A friend speaking this afternoon at a public debate on the question “Should New Zealand be Going for Population Growth?” asked me to send him some articles on immigration I’d posted here a few years back. Since they’re still topical, I figured I’d repost them here, so everyone who didn’t see them then can see them now.
But first…
At the foot of the Statue of Liberty, a gift from nineteenth-century France to nineteenth-century America, Emma Lazarus's poem The New Colossus sums up what the statue symbolised for the immigrants who helped build America . . .
That lamp is in the process of being snuffed out by people who can find no two words to better describe those huddled masses yearning to breathe free today than "illegal immigrant." They seek to turn Lazarus's Colossus of Liberty into something else, something evocatively described by Lou Reed:
From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Give me your hungry, your tired your poor
I'll piss on 'em
That's what the Statue of Bigotry says
Your poor huddled masses, let's club 'em to death
And get it over with and just dump 'em on the boulevard...
Both in the US and in Australasia, immigrants and would-be immigrants are election fodder. They’re called “illegals.” They’re called “boat people.” Come to Australia by boat, or the US by river, (or try to navigate the thickets of their immigration “service” to seek for yourself and your family a better life) and you’ll see that lamp beside the golden door snuffed out, and your huddled masses pissed upon.
Immigrants, who once built America and Australasia, are now the new scapegoat for everything. But as President Bush's former press secretary Tony Snow observed,
Immigration is not the pox neo-Know-Nothings make it out to be... Before someone razes Lady Liberty and decides to erect a wall to "protect" America from the world, shouldn't we at least spend a little time trying to get our facts straight?
Yes. We should. I suspect however that those of you more inclined to favour the Statue of Bigotry approach will already be putting on their eye-patches and heading for that comments button. Meanwhile, the rest of us can consider some of those facts.
Fortunately, most of the facts and arguments thereon have been summarised in a series of articles in a 2006 Reason magazine (right) – titled "Reason's guide to reality-based reform." The list of articles is at the bottom of this post, with the main arguments summarised below. All the articles relate to American immigration, but there is no good reason to think anything but the same or similar facts would be uncovered in NZ or Australia should someone be willing to look with more than one eye.
So, this is what the facts show…
- Immigrants are not flocking to the States to mooch off the government.
- 'Illegals' are not milking the government; if anything it is the other way around. The National Research Council found for example that most immigrant families "contribute an average of $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume over their lifetimes."
- Immigrants generally earn more than they receive.
- More than 60% of illegals -- illegals -- pay income tax, and two-thirds kick in to Social Security (even if they do often get nothing back).
- Immigrants help sustain economic growth and cultural dynamism.
- Even economists who favour restrictive immigration policies admit low-skilled immigrants are a net plus to the economy.
- "Government intervention into the economic system breeds later intervention. Here the application of his principle is, start with the Welfare State, end with the Police State. A police state is what is required effectively to stop substantial illegal immigration that has become a major burden because of the Welfare State." - George Reisman
- Immigrants "are generally less involved in crime than similarly situated groups," and crime rates in border towns "are lower than those of comparable non-border cities."
- Crime rates in the highest-immigration states have been trending significanty downward.
- There's no reason that the North American Free Trade Agreement (or NZ's own free trade agreements) shouldn't apply equally to people as to widgets.
- Unemployment is low and crime is down everywhere, especially in places teeming with immigrants.
- Google, Yahoo! and Sun Microsystems were all founded by immigrants.
- Immigrants are more likely than 'natives' to be self-employed.
- "Sometimes what looks like lousy conditions to us are the best option an employee has... But sometimes the only reason those conditions are the least bad choice is available is because the other possibilities have been cut off by legal fiat. I'm referring not just to illegal immigrants, who for obvious reasons have little recourse if defrauded or enslaved, but to guest workers, who come here under strict rules that prevent them from changing jobs, let alone striking out on their own." - Jesse Walker.
- Immigrants tend to create their own work -- when they're allowed to.
- The power and reach of Spanish-language media in L.A. for example shows supply of productive people creating its own demand.
- Immigrant labour makes work easier for all of us, and brings new skills to the table.
- Immigrants and low-skilled American workers fill very different roles in the economy.
