This makes little sense. You either believe that these people are welcome and then should give them papers to be here with no disadvantages, or you can believe that they are not welcome and you should forcibly block them from entering and deporting those who are sneaking in. There is no middle ground – yet there is.
To understand why let’s see two imaginary businessmen, calling them the random names “Adam Smith” and “Charles Koch”. Both of them set up equal factories staffed by local workers earning minimal wage. One day Charles Koch figures out a competitive advantage: he can fire the workers and hire illegal immigrants for half the wage, greatly decreasing his operational cost. More power to him, capitalism is about competition for better efficiency. Adam Smith sees this and copy his competitor, firing local workers and hiring illegals too. The next day immigration agents come to his factory, arrest and deport the workers and fine him for millions of dollars. For some reason, they never do that to Koch.
Another example: Charles Koch gets foreign input materials from Malaysia very cheaply, getting huge profit. Adam Smith goes to investigate and finds that Charles’s business partner in Malaysia is creating the products in near-collapse buildings filled with child slaves bought from their parents for food. Adam, being a laissez faire capitalist, sees no moral problem with that and sets up similar factories in Malaysia. The next day all major newspapers open with headline “Shocking abuse: Adam Smith is literally owning child slaves”, illustrated with photos of overworked, starved, crying children from his factory, causing huge public uproar and boycott. For some reason the equal child slave factories of Charles Koch attract no journalists.
There is a simple reason why illegal immigrants are illegal: because it allows crony capitalists and only them to exploit their sorry state. Had they been legalized, anyone could hire them and the advantages of “being connected to politics” would disappear. It’s the same reason why local business isn’t protected by tariffs from dumping from lawless countries. Cronies can set up slave camps or bribe dictators for exclusive contracts, both being unavailable for fair competition.
Again: I do not argue against immigration in this post. I’m claiming that anyone who is for tolerating illegal immigration are crony capitalists engaged in state capture, or their “state captured” minions. To underline this, let me point at the absurdity of the situation: Juan and Jose are twins, who grew up together, got the same education and generally same kind of guys. The only difference is that Juan went to the US embassy and asked for an Immigration Visa which was rejected and stayed home; while Jose simply crossed the border and lives in a sanctuary city. It’s clear that Juan is the better guy, yet Jose is rewarded by the system. I see exactly two rational solutions: deport and punish Jose for breaking the law, or give Juan his pass immediately. Choosing between these (strict immigration or open borders) is a political choice. But tolerating the current bad system shows corrupt intent.
That’s a pretty cogent post.
Poor Adam Smith wakes up one day and thinks “Man, it’s like some kind of invisible hand is helping that guy.” Then he writes a book about it. And still gets it wrong.
Businesses are predators. And that’s a good thing, it keeps them on the edge of converting resources into capitol. But when one figures out a winning strategy, the rest have to follow to be competitive. Then you have “Immigrant workers.” That’s a lose lose proposition. If it occurs, and it will… it starts a race to the bottom the benefits no one but the employer. The immigrant worker loses because they’re being held hostage by the threat of deportation if illegal, or the hostage-hold of being fired then deported if on some kind of “visitor work program.” “local” workers lose because they can’t compete with desperate immigrants. And at the larger level, society itself loses when it loses it’s identity and bears the peripheral cost. The only winners are the “crony capitalists” that have successfully engaged in rent seeking to secure cheap labor for themselves while denying it to their competitors.
I’d like to think that there is a solution, like my corporate tax idea that prevents large corporations from existing in the first place, thus preventing them from getting big enough to rent seek or construct the ‘”revolving door” of lucrative positions for “retiring” politicians. But really… the human race is just not an enlightened species and can’t do any better.
LikeLike
oh there IS a solution. Properly enforced anti corruption laws. With real penalties for corruption for both sides and I’m talking prison sentences not fines.
LikeLike
@nightgerbil: “properly enforced” by who? Angels? All authorities are led by political appointees. All the judges are at the end political appointees (nominated and confirmed by politicians).
LikeLike
You are making arguments from very narrowly drawn sets of facts. I mean if corruption was so prevalent that immigration agents could be set upon anyone who is not in favor with the ruling party, I suspect that other tactics could be used too. Maybe health inspectors? So let’s do away with cleanliness standards for restaurants too while we are at it.
