How to End Illegal Immigration By John in Houston We are paying for illegal immigration through the millions handed out annually in corporate welfare, farm subsidies to large agro-businesses. This money is the driving force behind illegal immigration. Our grain producers, fat with subsidies, export their corn south of the border at below-cost prices that put small Mexican farmers out of business. The displaced Mexican agriculture workers simply follow the money trail north in search of work to feed their families. This article gives you the perspective of the Mexican farmer: Why Mexico's Small Corn Farmers Go Hungry New York Times March 03, 2003 By TINA ROSENBERG MEXICO CITY, Macario Hernández's grandfather grew corn in the hills of Puebla, Mexico. His father does the same. Mr. Hernández grows corn, too, but not for much longer. Around his village of Guadalupe Victoria, people farm the way they have for centuries, on tiny plots of land watered only by rain, their plows pulled by burros. Mr. Hernández, a thoughtful man of 30, is battling to bring his family and neighbors out of the Middle Ages. But these days modernity is less his goal than his enemy. This is because he, like other small farmers in Mexico, competes with American products raised on megafarms that use satellite imagery to mete out fertilizer. These products are so heavily subsidized by the government that many are exported for less than it costs to grow them. According to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis, American corn sells in Mexico for 25 percent less than its cost. The prices Mr. Hernández and others receive are so low that they lose money with each acre they plant. In January, campesinos from all over the country marched into Mexico City's central plaza to protest. Thousands of men in jeans and straw hats jammed the Zócalo, alongside horses and tractors. Farmers have staged smaller protests around Mexico for months. The protests have won campesino organizations a series of talks with the government. But they are unlikely to get what they want: a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or Nafta, protective temporary tariffs and a new policy that seeks to help small farmers instead of trying to force them off the land. The problems of rural Mexicans are echoed around the world as countries lower their import barriers, required by free trade treaties and the rules of the World Trade Organization. When markets are open, agricultural products flood in from wealthy nations, which subsidize agriculture and allow agribusiness to export crops cheaply. European farmers get 35 percent of their income in government subsidies, American farmers 20 percent. American subsidies are at record levels, and last year, Washington passed a farm bill that included a $40 billion increase in subsidies to large grain and cotton farmers. It seems paradoxical to argue that cheap food hurts poor people. But three-quarters of the world's poor are rural. When subsidized imports undercut their products, they starve. Agricultural subsidies, which rob developing countries of the ability to export crops, have become the most important dispute at the W.T.O. Wealthy countries do far more harm to poor nations with these subsidies than they do good with foreign aid. While such subsidies have been deadly for the 18 million Mexicans who live on small farms - nearly a fifth of the country - Mexico's near-complete neglect of the countryside is at fault, too. Mexican officials say openly that they long ago concluded that small agriculture was inefficient, and that the solution for farmers was to find other work. "The government's solution for the problems of the countryside is to get campesinos to stop being campesinos," says Victor Suárez, a leader of a coalition of small farmers. But the government's determination not to invest in losers is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The small farmers I met in their fields in Puebla want to stop growing corn and move into fruit or organic vegetables. Two years ago Mr. Hernández, who works with a farming cooperative, brought in thousands of peach plants. But only a few farmers could buy them. Farm credit essentially does not exist in Mexico, as the government closed the rural bank, and other bankers do not want to lend to small farmers. "We are trying to get people to rethink and understand that the traditional doesn't work," says Mr. Hernández. "But the lack of capital is deadly." The government does subsidize producers, at absurdly small levels compared with subsidies in the United States. Corn growers get about $30 an acre. Small programs exist to provide technical help and fertilizer to small producers, but most farmers I met hadn't even heard of them. Mexico should be helping its corn farmers increase their productivity or move into new crops - especially since few new jobs have been created that could absorb these farmers. Mexicans fleeing the countryside are flocking to Houston and swelling Mexico's cities, already congested with the poor and unemployed. If Washington wants to reduce Mexico's immigration to the United States, ending subsidies for agribusiness would be far more effective than beefing up the border patrol. .
Why is it that the government subsidises certain products and not others? Corn, peanuts, rice and cotton are subsidised by the government. But broccoli, chickens, lettuce and tomatoes aren't. If broccoli farmers aren't being devistated by not having subsidies for them,then why do corn farmers think they will be hurt by the removal of corn subsidies?
Another problem is our cozy relationship to China. Big business wants things dirt cheap and China has a large population that can't organize real unions or strike. China sells things cheaper than anyome can compete with. Mexico and other Latin countries are not really third world anymore but they are somewhere in-between. Enter China selling stuff at slave market prices and how can Mexicans, Brazilians, or even other people like Turks or Russians compete and develop their countries? Go to the pbs site (pbs.org) and then go to Frontline. You can view online the Frontline report on Walmart and after you see it you'll know what I mean.