- Immigrant labour makes all businesses easier to start, thus spurring 'native' creativity.
- "Some argue that we should employ a more restrictive policy that allows in only immigrants with 'needed' skills. But this assumes the government can read economic tea leaves." - Tyler Cowen and Daniel M. Rothschild
- New arrivals, by producing more goods and services, keep prices down across the economy -- the net gain to US from immigration is about $7 billion a year.
- Even in the halls of Congress, economic arguments against immigration are losing their aura of truthfulness, so pro-enforcement types are focussing on national security.
- "The only way to actually prevent terrorists from slipping in is to legalize as much 'illegal immigration' as possible. If one is looking for a needle in a haystack, as the saying goes, one has a hell of job. Finding that needle on a relatively clean floor, however, presents an achievable goal." - James Valliant
- Immigration is good for the immigrants themselves.
How about a little common sense on immigration - Tony SnowAnd of course there are the two classic Harry Binswanger articles which are 'must-reads' for the moral and practical case behind open immigration (note, open immigration, not open borders.):
Immigration plus Welfare State equals Police State - George Reisman
Immigration and the Welfare State - the real root of the problem - Brian Doherty
Who's milking who? - illegal aliens pay more in taxes than they impose in costs - Shikha Dalmia
Don't bad-mouth unskilled immigrants - Tyler Cowen & Daniel M. Rothschild
Exploitation or expulsion - illegal immigrants in a double bind - Jesse Walker
Fighting terrorism requires legalizing immigration - James Valliant
Worse than a wall - Kerry Howley
A legacy of the unforeseen - Carolyn Lochhead
Breathe free, huddled masses - Cathy Young
Open the borders - why should citizens of NAFTA countries need visas at all - Tim Cavanagh
Bush's border bravado - non-militarized solutions to a non-problem - Nick Gillespie
Open immigration, Si! Open borders, No! - Sixth Column
The solution to 'illegal immigration' - Harry BinswangerThere. That should give you plenty of reading. And much for debate.
Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration - Harry Binswanger
27 comments:
I can only agree with this post. My Father was an refugee from Communist Europe- My Dad worked his arse off. He first job was panel beating & on his first day he worked non-stop until his hands bleed and his boss had to send him home! English is his 3rd language, self taught, and he NEVER asked or was given any assistance by the Government.
IvanK
The issue of immigration cannot be separated from the issues of taxation and the welfare state. When a government holds a gun to the heads of its productive citizens and demands they live their lives for the benefit of everyone else, it is quite understandable that people do not want the 'everyone else' to include a whole lot of new people.
Free people want others to share in their freedom, but slaves don't want more slaves eating from their dinner pot.
@Kiwiwit, you say, "The issue of immigration cannot be separated from the issues of taxation and the welfare state."
Yes, you're right to this extent anyway: that the supposed humanity of the welfare state leads directly to the very real inhumanity of hatred of all immigration, legal or otherwise. One leads to the other--and you go from Statue of Liberty to Statue of Bigotry in several easy generations.
That is the point of George Reisman's article in the linked articles below, "Immigration plus Welfare State equals Police State." May I recommend you read it--while considering why it is that so many are quicker to revile the immigrants than they are to revile the welfare state.
YOu also says, "slaves don't want more slaves eating from their dinner pot."
Yet the reality is, as the linked articles demonstrate, that immigrants "are not milking the government; if anything it is the other way around."
That is the point of the articles, "Who's milking who? - illegal aliens pay more in taxes than they impose in costs," "Don't bad-mouth unskilled immigrants," and "Exploitation or expulsion - illegal immigrants in a double bind."
May I recommend you read them.
@IvanK: Your father sounds like a fine man, who did't take his freedom for granted.
Thanks, will do, but perhaps I'll expand on the point I was alluding to. The problem with this debate is that most of the pro-immigration advocates are engaging in it on collectivist terms. The central question they are addressing is, do immigrants add or subtract from the zero-sum game that is the economic philosophy of collectivists everywhere?