As to tariffs, child slave labor exists, but plenty of heavy manufacturing countries are doing fine without it, for example China. I tried to do a quick google search for child labor statistics and found this. http://www.theworldcounts.com/stories/Child-Labor-Facts-and-Statistics. If you have better data, we can look at it. But from this, while there are 200 million or so child laborers in the world, a large number are in Sub-Saharan Africa, which as far as I understand, does not export a whole lot. The things they do export, where child labor is used, is crops like coffee, sugar cane, things that often are not grown in western countries anyway, so protection tariffs are not applicable. And how efficient are child workers anyway compared to adults? China, the manufacturing behemoth, excels due to the infrastructure and systems it has for mass production, not due to slave-like wages and child laborers.
So if you are going to talk about tariffs, you cannot simply point to child labor, which I am certain makes up a very small minority of the overall imports. You call it “dumping”, but others would call it outcompeting and cry out against efforts to coddle local industry at the cost of the consumer. What happened to your free market ideas? And again, if state corruption is so prevalent, I am sure a business that is “in with the party” will find other ways to deal with the competition.
If you are curious as to what other methods can be used, just read about Russia. It is really very simple there. The obstacles to forming a legal business are so mired in red tape, that it is almost impossible to start anything without a payoff. And there you go, from the get-go, you are mired in corruption, and the evidence of this payoff can be used against you at any time. And that first payoff is just the beginning.
LikeLike
Smokeman I’d like to think that there is a solution, like my corporate tax idea that prevents large corporations from existing in the first place, thus preventing them from getting big enough to rent seek or construct the ‘”revolving door” of lucrative positions for “retiring” politicians. But really… the human race is just not an enlightened species and can’t do any better.
I don’t know. there will always be P&G, Disney and other hoarders of pattents and companies. No one elects them and these mega holdings corps what ever they are called are the true monetary power. And simple tax will not tiny them down, they are global and are already evading regulation and taxes to the best of their legalteams ability. that is how they make money by picking the right country with the right legislation and regulation for the job at hand and letting the partner/bought corporation do the job at hand.
GG: Your post hits the spot!
What ever they do they should do one or the other and not nothing at all! But even only saying this will mark you as Nazi in germany.
LikeLike
The problem is one level deeper than that.
National economies are separate to some extent. Allow free movement of people and money and you end up with joint economies. When that happens they start equaling out – the wealthier state becomes poorer, the poor becomes wealthier.
What’s really bad is that free market and flow of people is good for the country as an abstract entity but may be terrible for the individual citizens.
Hypothetically you could replace all Americans with equally skilled Chinese who have lower standards of living. As a result, the new US would spend less of its resources on luxurious gadgets and more on investment. The “new US” would be a stronger country. Downside? there are no actual Americans there anymore…
It’s one of many instances of evolution. Natural selection culls the people less prepared for the market. We need some of it, that’s for sure, but giving it free reign is just ruthless and will probably end in some communist revolution. Cutting on the excesses will not remove progress, only slow it down, while allowing most people to have decent lives.
LikeLike
@eatenbyagrue: IRS was weaponized by Obama. The problem with immigration is that it’s a “victimless crime”, the victim is the unpersonal budget or the unemployment statistics. Ergo, no person goes to the court. If the health services would be corrupt, someone would get ill and start a lawsuit.
Besides local resources, there is no reason for different productivity in countries. If it’s cheaper to build the same product from the same (non-local) resources, the ONLY reason is lax work, health and environmental rules.
@Stawek: But there are no “equally skilled Chinese”. If you’d replace every American with Chinese. You’d get a China, with Chinese GDP and Chinese political system. The “New US” would be just a 300M people China, 30% as strong as the real China.
LikeLike
Anon:
“I don’t know. there will always be P&G, Disney and other hoarders…”
Yup. And who watches the watchers? Congress? They’re the problem! They’re infested with people who have been manipulating the rules to their advantage for so long, that it’s institutional.
Are the voters going to do anything? The Hegelian Dialectic has been used with such startling success that the majority just vote red pill or blue pill. Not enough people are smart enough to even see the real problem.
The solution is simple, but unimplementable. Progressive corporate tax that leaves small companies alone but obliterates larger ones with zero loopholes, effective anti-trust / anti-monopoly legislation, and barring foreign companies from even doing business in the US except through a trading proxy. (If some US company is based in Lowtaxistan, they’re considered a foreign company.)
LikeLike
“@Stawek: But there are no “equally skilled Chinese”.”
To follow that further: Virtually any human on the planet can learn to do a factory job when mass production divides the required labor down to trivial, simple tasks. As such, Any freaking retard with a work ethic can be as “equally skilled” as the smartest person.
And “work ethic” is easy to find when your population is desperate and starving. Instead of “lifting the level” of the third world labor source, this just increases the incentive to make them desperate and starving so they’ll work hard for cheap.