Consumers want things dirt cheap, and they always have. This is not a new phenomenon. Some things, yes. Other things, no. Obviously America (and every other country) makes some things cheaper than anyone can compete with too, otherwise nobody would buy our products. Nobody imports American goods out of charity. China doesn't make EVERYTHING. Wages are rising in China, and are already higher than in many African countries. How can China compete with Africa? What has changed? This theory supposes that no country can develop as long as there remains one poor country to compete "unfairly" by being poor. But then how did we ever get to where we are now? There have always been poor countries. Many Asian nations (Taiwan, Korea) became wealthy despite being literally next door to vastly poorer, bigger nations. How was this possible?
Rainbow gatherer, What percentage of Chinese products are produced by slave labor? I'd think it couldn't be too many, because this would cause many Chinese to go unemployed if everything was being produced by free slave labor.
There wouldn't be as much of a problem with illegal immigration if George Bush did his job. Instead, he is deliberately destroying the country by leaving our borders wide open. It's all about the FTAA and the plan to eventually merge the US with Mexico, breaking down all trade barriers. Of course this is in the process as I type this, yet, thanks to the mainstream media, very few Americans are familiar with this plan, which is modeled after the EU. In the long run, there will be no such thing as "illegal immigration," because the government's plan is to make everyone legal through the complete decomposition of our borders. People don't understand how big of a problem illegal immigration has become, while it's being promoted by the very same people who should be protecting our borders against it, which is the US government. In 2004, 800,000 Californians fled their state because of the illegal immigration problem. Illegal immigration is a HUGE problem for this country. It drives down the wages, lowers the quality of living for American citizens, and works to further bankrupt the already badly weakend economy.
Anti-free trade and anti immigration, nationalising the banks. How much longer are you going to pretend to be libertarian? Illegal immigrants are good for the economy and so is free trade. What we need to do is legalise illegal immigrants, not drive them out of the country and build a fortress America.
Yeah, like cheap cotton from the South a few centuries ago . . . American manufacturing is rapidly vanishing. Many American companies now only "produce" a brand name: http://userpages.wittenberg.edu/laskeland/nologo.htm Well, the elimination of import quotas, for starters: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-quotaone16jan16,0,3076753.story?coll=la-home-headlines The industrialization of the US (like Taiwan and South Korea) relied heavily on "protectionist" policies that are now anathema. See http://www.oregonir.org/undermining_american_workers.htm. First, we should enforce our own labor laws on the farmers, janitorial services, building/landscape/painting contractors, and others that employ illegal aliens. If Americans still don't want these jobs even with decent wages, benefits, and work hours, then we could consider legalizing a limited number of alien workers and granting them the protection of US labor laws. At the very least, I would hope you agree that we should eliminate our agricultural subsidies that drive a lot of illegal immigration, as described in the original article that started this thread.
These are just the standard protectionist excuses, i.e. "I support free markets, except that I don't." This has absolutely no relevance to point that "big business" is driving the search for "dirt cheap" products. Never at any time in history in any economy have consumers tried to do anything other than get the best deal for their money. America has always imported products from lower wage countries. I don't see a new phenomenon. This is simply a cry for protectionism from the status quo. The US is a service economy, why should productive sectors of the economy be taxed to support people who feel their industry has a right to exist regardless of its competitiveness? If American companies don't produce anything, then how do they make money? Is the problem that a modern economy is just to mysterious to understand, because it isn't based on factories and physical units produced? Your link shows textile production moving from Cambodia to China. What does this have to do with the US economy? Do you believe in global government bureaucratically allocating industrial production quotas around the world? In popular mythology, yes. In reality, no. Look at India and China - are the booming industries the ones that have been protected for decades? No, the growth is mostly coming from new investment in new industries. India's government was famous for white elephant industrial projects which remain dead weight while the IT industry grew up essentially by accident. The eastern european countries which are enjoying the fastest growing economies in europe have universally been privatising and tearing down trade barriers. If these immigrants were made legal they would be no different than any other immigrants. This country was built on immigration. If immigration drove down the economy the US would never have got off the ground. I used to think that, but now I think its a bit optimistic. I think we should end subsidies because it is a stupid waste of money, but i'm not confident it will stop illegal immigration.