We know that in a free society immigrants expand the economic pot and enrich the society in so many other ways, but morally that is entirely beside the point. Society as whole shouldn't care whether the immigrant "adds value" (to use a pathetic, non-humanistic expression). The only reason a moral, rights-respecting society would have for denying entry to an immigrant is that he presents a clear and present threat to the rights of others.
I'm not sure the argument presented really reflects the position everywhere today. Immigrants need to fit culturally so Mexicans in LA probably do in that they will have a Roman Catholic base that sees them fit with western ideology while being a different flavour. Likewise much of the Euopean immigration post WW2.
Looking at some other cultures seeking to leave their homes for greener pastures in more recent years there is a bigger gap between them and us and the fit is not always so easy. Europe is struggling with their Muslims for this reason - their ideology is poles apart from the host country. The issue is whether the immigrants want to embrace a new life or bring their baggage, that often made home so shitty, with them.
3:16
The Hijra
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/the_hijra.html
Richard Wiig
@Richard: You're aware, aren't you, that the Hijra refers simply to Mohammed's legendary journey from Mecca to Medina, where he could practice his religion openly?
And that it has referred since, by correspondence, to the rule that Muslims must migrate from non-Muslim lands where they live among unbelievers, where they are unable to practice their religion openly, (and if they remain should be cast out from Islam), to Muslim lands, where they can.
Which means that what your book suggests is not just different to the accepted meaning of the word, but the opposite of the accepted meaning. In other words, your book sounds to me more like conspiracy than actual scholarship.
You do know what the Muslims did once they established themselves at Medina, I take it? I haven't read the book and know nothing of its scholarship, or lack of, but I do know of the Islamic supremacist agenda to turn Dar al Harb into Dar al Islam. The things mentioned in the review are real and not figments of anyones imagination. I'm all for open immigration, but that doesn't mean I can ignore the nature of Islam. It is incompatible with liberty and not something that you can simply brush aside.
"That lamp is in the process of being snuffed out by people"
People? Which people? Who are they precisely? Let's have some names for once - or are you deliberately besmirching the honor of all 300 million Americans?
Because in my nine years of PERSONAL experience, I've yet to meet the mythical individual American citizen that hates immigrants.
I've met a hell of a lot of generous folks that privately donate money to foreign aid causes.
Last time I checked, it was America that gave security to Hirst Ali and a large number of other folks besides.
In nine years travelling to 25 states I've never had the experience that I had on Westminster Bridge: a Briton (judging by his accent) yelling racist epithets - unchallenged by passersby - at ethnic African pedestrians.
As for the going's on of the politicians? If your argument is that they reflect the mood or morals of the nation -- perhaps you should check the polling data.
If you are paying attention you will come to understand there is larger game afoot. In a nutshell, and based on behavior alone, there is a general realization that it is safer for the Republic (or what remains of it) to entomb anything with Harry Reid's name on it in reinforced concrete and shoot it into the Sun rather than let it see the light of day.
The Immigration debate in Washington has nothing to do with immigration. If those fools were serious about reforming immigration , they'd be deleting laws and agencies -- not making new ones.
But wtf would I know? I'm just trying to become a naturalized US citizen.
Is not the automatic assumption that anyone opposed to open borders is a bigot, no different from the automatic assumption that anyone opposed to Obama's policies is a racist? The rhetoric here is sometimes barely distinguishable from the rhetoric of the Left.
And for once, can an advocate of open birders have the courage to deal with Europe and Islam? The no go zones? The recent murder of a Brit soldier, stabbed to death by Muslims for being a British soldier? The massive over representation of Muslim men compared to any other group in crimes against women? The over represtentaion of Muslims with regards to welfare stats? The "protest" marches with Muslims displaying signs saying 'Death to the West' and 'Death to Blasphemers' and 'To Hell with your Freedom'?
Less knee jerk cultural liberalism and more serious analysis please.
Robert, as an American citizen living in NZ, thankyou. PC is clueless. This will be my last post, and I'm done even reading PC anymore. Sad really, but I could go over to the hardcore Marxist blogs and barely tell the difference.
@Kiwiwit - I agree that immigrants should only be denied entry on the basis of "a clear and present threat to the rights of others" - subject to the state also requiring information from those immigrants as to their past, so they can make that assessment.