Open borders and “free trade” with lesser yoked countries is lose lose for everyone but the financiers.
LikeLike
Nice and to the point. Thank you Gevlon.
There are more ways that illegal immigration (versus legal immigration) is a detriment to a nation: Rule of law. If you have a nation built on the rule of law, as opposed to the whim of those with power, then adhering to the law is critical. It sets the mood and overall respect of the law itself. When the law is optional, then people as well as those governing feel they can freely ignore it.
In terms of crony capitalism you also get a similar effect with certain work visas when there is a sufficient native population capable of the work you are importing workers for. You avoid certain laws and taxes that are in effect when employing from the native population.
Simplifying laws and removing the nanny nature of government is the best solution that unfortunately meets with the most resistance. People find it hard to give up power or their legacies.
LikeLike
@Gevlon:
I didn’t mean the literal today’s Chinese. I meant, broadly speaking, that every American could be replaced by a foreigner with the same skillset but with a little bonus on top. After all, we can’t argue that all US citizens are the top of human population. Or we could imagine future AIs replacing all humans.
You’d end up with a country stronger than the original US but the former population banished due to their inefficiency. So the abstract “country” flourishes while the population is going extinct. Which is a paradox if we consider that it’s the population of a country that matters.
We should not value the abstract ideas of a nation over the actual nation. What good is strong and successful America if all the Americans are gone? Otherwise, it’s a straight way to genocidal conquests.
That’s why I support very limited protectionism even if it means that the country’s strength isn’t maximized.
LikeLike
@Smokeman: no. The main problem in China is extreme corruption. Not just at the high levels, but factory workers steal. The reason: according to the old Chinese culture, you MUST take any resource from strangers for your family. Remember that if poor people win the lottery, they usually end up poor. Putting Chinese into America will turn it into China.
@Stawek: Are you George Soros in disguise? Because that’s what the globalist believe. In reality if you’d replace every American with a better foreigner (every doctor with a better one, every teacher with a better one), the country would fall into civil war, because the Afghan top doctor can’t work with the Polish top nurse but want to force her to wear hijab and so on. People of different cultures can’t work together.
LikeLike
@Smokeman: no.
That wasn’t what I meant. I understand the culture in China is totally different. The usual “argument” is that everyone is the same, so skilled worker A is the same as skilled worker B. But that’s wrong on both levels… the vast majority of workers aren’t even all that skilled, and they’re culturally different as well.
LikeLike
Why do you think people of different cultures can’t walk together? I work for an engineering company in US and in my tream we have people from US, France, China, India, Canada, Guatemala and probably some countries I am forgetting. Your statement is clearly false.
LikeLike
Well, although this may seem odd, but even in central European factories, capitalists won’t hire an illiterate person, they will still be looking for craftsmen/technicians (highly skilled people) to operate highly efficient machines. As there is a shortage in skilled workmanship, paying less is not really an option.
Of course there will always be room for unskilled people to be employed for breadcrumbs, but a factory like this will be better off on ethiopia, like the Chinese do, because there, the capitalist can pay even less for the same work…
LikeLike
I’m a bit confused by Juan/Jose example, at least as it applies in the current US situation:
If both Juan/Jose have little in assets, desired skills, or connections, things tend to play out as following:
Juan goes to the embassy, presents his situation, is almost certainly denied. Loses application fees, time, and travel cost.
Jose decides to play the lottery.;
• cost of traveling to border with potential of being robbed, swindled, killed.
• cost of crossing border with increased potential of being robbed, swindled, killed. This costs often incurs risk to family remaining from country of orgin (if immigrant does not repay loan to cross border, family members will suffer) All this runs the risk of a failed crossing due to US Immigration Enforcement or other factors and loss of investment.
• cost of travel to desired place of residence with risk of being robbed, swindled, killed, deported, and sent home
• cost of investing in desired place of residence and remaining below the radar of US Immigration authorities, failure results in deportation and loss of previous investment.
—> Juan chose a low cost play that was almost guaranteed to fail
—> Jose chose a high risk play that had a small chance of establishing a life in the new country
You said “It’s clear that Juan is the better guy, yet Jose is rewarded by the system.”
It’s clear that Juan is the better guy
• Why is it clear that Juan is the better guy? (I like your writing but this was an unexplained and confident move)
Jose is rewarded by the system.
• In the US, most Juan’s never made it to the system. Many Jose’s are dead, some went back to their country of origin by choice or by government order, many are unhappy about their decision to come to the US, and some have done well for themselves.
LikeLike