Showing posts with label illegal immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label illegal immigration. Show all posts

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Walls, Walls, Walls

Arguments against illegal immigration in America reflect the same nativist sentiments in mid-1900s Germany and other declining nations where existing political players blamed outsiders. Nuance and context--necessary components of a functioning, sane civilization--are always lost when outliers are used as the basis for broad-ranging policies.

The best argument against overzealous immigration hawks was made by none other than Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Anyone who lives in the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere in this country." As an outsider, MLK reflexively sought to include others. His approach is wrongly considered naive or idealistic until one realizes the ability to remove every single stranger or potential risk of violent crime requires ongoing 24/7 surveillance and a police state--the opposite of a prosperous society. Voters should be reminded the safest place in the world is often a jail, or, for maximum security, solitary confinement. On this issue, American poet Robert Frost also has a poignant line: "Before I built a wall I'd ask to know / What I was walling in or walling out." 
NBA's John Wall, #2
The thinking class must not hesitate to make connections between an unthinking, violent police state and categorical sentiments against outsiders, including illegal immigrants. In matters of security, a healthy balance is always necessary, lest one lose the most precious of human riches: liberty, human dignity, opportunity, and justice. 

Friday, February 4, 2011

Milton Friedman on Immigration and Free Markets

One cannot be pro-socialism and pro-immigration. Immigrants are usually needed for private sector jobs, usually either highly specialized or low paying ones. Despite the prospect of a low paying, tough job, immigrants come to America and other non-socialist countries because they believe their children will be able to have a better life. But most union and socialist jobs are reserved for citizens, not immigrants. Thus, the sina qua non of the immigrant story is a large private sector rather than a large government sector. In other words, someone who is pro-immigrant must be capitalist, not socialist, assuming that socialism means a large government sector.

If you're still not convinced, please listen to Milton Friedman:

[Ch 7] "one of the paradoxes of experience is that, in spite of...historical evidence, it is precisely the minority groups that have frequently furnished the most vocal and numerous advocates of fundamental alterations in a capitalist society. They have tended to attribute to capitalism the residual restrictions they experience rather than to recognize that the free market has been the major factor enabling these restrictions to be as small as they are...the purchaser of bread does not know whether it was made from wheat grown by a white man or a [black man], by a Christian or a Jew. In consequence, the producer of wheat is in a position to use resources as effectively as he can, regardless of what the attitudes of the community may be toward his color, the religion, or other characteristics of the people he hires.

Furthermore, and perhaps more important, there is an economic incentive in a free market to separate economic efficiency from other characteristics of the individual. A businessman or an entrepreneur who expresses preferences in his business activities that are not related to productive efficiency is at a disadvantage compared to other individuals who do not. Such an individual is in effect imposing higher costs on himself than are other individuals who do not have such preferences. Hence, in a free market they will tend to drive him out...

[Ch 1] As this example suggests, the groups in our society that have the most at stake in the preservation and strengthening of competitive capitalism are those minority groups which can most easily become the object of the distrust and enmity of the majority--the African-Americans, the Jews, the foreign-born, to mention only the obvious...[Yet] instead of recognizing that the existence of the free market has protected them from the attitudes of their fellow countrymen, they mistakenly attribute the residual discrimination to the market."

Bonus: Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom. Even though the men who wield this power initially be of good will and even though they be not corrupted by the power they exercise, the power will both attract and form men of a different stamp.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Do Anti-Immigration Activists Use Funny Math?

Check out THIS article, alleging that illegal immigrants cost California 10.5 billion dollars a year.

The basic premise is that the children of illegal immigrants constitute 15% of the school-age population, which costs California 7.7 billion dollars annually. I call shenanigans.

How does adding an extra 15% to the school-age population add 7.7 billion dollars in expenses? Does that sound right to you? If you increase class sizes, other than extra classroom supplies, how exactly do costs go up by the billions?

At some point, new teachers have to be hired (usually resulting in jobs to American citizens), and new classrooms built, but new construction and new supplies do not cost billions of dollars each year. In short, there is some funny math going on here.

Here's how I think the partisan institute came up with $7+ billion: California's K-14 education programs receive about 50 to 60 billion dollars a year total. Take 15% of that, and you end up with about 7.7 billion dollars, a very rough estimate that doesn't factor in teacher pension costs, lifetime medical benefits, and other undefined wage/benefit obligations.