However one doesn't validate that principle just be asserting it. If allowing immigrants in is the correct and moral thing, you would also expect it not to disadvantage the rest of us economically. If that wasn't the case it would suggest there could be contradiction or complications at play that requires a 2nd look.
Opponents of immigration often point to the supposed drain on the welfare state, so it it's very relevant (and re-assuring) that the statistics seem to show the oppose. I suspect that on first arrival the proportion on welfare might be higher, but once they settle in they are less likely to be on welfare - as you would expect from people who have enough initiative to leave their homeland for a strange and unfamiliar land to improve their futures. The economic facts address one valid objection the opponents might have.
The other objection you hear is that the West might be over-run by Muslims who seek to impose an Islamic state. In my view this ignores the reality that when you mix two antagonistic cultures together, one that's generally life affirming & practical with one that's not, it's actually the less practical culture that is weakened. More people get to see the benefits of the more life affirming culture, and inevitably most will start to adapt it to varying degrees. As a result of this 'mixing', the Islamic fundamentalists have far more to lose than gain.
@Robert: I'm not sure what your objection is. Which people, you ask? I say the people describedin teh rest of the sentence: i.e, those "who can find no two words to better describe those huddled masses yearning to breathe free today than 'illegal immigrant.'"
Many of them are in Congress, writing laws and trying to pass them.
"The Immigration debate in Washington has nothing to do with immigration."
I must admit, you have me stumped on that one.
"I'm just trying to become a naturalized US citizen."
And you're being told to hurry up and wait. To which, as you should be able to deduce, I'm opposed.
So what's your beef?
@Shawn, you said, "And for once, can an advocate of open birders have the courage to deal with Europe and Islam?" etc.
We have. Use the search box at the top left of the page.
"The rhetoric here is sometimes barely distinguishable from the rhetoric of the Left."
Yes, you've got me. I'm in deep cover.
Well Peter, it is rather difficult to tell when you resort to the same rhetorical tactics. My first post here was greeted with schoolyard level name calling, and resorting to accusations of bigotry is no better than accusations of racism against people opposed to Obama's policies.
For someone who claims intellectual superiority over Hoppe, all I'm seeing is the same childish tactics used by the Left, and some remarkably shallow and factually challenged analysis. No wonder the Libz can't get their act together, crawl out of the Randian ghetto, and actually attempt to build a comprehensive libertarian movement, and maybe, just maybe, get into Parliament. If all you want to achieve is a tiny Rand society, speaking only to yourselves, and sneering at any libertarians who don't follow the Rand party line, then why bother having a political party in the first place?
Not worth my time.
Seriously, in the short time I have been posting you have shown all the intellectual nous and maturity of a first year political studies student who's just discovered Michael Moore. For the sake of what's left of Libertarianism in NZ, grow up.
Anyway, nuff said. Bye all.
@Shawn, you said: "My first post here was greeted with schoolyard level name calling..."
Shawn, here is the entirety of your very first comment here, which was the second comment in a post on the Auckland Mayoralty. You said, and I quote: "Monarchies are vastly better than democracies. Read 'Democracy: The God That Failed' by Hans Herman-Hoppe."
The immediate relevance of your comment to the discussion over a candidate trying to lower rates was not entirely clear.
Anyway, the 'schoolyard level name calling' that followed came from me pointing out that the Hapsburg, Hohenzollern and Romanov dynasties were just three immediate examples that came to mind falsifying your and Hoppe's thesis--an invitation, surely, to expand on that claim, however cranky it appears to be.
Why you didn't bother following up is up to you, but it's hard to see why you'd be scared off so easily by someone bringing up facts relevant to your claim.
And I have to say, if sometimes debate here might occasionally be a little bumptious, it's a bit rich for an advocate of Hoppe to complain about courtesy. Watch any of Hoppe's online debates and you can see immediately how he treats opponents. His disgraceful treatment of Steven Kates from the podium in Sydney is just one example of his seemingly congenital oafishness.
I agree with Shawn Herles. This blog is now indistinguishable from "The Standard" and "Red Alert", where if you have a view contrary to that in a post, there is an automatic assumption of "bigotry".
*Never* is there an assumption that the
person who has a different view may - just may - know far more about the topic being discussed than the author of the article.
