S.)
The tragedy you speak of here is common in borderlands of any country, rich or poor, with the kind of border controls where it is highly uncertain if you can sneak in and/or get a job without authorization. I think that the pure progressive OP plan would end that uncertainty, first, and briefly, by the progressive plan itself, but then longer-term when the thermidor closes our borders more firmly than before. This really is an area where we need a sustainable compromise policy.
Seconding.
Even within the US: not everybody living in places with lower wages, poorer safety nets, and even poor civil rights for groups they or immediate family members are in packs up and moves to states or cities they think will treat them better. Some do, yes. But not everybody.
And people who are afraid of being deported are also afraid to fight such abuses. Plus which, they’re limited to the employer who won’t look too hard at their eligibility; so unable for that reason to hold out for higher pay or better treatment.
Oh, I’m sure we’d deal with any new flavor of organized crime. I don’t think the U.S. would collapse. The question mark was specifically on the question of whether new immigrants would drive the economy. If the end result of 20th-century style immigration policy is large ghettos and shantytowns with a huge organized criminal presence, that may become a net drain on the economy. Maybe. Hence the ‘?’, not an ‘X’.
~Max
Allowing unrestricted immigration to the US is clearly the moral position. If we have more, we should share. Someone might argue that unrestricted immigration would result in a collapse of the system and no one would be better off, but I think the OP is so far in the hypothetical that a practical argument isn’t useful.
As a policy, unrestricted immigration does not make a lot of sense. What are the goals the policy is trying to address and does it meet these goals most efficiently?
Consider three main goals: short, medium, and long-term:
-
Short-term: Alleviate suffering of those that are in danger or impoverished. This is better met by only increasing asylum immigration. Allowing more middle- or upper-class immigrants will only sap resources, energy, and support for those seeking asylum. Also some of the restrictions suggested (no serious diseases, must have a support system, cannot be a criminal) see counter to this goal.
-
Medium-term: Increased immigration is a clear economic net-gain that everyone should support. It is a win-win for everyone except xenophobes and racists. Each year we should increase the number of additional authorized workers we allow to immigrate until we reach a level where our goal is met. If we never meet that level, then we have achieved the OP’s position (although over a period of years). Amnesty must be a part of this solution; basically @PhillyGuy’s second option.
-
Long-term: Increased standard of living and quality of life worldwide. We shouldn’t be blinded by American exceptionalism. There need to be good places to live besides the US (or the EU). We need to address the destabilizations that we contribute to (e.g. drugs and war). Cynically that may be too idealistic, but so is unrestricted immigration.
For broad issues like immigration or homelessness that have a myriad of causes and symptoms, I think it is better to define and focus on a subset of the problem. What is needed for refugees from Latin America that want security is really quite different than what is needed for current H1-B seekers that want a better standard of living.
I wasn’t suggesting that people with contagious diseases not be allowed in; only that they should be properly treated on entry, and if necessary stay in quarters properly designed for the purpose until no longer contagious. If the disease in question is already prevalent in the area of entry and the area where they’re headed, then the latter probably isn’t necessary, but the treatment should still be provided.
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to misrepresent you (or anyone). I meant more generally the early 20th century policy to check for disease and deny entry.
No, this is not true. Americans simply can not or will not do those jobs. True, immigrant farm workers keep produce price low, simply because the produce can be grown, and picked here in the USA.
Farm workers who work by the piece or bushel or whatever, actually earn very good wages. Except those jobs are short term, and of course no traditional benefits. (It is pretty common for lunches to be provided and some farmers used to provide housing , but the housing is getting rare)
True. Open immigrations for Asia could cut deeply into tech jobs. However, it already has.
But oddly, when the MAGAs scream about “open borders” they are only worried about the brown south of the board “bad hombres”. MAGAs idea of border and immigration is based 99% on racism and bigotry, keeping out the “wetbacks and Beaners” from America.
This doesnt mean I am in favor of totally open borders. But basing immigration policies on ignorance and bigotry is not the right way to go.
Ah. I wasn’t sure whether you meant me or not, and wanted to clarify what I’d meant. Thanks for your own clarification.
Fair enough. I know the thread title proposal isn’t happening.
I think the most likely alternatives are:
a. Continuing paralysis
b. Compromise comprehensive immigration reform passed by a narrowly divided Congress and signed by second-term Joe Biden
c. War with Mexico that includes, as common in war, the locking down of borders
The last is all too realistic and a reason why any swing voters here, uninterested in new wars, should vote Democratic this cycle. Consider:
Yep. As you pointed out DeSantis actually proposed it. Some of the Others kinda sorta went along.
That statement needs to be qualified with “at the current wages and working conditions.” If they were improved, Americans would do those jobs. For instance, Americans will do farm work, but it will be the higher paying work at artisan farms in NY which sell their products to Manhattan restaurants and farmers markets. Americans will be migrant workers, but they’ll rotate around high paying tourist areas and work in gift shops and as ski instructors. Immigrants do the backbreaking work at low wages because that’s all they can get with their work visa or if they have no paperwork.
If immigration was opened, I would suspect that immigrants wouldn’t do as much of the hard labor they do today. Circumstances have forced them into those professions. Remove the work restrictions and they could get more traditional jobs. An unskilled immigrant could choose to work in McDonalds for $15/hr rather than pick cantaloupes in West Texas. An accountant would come over and be an accountant instead of doing cleanup work in a slaughterhouse. Many of the hard labor professions could lose their access to plentiful cheap labor.
No, they wont. It is hard backbreaking work.