Remember: 80 to 85% of education funding goes to teachers and administrators (mostly to teachers and teaching staff). That leaves 15% to the kids. 15% of 15% = just 2.25% of total education expenditures--not an additional 15% increase in education costs. A billion dollars is still significant, but it's nowhere near the scary 7.7 billion dollars number.

Another person's response: Fact: illegal immigrants "tax" our system through free schooling, healthcare (going to emergency rooms for simple colds and ridiculous laws forcing hospitals to treat them), and the thousands of examples of illegal immigrants committing crimes and packing out jails. I know both legal and illegal immigrants. Guess which ones care about laws?

If illegal immigrants even cost the system $10 it's too much. THEY ARE ILLEGAL. Not sure what's so difficult to understand about that. Or, do you support rapists rights, too? How about bank robbers? How about people who double park or run red lights?

The article is a brief synopsis of expenses. Do you really need it broken down to understand that it's bankrupting our state? Maybe the public hospitals that have closed down in the Bay Area are example enough. No? How about the school closings?

Response to above: Illegal immigration is a complicated topic, made even more complex by the absence of reliable statistics on tax revenue (which includes sales, gas, and uncollected Social Security taxes). I just worry when anyone singles out a particular group for much of society's woes. Such resentment is easy to inflame into hatred—and easy to exploit.

I will say this: we've had illegal immigration for many decades, and we still managed to have schools and public/county hospitals do well. Thus, it seems that the issues facing schools and county hospitals result from a multitude of different factors, not just illegal immigration. Also, if the children of illegal immigrants do well and become net contributors to the tax base, many of the financial issues relating to illegal immigration become moot. Just my two cents.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Simple Truths: Immigration, Arizona, and Racism

Truth #2. Racism will probably exist forever.

Why did Arizona decide to target Mexican illegal immigrants while Californians set up sanctuary cities for them? They're just 750 miles apart, but they have two completely different attitudes. Why?

Human beings will always look for patterns to create a set of assumptions. We rely on this set of assumptions to get through our daily lives. In California, most residents see illegal immigrants working in restaurants and in other blue-collar positions. While some illegal immigrants in California commit crimes, the majority of them have come to California to work and make money. In short, the average California sees illegal immigrants in positions that appear non-threatening, i.e., food prep, hotel staff, gardeners, etc. In my experience here in San Jose, California, I've had positive experiences with most of the illegal immigrants I've come across.

So why do Arizonans have such a different mentality when it comes to illegal immigration? I'm speculating, but most Arizonans have probably had negative experiences with illegal immigrants. Based on various anecdotes, it appears drug dealers and gangs tend to send poor, unconnected illegal immigrants to Arizona, while many illegal immigrants who come to California already have family here and can avoid the drug/gang scene. As a result, Arizonans associate illegal immigration with criminality, while Californians associate illegal immigration with cheaper services. This difference in opinion has little to do with racism, and everything to do with different groups of people digesting different sets of patterns. In Arizona, illegal immigrants equal crime; in California, illegal immigrants equal cheaper services and people striving for the American Dream.

Human beings use patterns to form opinions, and residents of the two states are exposed to different patterns, causing them to form different opinions. We'd all like to think we are independent, but our brains know better. Each piece of information affects us, and over time, if we can create patterns, we will do so. For this reason, racism will always exist, and the way to minimize it is for the media not to display consistently negative images of any particular group, and for us to be careful not to expose ourselves to biased information. Easier said than done, of course.

For example, Europe, mindful of its history of oppressing and massacring minorities--which includes but is not limited to the Holocaust--has laws against hate speech and/or inciting racial/religious language. After years of producing anti-Jewish cartoons and anti-Semitic propaganda, Germany now bans Nazi symbols. The French government has even prosecuted famed starlet Bardot for her anti-Muslim comments. And while it is true that the BBC and other European media outlets are much less baiting than most American media, Europe's enlightened post-WWII policies have not reduced racism--if anything, racism is even more keen. In fact, I would argue that the average minority in America is much safer than the average minority in Europe in 2010. How is that possible when Europeans have done so much more to address problems of racism? The answer may be quite simple.