How "convenient" that almost ALL of the stuff that you quote in this immigration article is from *US* immigration.
Who are the predominant immigrants to the US? Mexicans - not Muslims.
I wonder if you'd get the same picture if you used data from Australia (or from the UK or Europe). I very much doubt it, with the flood of Muslims going there, almost all of whom will never get a job.
I expect to see very poor knowledge of Islam and immigration on a left-wing blog. I do *not* expect to see it on a blog that professes to be "intelligent".
What about the left-wing opening the floodgates to immigrants because the immigrants are guaranteed to vote for them? Did you mention that in the article?
No, and yet it is the blatant strategy of the left, from Australia to the US to the UK and to Europe. All of them are flooding their countries with immigrants for the sole purpose of use as vote-fodder.
Like Shawn, I've had it with this Marxist blog. By putting forward such foolish views as open-door immigration, you are *guaranteeing* that the left-wing will succeed, NOT the right. That is a very odd way to put forward your agenda - promoting the policies of the "enemy".
By the way, I should add...
At this very moment, the Coptic Christians are being systematically annihilated by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
In 1945, after the Holocaust, the world saw the horrors committed against the Jews and vowed "never again".
Yet here we are, not 70 years later, and you have the *nerve* to propose an open-door immigration policy that would *let in* followers of the very same CULT/ideology that is exterminating the Coptic Christians.
Does that make you feel proud?
I would completely block the immigration of all Muslims.
You may call such a policy "bigoted".
I call it "wise, based on great knowledge of Islam and the evil that is has (and DOES) commit around the world."
Which one of us has the country's best interests in mind?
I know for a fact it isn't you.
PC asked: "So what's your beef?"
My beef is three-fold.
(1) That the progressives, led by Pelosi, Reid and Obama, have been on a mission to finally make an end-run around the Federal constitution by means of crafting 1,000 page bills that nobody reads (assuming that they can be understood anyway) before passing.
Were they to do so, you will find (as it was with Obamacare) that the 'legislation' contains provisions (a) unrelated to immigration reform (Obamacare nationalized the US student Loans scheme for instance) (b) devoles the writing of actual regulations to alphabet agencies like the FDA, HHS and (c) gives nearly unlimited power to grant waivers, make laws and usurp Congressional fiscal/legislative/criminal oversight powers (as it does with Katherine Sebielius).
In other words, their modus operandi is designed to undo the purpose of the Federal constitution (to disperse political power) and concentrate it in the hands of the President.
If you believe that is beneficial then we have nothing more to discuss.
(2) With regards to immigration, the Progressives are focused only on fixing immigration from South America. There are NO reports in the media about whether the gang of eight are going to apply their laws universally.
Were they to do so they would be breaking the other Modus Operandi of this regieme: namely to stratify the country. Observe the amplification of black/white racial rhetoric - Trayvon could have been Obama etc. Observe how Obamacare waivers are given out. Observe how they demonize the Rich - defined as anyone earning more than their current audience. Observe whom the IRS targets for audits, whom the Homeland Security Dept issues alerts for etc. etc. etc.
So as the "fix" applies to me, I have no confidence that anything will change at all -- my demographic doesn't have a very powerful lobby and that is what is required to get anything done in this country these days because (as I point out above) we have become unmoored from the Constitution.
THAT is my beef. Immigration is fucked because the FEDERAL government is fucked.
Explain to me how after 5 years of successfully pursuing this strategy, Harry Reid et. al. are going to suddenly remember their oath of office and behave properly in the cause of doing anything positive and liberty-affirming in the realm of federal immigration policy?
Remember "Never let a crisis go to waste?"
Remember: "This behavior" includes economic epoch changing legislation like Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, and the unmooring of the EPA, HHS, DoJ, IRS and NSA from any sort of adherence to the universality of law. For instance, just this week: Holder just recommended that his prosecutors ~withhold~ evidence in drug trials to avoid triggering minimum mandatory sentences -- where the F**K does the Constitution grant a Federal Department head THAT power?
So we have instances where laws that ~Obama passed~ are not being upheld by Obama's appointees! We have instances where executive agencies are given carte blanche to write regulations as they want. We have instances where executive agencies are selectively enforcing laws.
