# Why shouldn't the U.S. and other first world countries take a hardline stance on illegal immigration **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 12, 2015, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622 "2015-08-12T03:16:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/141 "2015-08-17T11:09:26Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > Literally all the open borders people I know are leftist. Labor unions are against open borders. Agribiz benefits from it. It’s not a clean left/right split. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/142 "2015-08-17T11:45:16Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The most often quoted costs for the Israeli are between $1.2 and $2.56 million dollars per mile. > > The U.S./Mexican border is 1,933 miles long. That translates to costs between $2,319,600,000 and $4,948,480,000. (For that cost, we could simply meet them at the border and offer to pay them to stay out of the country.) > Of course. U.S. costs will be much higher since Israeli costs are based on a wall that is nowhere more than ten or twenty miles from the location of construction materials while the U.S. wall will have to go over deserts and mountains hundreds of miles from any materiel sources or roads. And the wall will not stop tunnels or ocean transport in the fairly calm Gulf of Mexico and Pacific. > > Yeah. We could do it. It would be dumber than the Iraq war, but we could engage in such a boondoggle. (We could probably get Haliburton to manage the project for us.) It wouldn’t be nearly as dumb as invading Iraq, not by several orders of magnitude in costs both financial and human. > [@OldOlds](#): > > Based on Ann Coulter’s logic, cleaning up New Orleans after Katrina should have been easy- we just needed a big enough bucket. Good point! ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/143 "2015-08-17T12:11:50Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Would you mind to elaborate? After all, even the land-mine-riddled [Inner German border](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_German_border), with standing shoot-to-kill orders, in a police state, couldn’t stop people from escaping. Uh, this is a terrible argument. They didn’t _completely_ stop people from escaping, but they did massively cut down on the rate of emigration, and solved the problem the Wall was meant to address. Over 3 million people (20% of the east german population, disproportionately the most smartest and ‘successful’ ones) left for the west prior to 1961, only 50 000 left after that. If East Germany more or less completely shut down emigration, modern European countries can shut down the problem of people going to other way. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/144 "2015-08-17T12:14:30Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Good question. I suspect there are various reasons, some of which may include: > > a) some people/groups simply want more of their own people in those countries and realise that Europeans are terrified of being called racist. > > b) modern liberalism is premised on the principle of non-discrimination and universalism. Borders are seen as discriminatory and racist (for European countries anyway). Most liberals are okay with the [Dalai Lama expressing concern for demographic displacement in Tibet.](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/24/tibet.china) > > c) Businesses can pay illegal immigrants cash & not worry about minimum wages. > > I’m sure there are other reasons, but those are some that come to mind. d) Immigration has always been the cornerstone of our country’s vitality. It’s a part of why we have remained innovative, fiercely competitive, and adaptable for so long. Immigration is inoculation against cultural stagnation. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/145 "2015-08-17T12:18:00Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Good question. I suspect there are various reasons, some of which may include: > > a) some people/groups simply want more of their own people in those countries and realise that Europeans are terrified of being called racist. > > b) modern liberalism is premised on the principle of non-discrimination and universalism. Borders are seen as discriminatory and racist (for European countries anyway). Most liberals are okay with the [Dalai Lama expressing concern for demographic displacement in Tibet.](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/24/tibet.china) > > c) Businesses can pay illegal immigrants cash & not worry about minimum wages. > > I’m sure there are other reasons, but those are some that come to mind. This gets it more or less right, I think. Especially C. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/146 "2015-08-17T13:27:49Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, sort of. Romney never actually spelled out how he would get people to self-deport, other than “denying them jobs.” He said something about “having a card that shows who’s here illegally,” and e-Verify… which is the system we already have. This really begins to get at the heart of the problem. The real problem with illegal immigration isn’t that you should stop it, it’s that you can’t. As someone on the SDMB once put it, a 20-foot wall is only going to work until someone on the Mexican side thinks to bring a 21-foot ladder. Preventing immigration across the entire Mexican border and relevant water crossing sites AND tightening up securing across the Canadian border and airports is a logistical exercise that defies as sort of economically rational solution. In addition to costing an indebted government tens of billions, it’d damage commerce for billions more. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/147 "2015-08-17T14:01:51Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > And \*that’s \*practical? All of them? All the ones that European citizens don’t decide to admit and offer benefits, employment opportunities, etc., yes. > [@](#): > > No they won’t. For heaven’s sake, we’re talking about people desperate enough to get on overcrowded leaky boats or crawl through deserts with snipers looking out for them. In some parts of the world, if they’re caught they’re at risk of literal torture and that doesn’t stop them. The idea that there is a security-based solution is utter fantasy. Your use of the word “desperate” gets to the heart of the problem. There is no European political will to force these migrants to stay out or return. The migrants’ desperation overcomes the Europeans’ apathy. This may not always be the case, however. You seem to be saying that there is nothing to be done to prevent this recent wave of migrants. Do you think that this is a state of affairs which can be maintained indefinitely? This situation is not directly analogous to the US/Mexico one, in which migrants are drawn north by ample employment opportunities. The most recent EU unemployment rate was 9.6%; that of the USA was 5.5%. Of course, in the nations most directly affected by these migrants, the rates are _much_ higher (Spain - 22.7%, Italy - 12.4%, Greece - 25.6%). ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/148 "2015-08-17T14:07:28Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Uh, this is a terrible argument. They didn’t _completely_ stop people from escaping, but they did massively cut down on the rate of emigration, and solved the problem the Wall was meant to address. > > Over 3 million people (20% of the east german population, disproportionately the most smartest and ‘successful’ ones) left for the west prior to 1961, only 50 000 left after that. > > If East Germany more or less completely shut down emigration, modern European countries can shut down the problem of people going to other way. Recall the context - **magellan** said that securing the border “wouldn’t be that hard”. Whatever else it was, the Inner German border was hard - vast amounts of money spent and blood spilled, and it was backed by a security apparatus of internal passports, no 4th Amendment protections from searches, secret police, and the like. Neither the U.S., nor modern European countries, have that sort of police-state control over their residents, nor a willingness to murder immigrants with mines and gunfire. This is why I asked **magellan** to explain what the benchmarks were for a secure border - “secure” can mean anything to anyone. To date, he hasn’t elaborated, except to clarify that _total_ security isn’t part of it. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/149 "2015-08-17T14:09:07Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > So, just sort of by the way, do you support New Deal or Great Society reforms to change the economic structure to share more wealth outside the ruling class, or are we supposed to pretend that there’s nothing we can do about that? I support greater taxation and redistribution of wealth, particularly inherited wealth (I’m in favor of a 100% tax on estates over $1.5m in value and changes to the law to prevent passing inheritances through tax advantaged structures like trusts to avoid estate taxes.) But we need people working in jobs that pay a living wage. While we may be able to nudge things slightly with a minimum wage hike (I’m neutral on that, I think it has marginal economic impact, but recognize its value as a political tool) we can’t just wave a wand and create jobs for unskilled immigrants that pay a living wage. We can’t do that for the people that are already here. People who lack job skills **and** are part of generationally poor demographics have extremely bad outcomes. Are there ways to fix it? I suspect so, I don’t know for sure what they are, but I do know that whatever they would be, they likely won’t pass the Congress we’ll have until 2022 or so anyway, so it’s almost a moot point discussing them. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/150 "2015-08-17T14:12:44Z")
Again, people forget that illegal immigration is mostly by people with few marketable skills, but lots of children. It costs Massachusetts about $19,000 per year to educate a child-much for for those who speak no english. How this is paid for by immigrants making $9.00/hour is not clear. So i guess it is ok that the taxpayers pick up the huge tab for the illegals-so that rich people can get their lawns cut for $50.00. What we have is “cheap” labor which is not cheap at all, when you count what the taxpayers pay for. It is like the nannies from 3rd world nations that the Washington elites love so much-because they work cheap. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/151 "2015-08-17T14:14:27Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > The “benefit of hiring illegal aliens” is that they will perform the shitty, low-paying jobs that employers can’t hire tax-paying citizens to do at any reasonable wage. Every credible estimate of the benefit versus cost of the work done by illegal immigrants gives a significant advantage to the nation as a whole, and in the case of immigrants from Mexico and parts south, they’re often trying to escape political, social, and economic repression and corruption that is in large measure a result of US policies from decades past, including the current War on Drugs. What you’re saying is it’s an economic benefit to essentially have some businesses profit off of people who are marginally better off than indentured servants. The point is if these immigrants were here legally they would be entitled to at least minimum wage, and the businesses using them aren’t willing to pay people that. So it’s not really a valid argument that we shouldn’t be trying to stop illegal immigration or that we should want unlimited immigration. Unless you think businesses should be allowed to exploit third world workers within the borders of the United States going forward. > [@](#): > > Genuine immigration reform–which we’ll never see in the current political climate–should include a recognition of the benefit we get from first generation immigrants in both the labor they provide and their desire to seek the economic and social betterment of their descendants, as well as the larger scope of how we deal economically and politically with nations which results in a significant portion of the population seeking to come to the US rather than foster opportunities in their native countries. Except there is little ability for people with low education and low job skills to attain wages sufficient to bequeath any realistic chance of social betterment on to their descendants. > [@](#): > > Immigration wit large is a net positive for the United States, as is fostering the economic development of other nations which will turn around and purchase medical and industrial technology as well as seek higher education in exchange for cash and real goods. Suppression of immigration and repression of foreign governments on the theory that developing nations represent an economic and political threat, on the other hand, is a losing game played by a nation fearful of losing premier status on the world stage; witness the British Empire and the Soviet Union. > > Stranger Uncontrolled immigration and “immigration” aren’t the same thing. Further, you’re extrapolating ideas from 50+ years ago into today. America is not set up for unskilled labor to succeed, and it also isn’t set up for the children of poor people to succeed, either. So introducing more poor people just increases the number of poor people, which isn’t a net benefit to the country. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/152 "2015-08-17T14:17:50Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Again, people forget that illegal immigration is mostly by people with few marketable skills, but lots of children. It costs Massachusetts about $19,000 per year to educate a child-much for for those who speak no english. How this is paid for by immigrants making $9.00/hour is not clear. So i guess it is ok that the taxpayers pick up the huge tab for the illegals-so that rich people can get their lawns cut for $50.00. What we have is “cheap” labor which is not cheap at all, when you count what the taxpayers pay for. > > It is like the nannies from 3rd world nations that the Washington elites love so much-because they work cheap. Yes, immigrants have historically had big families, but in the past society gave very little if anything to help raise kids. The jobs that immigrant parents could find with no marketable job skills were sufficient to raise a family without outside assistance–something that is no longer true. Legal immigrants are disallowed much social benefits for something like 5 years after immigration, and I know several who had to wait to bring over their wife and children because under current laws they had to show that they had the resources to support them before they were allowed to be given permanent residence as relatives of a current permanent resident. If those laws persisted most of the people immigrating illegally would still be prone to immigrate illegally since they wouldn’t be able to satisfy these requirements. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/153 "2015-08-17T15:24:29Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Again, people forget that illegal immigration is mostly by people with few marketable skills, but lots of children. It costs Massachusetts about $19,000 per year to educate a child-much for for those who speak no english. How this is paid for by immigrants making $9.00/hour is not clear. So i guess it is ok that the taxpayers pick up the huge tab for the illegals-so that rich people can get their lawns cut for $50.00. What we have is “cheap” labor which is not cheap at all, when you count what the taxpayers pay for. > It is like the nannies from 3rd world nations that the Washington elites love so much-because they work cheap. Massachusetts has [160,000](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2013/02/map_illegal_immigrant_population_by_state.html) illegal immigrants, and the number is dropping. They are barely a blip on the radar, which is rather odd for a state with huge numbers of wealthy people with lawns that need cutting. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/154 "2015-08-17T16:24:29Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Again, people forget that illegal immigration is mostly by people with few marketable skills, but lots of children. It costs Massachusetts about $19,000 per year to educate a child-much for for those who speak no english. How this is paid for by immigrants making $9.00/hour is not clear. So i guess it is ok that the taxpayers pick up the huge tab for the illegals-so that rich people can get their lawns cut for $50.00. What we have is “cheap” labor which is not cheap at all, when you count what the taxpayers pay for. > It is like the nannies from 3rd world nations that the Washington elites love so much-because they work cheap. Exactly. The wealthy have been able to privatize the benefits, but externalize the costs. We the taxpayers end up footing the bill. For most of the marginally literate poor people who come as immigrants, there’s nothing they can do that will allow them to earn out their cost to society. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/155 "2015-08-17T16:27:38Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > What you’re saying is it’s an economic benefit to essentially have some businesses profit off of people who are marginally better off than indentured servants. The point is if these immigrants were here legally they would be entitled to at least minimum wage, and the businesses using them aren’t willing to pay people that. So it’s not really a valid argument that we shouldn’t be trying to stop illegal immigration or that we should want unlimited immigration. Unless you think businesses should be allowed to exploit third world workers within the borders of the United States going forward. > > Except there is little ability for people with low education and low job skills to attain wages sufficient to bequeath any realistic chance of social betterment on to their descendants. > > Uncontrolled immigration and “immigration” aren’t the same thing. Further, you’re extrapolating ideas from 50+ years ago into today. America is not set up for unskilled labor to succeed, and it also isn’t set up for the children of poor people to succeed, either. So introducing more poor people just increases the number of poor people, which isn’t a net benefit to the country. Yes. As a practical matter, we can either put our efforts into lifting the poor we already have out of poverty - if that’s possible, or we can welcome vast numbers of poor immigrants. We can’t do both. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/156 "2015-08-17T20:00:51Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > Exactly. The wealthy have been able to privatize the benefits, but externalize the costs. We the taxpayers end up footing the bill. For most of the marginally literate poor people who come as immigrants, there’s nothing they can do that will allow them to earn out their cost to society. From [here.](http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/) > [@](#): > > Myth #3: They drain the system > > Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and most other public benefits. Most of these programs require proof of legal immigration status and under the 1996 welfare law, even legal immigrants cannot receive these benefits until they have been in the United States for more than five years. > > Non-citizen immigrant adults and children are about 25% less likely to be signed up for Medicaid than their poor native-born equivalents and are also 37% less likely to receive food stamps, according to a 2013 study by the Cato Institute. > > Citizen children of illegal immigrants – often derogatorily referred to as “anchor babies” – do qualify for social benefits. Also, undocumented immigrants are eligible for schooling and emergency medical care. Currently, the average unlawful immigrant household costs taxpayers $14,387 per household, according to a recent report by The Heritage Foundation. But in its 2013 “Immigration Myths and Facts” report, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says most economists see providing these benefits as an investment for the future, when these children become workers and taxpayers. > > A CBO report on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 concluded that a path to legalization for immigrants would increase federal revenues by $48 billion. Such a plan would see $23 billion in increased costs from the use of public services, but ultimately, it would produce a surplus of $25 billion for government coffers, CBO said. I for one am glad that every kid goes to school, even if I’m paying for it. Likewise I’m glad that undocumented immigrants can get drivers’ licenses in California now - much better for them to be get tested than to drive anyway with no license. I do agree about the rich getting the benefit but being unwilling to pay full wages. My ex-step-sister is an example. She lives in La Jolla, and her very nice housekeeper was clearly undocumented. (The housekeeper eventually went back to Mexico to work in a factory because it was better than working for my step-sister and I don’t blame her.) ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2015, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/157 "2015-08-18T04:46:54Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > d) Immigration has always been the cornerstone of our country’s vitality. It’s a part of why we have remained innovative, fiercely competitive, and adaptable for so long. Immigration is inoculation against cultural stagnation. The facts show that low skill immigration from Mexico is actually making the US [workforce less skilled and productive.](http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/03/frum.immigration.education/) Even after four generations there is a significant achievement gap. > [@](#): > > ETS reported: “\*\*y 2030 the average levels of literacy and numeracy in the working-age population will have decreased by about 5 percent while inequality will have increased by about 7 percent. Put crudely, over the next 25 years or so, as better-educated individuals leave the work force they will be replaced by those who, on average, have lower levels of education and skill. Over this same period, nearly half of the projected job growth will be concentrated in occupations associated with higher education and skill levels. This means that tens of millions more of our students and adults will be less able to qualify for higher-paying jobs.” McKinsey have found that the achievement gaps in education have the equivalent cost to a [permanent national recession.](http://mckinseyonsociety.com/the-economic-impact-of-the-achievement-gap-in-americas-schools/) So you should probably re-visit your priors. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2015, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/158 "2015-08-18T05:29:32Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > The facts show that low skill immigration from Mexico is actually making the US [workforce less skilled and productive.](http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/03/frum.immigration.education/) Even after four generations there is a significant achievement gap. > > McKinsey have found that the achievement gaps in education have the equivalent cost to a [permanent national recession.](http://mckinseyonsociety.com/the-economic-impact-of-the-achievement-gap-in-americas-schools/) > > So you should probably re-visit your priors. What McKinsey concluded there was that the gaps in academic achievement cost the US economy a lot, \*\*yet there is reason to think that the gaps could be closed. \*\* [http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/social\_sector/the\_economic\_cost\_of\_the\_us\_education\_gap](http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/social_sector/the_economic_cost_of_the_us_education_gap) > [@](#): > > high-quality teaching is a key factor determining student achievement. Moreover, international experience confirms that it is possible to make progress in closing these gaps: not only have two dozen countries made substantial progress in overall achievement, but 17 countries that exceed US performance levels also have a narrower gap among children of divergent socioeconomic backgrounds. Yet another study that in reality does not show a justification of the prejudging what the poster thinks we should apply to a group. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2015, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/159 "2015-08-18T05:36:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What McKinsey concluded there was that the gaps in academic achievement cost the US economy a lot, \*\*yet there is reason to think that the gaps could be closed. > \*\* > [http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/social\_sector/the\_economic\_cost\_of\_the\_us\_education\_gap](http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/social_sector/the_economic_cost_of_the_us_education_gap) > Yet another study that in reality does not show a justification of the prejudging what the poster thinks we should apply to a group. Let’s hope they can be closed! The thing is that unlike other groups, after four generations that hasn’t occurred. So wouldn’t it make sense to focus on high skill immigration in the meantime until gaps do in fact improve. In the context of the question asked by the original poster though, there is no good reason why the US should not be able to enforce border control like other countries. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2015, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622/160 "2015-08-18T05:48:23Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Labor unions are against open borders. > > Agribiz benefits from it. > > It’s not a clean left/right split. I didn’t say that all the leftists I know are in favour of it, just that everyone I know who’s in favour of it is leftist. I don’t think Agribiz would actually benefit from open borders - what it benefits from is closed but porous borders, where there are still plenty of people getting through, but once in they cannot demand the same wages and conditions as documented workers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-shouldnt-the-u-s-and-other-first-world-countries-take-a-hardline-stance-on-illegal-immigration/727622.md?page=9)