When Europeans decided to censor themselves, they gave instant authenticity to a small but vocal group of racists. By failing to address the causes of racism head-on--and relying on anti-hate laws--European policies succeeded in bringing formerly marginalized groups into the mainstream. Some Europeans recently elected Nazis to government positions. (I am not exaggerating--Nazi political parties still exist, and Europeans elected some of their members to office. See HERE for more, or just look up the British National Party.) In contrast, anti-minority Americans have no qualms about expressing their hatred, and plenty of places to do it. On a recent story featuring a Muslim female employee seeking a religious accommodation at Disney for her head-scarf, check out the following comments (August 23, 2010 Yahoo article titled "Hostess won't wear Disney's head scarf alternative"):

"I'm so tired of these people. Its a takeover one incident at a time. Make no mistake, that's the plan. For now its tolerate, later America will lose control over these people. Look at Europe. Shoot, look at the Middle East. Islam was relegated to a tiny portion of Saudi Arabia before their conquests. Why are we letting these people in the country? Do we need this crap?" [Note: American Muslims probably constitute just 3 to 4% of America's total population and just 3 to 4% of the European Union's total population.]

"No one is required to kow-tow to the mooslimes in any shape, form or degree! If they want to be a part of the REST of the world, then, they need to learn to play by OUR rules, not vice versa! We should NOT be making accomodations to ANY religion!" [Note: American law requires businesses of a certain size to accommodate religious beliefs when doing so does not constitute an undue hardship on the business.]

"islam IS NOT a religion. It is a Theocracy, and hence does not fall under the Freedom of Religion. PERIOD." [Note: the most populous Muslim country in the world, Indonesia, is not a theocracy.]

"This is yet another attempt from muslim extremests to attack our freedoms and divide our culture. They have done it very effectively in Europe, and now the want to take over our country with muslim laws." [Note: once again, the duty of religious accommodation is based on American laws.]

"Disney nor New York should bow down to these idiots, this is America not an Islam Country, its a christian based country.. if she does not want to comply then fire her and end of story. Im not Racist either im just saying rules are rules." [Note: see letter from George Washington disavowing the idea that the United States is exclusively a Christian country.]

"send her home and give her a pork clop [sic] to munch on on her way."


There are over 4,500 comments, almost all of them expressing similar sentiments, but you get the picture. You won't see similar comments on BBC, etc. So why do I think minorities in America are safer, on average, than in Europe? Because at least here, racist movements usually lack broad legitimacy. No one is censoring racists, so they cannot complain about being marginalized, and our willingness to give them a microphone prevents them from gaining European-style martyr status. Also, to the extent some Americans are spending their time writing hateful comments online, that's less time they can spend creating an American Nazi Party.

So where does that leave us? Nowhere good, unfortunately. In both continents, we see thousands, if not millions of people unable to articulate the laws of their own country. I blame our failing education system for our current cultural stratification. Kids, teenagers, and college students go through years of schooling and manage to learn almost nothing about the Constitution or basic economics. What do we expect? And education alone won't be a panacea--as an attorney practicing law in Santa Clara County, my experience has shown me that legal knowledge won't necessarily help mitigate racism, Islamophobia, incorrect assumptions, or hatred. (Even so, I continue to believe most problems are caused by failures in communication and transparency.)

At the end of the day, the only real solution to racism is kids and teenagers hanging out together. (Youth sports leagues are a fantastic place to start.) Unfortunately, true diversity doesn't exist in most places, making it impossible for diverse groups of children and teenagers to spend time together in friendly, collaborative environments. And don't count on true diversity happening anytime soon. Americans and Europeans are getting more and more segregated. In short, racism will probably always exist, and all we can do is be mindful of our brain's habit of forming patterns and recognize when we've formed patterns based on a small or biased selection of data.

Repeat after me: "There are almost 7 billion people on this planet. In someone's entire lifetime, his or her general opinions about any group of people will be based on perhaps 0.5 to 6% of the total population of any particular group. No reasonable person would believe that having personal knowledge about 0.5 to 6% of something qualifies him/her to form a reliable opinion, because the size of the data relative to the group is too small." Logically, the previous statement is absolutely true. It's too bad our brains aren't designed to run on logic, which is why racism will probably always exist.