And your contention is that out of the smoking ruins of this system something ~good~ is going to happen. Simple application of Occam's Razor should hint otherwise. Simple observation of recent history should make you suspect that "immigration reform" is just another convenient fig-leaf behind which Obama can fundamentally (and incrementally) change America.
Where you not the one who came up with the "no more grey" dicta for how Libertarianz would operate and negotiate as a minority party in the New Zealand Parliament?
If so, then why do we get some fucked up quote about how Americans are pissing on the poor and down-trodden. Americans are being pissed on by their Federal government.
And the golden shower will continue for everybody - immigrants included - unless and until something is done to reign the bastards in.
Until that time, I'm in favor of not letting Reid/Obama/Pelosi design any more legislation. As a rule, when a boat is sinking - giving the resident lunatic unrestricted access to the hull and a power drill is not advisable.
Or are you one who believes that you can fix something by breaking it further?
Ponder that before you crap on about how heartless my soon to be fellow countrymen are.
That is my beef. Part of it anyway.
@ Shawn, on the subject of personal attacks
yes, I have noticed this also in the comments on this blog
I know that it is common among 'liberals' (the illiberal kind)to resort to name-calling and accusations of bigotry if the party line is not subscribed to....
but I was surprised to find that it is so common here also.
I think we should look a bit closer to home (literally in my case) and take a real life example of immigration into NZ, if you want to have a serious discussion on the matter.
When I was growing up in Southland it was very homogenous - almost entirely white.
My closest friend growing up was unusual because he came from Rhodesia - (he always called it that, hence causing enormous confusion) - and was a source of genuine curiousity for not being either white or 'local'.
Today there is a large group of folk from the Philippines, Britain and Muslims (from various places) in Southland, and I will be interested to see the census figures for the actual numbers - I gather it is about 5% of the population nowadays.
I have not checked any figures - merely going on my own observations and local knowledge - but how many are unemployed? how many are in Court having committed crimes? how many are receiving welfare payments?
I suspect very few, if any.
How many are hardworking, law abiding, self help types who have found paradise and trying to improve their lot in life?
All.
How many 'lifelong Southlanders' (for lack of a better term) are engaging in panty wetting hysteria about Filopinos, Muslims and Poms moving to Southland?
None (quite the opposite, in fact)
Is it really the case that in Invercargill there are secret Muslim Brotherhood cabals plotting ways to engage in terrorism?
Do they meet every Wednesday morning at the local Mosque to discuss ways to smuggle semtex into the Country?
Is it REALLY the case that murder is on their minds? or colonisation? or converting 'infidels' to Islam?
OH! could it be THAT is the 'secret briefings' Mr Key was talking about on Wednesday? - Invercargill Muslims and Filopinos presenting a clear and present danger to NZ, helped out by some binge drinking pommy backpackers?
The entire hysteria about immigration into New Zealand is ridiculous.
I have always believed anti-immigration sentiment is because the more immigrants who are a success in NZ, the less powerful the Maoris become - 'One law for all' gains further credibility the more immigrant millionaires you get.
As for America -
Who cares what is happening in America? America (like Europe) is finished it just doesn't realise it yet.
By 2050 the US Congress will be about as relevant to the World as the Napier City Council is to NZ - in terms of anyone caring what they are upto.
Why anybody with half a brain would want to become a US citizen is beyond me - and I speak as a US Citizen from birth.
@ Mr Lineberry "I have always believed anti-immigration sentiment is because the more immigrants who are a success in NZ, the less powerful the Maoris become"
oooh, you obviously a racist Maori-basher :) *wink*
Drunken Watchman - how silly.
I am tempted to send you an invitation to my wedding in Queenstown at Labour Weekend - but somehow I don't think you would accept haha!
@ Mr Lineberry
"how silly"
I presume you are calling me silly now?
I'll add it to my list of insults.
My joke that you are "obviously a conspiracist racist Maori basher" was just that, and self-evidently so. It was not a "silly" comment in view of the thread which has been complaining about ad hominem attacks, by you included, in lieu of reasoned rebuttal.
Post a Comment