The example of American slavery is relevant in that "dirt cheap" products often entail treating workers like dirt. Developing countries could easily provide a living wage that was still competively low compared to industrialized nations, but that's not happening. Here's an excerpt from the Naomi Klein piece that you dismissed without comment: Labor groups agree that a living wage for an assembly-line worker in China would be approximately US87 cents an hour. In the United States and Germany, where multinationals have closed down hundreds of domestic textile factories to move to zone production, garment workers are paid an average of US$10 and $18.50 an hour, respectively. Yet even with these massive savings in labor costs, those who manufacture for the most prominent and richest brands in the world are still refusing to pay workers in China the 87 cents that would cover their cost of living, stave off illness and even allow them to send a little money home to their families. A 1998 study of brand-name manufacturing in the Chinese special economic zones found that Wal-Mart, Ralph -Lauren, Ann Taylor, Esprit, Liz Claiborne, Kmart, Nike, Midas, J.C. Penney and the Limited were only paying a fraction of that miserable 87 cents some were paying as little as 13 cents an hour. I haven't argued for protective subsidies, but I do think there should be tarrifs on goods produced in places that forcibly suppress labor organizing and lack even the most basic environmental standards. Read the Klein piece. They make money by contracting out all production to the lowest Third World bidder, slapping on a logo, then inflating the price to cover exhorbitant executive salaries and marketing expenses. Labor and materials account for a tiny fraction of the actual price they charge. It was in response to your question about China competing with Africa. Not necessarily, but I do think that international trade agreements should include some meaningful labor and environmental provisions. You deny that US "protectionism" was prominent in the 19th and early 20th centuries? A century ago we had a labor shortage. Now we have the opposite situation. I didn't say it would stop, but it would probably slow. Besides ending agricultural subsidies, another important step is to crack down on unscrupulous US employers, as explained in the Fred Dickey article.
I never said I was anti-immigration. There is a difference between legal immigration and allowing the borders to be flooded by millions upon millions of illegals. It's funny that hardcore Bush supporters like yourself are in favor of the Patriot Act, while you support the hypocrisy of George W. Bush, who wants to take our rights away while he leaves the borders wide open to anyone who wants to enter the country. Wake up! Speak for yourself. You don't even live in this country, so who are you to talk about "what we need to do"?
There are two ways to solve illegal immigration - legalise the illegal immigrants or seal the border and throw them out with more aggressive law enforcement. I favor the former. Which do you prefer? What´s really funny is that you claim I am a supporter of the patriot act when in fact I am not. I guess the assumption was just to convenient for you to resist. But yes I do believe in the country remaining open to immigration and trade. That´s because I´m a real libertarian, not a fake like you. Obviously I´m speaking for myself, who are you speaking for (besides Rense)? I have lived in the US, travel there frequently, plan to return, and I am a US citizen. I don´t need the permission of a fake libertarian conspiracy theorist to have an opinion.
Well, I'm not American, but I think you are missing an important point here. Illegal migration actualy shouldn't be legalised because a flood of migrants could push the society into uncontroled anarchy or fascism. Problem is nobody seems to realise that to stop a phenomenon you must treat the causes, the roots. It's the same thing with the international terrorism. We all fight it, but we all don't do anything to solve those problems who fead it (like the neverending conflicts of Palestina, Chechnya or Kashmir; the lack of education in the Middle East and so on). The root of illegal migration is poverty. And we see how all richer countries fight with illegal migration but in the same time are selfishly getting richer, without doing anything real to help the poor countries who provide migrants to get less poor. I'm not saying rich countries should give up their development and prosperity, far from it, but some true assistance to poor countries wouldn't hurd.
ONE small solution would be to GIVE technology to THIRD WORLD Countries? These days, one CANNOT Legally enter the US without Proof of Identity. Do you know how MANY small towns in Mexico do NOT keep records? So, HOW do you show proof of Identity if you can't even prove you were BORN? This is a problem that Mexicans face. A Mexican is one who was BORN in Mexico.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/oped/ci_2647421 Some might not know it, but illegal immigrants contribute alot of money to the U.S social security system with their payroll taxes that the immigrants themselves won't even get to benefit from. So it may just be that the social security adminstration may be the biggest opponents to stoping illegal immigration.
Because it creates social tensions. First of all, it's the problem of fugitive criminals. And more important, that of cheap labour which won't create a better life for the migrants, but will create a harder life for local workers.
READ THIS: Opposition to Immigration is Un-American Friday, January 15, 1999 By: Robert W. Tracinski Restrictions on "H-1B" Visas Punish Ability and Trample the Rights of Employer and Employee Next month Congress will try to resolve a dispute with the White House over federal quotas for "H-1B" visas--a type of work permits for immigrants filling high-tech jobs. Pending legislation would expand the quotas by 10,000 to 20,000 annually for the next five years--still far less than the demand for such workers. President Clinton opposes the loosened standards, arguing that domestic workers should be trained for these high-tech jobs. In fact, both sides are wrong. Any restrictions on immigration--large or small--trample the rights of both employers and job-seeking immigrants. To make this issue clear, put yourself in the place of an employer who has just interviewed two job applicants. The first is hard-working, talented, and ambitious. He has gone through enormous effort to obtain an education and to acquire the skills necessary for this job. He received excellent grades in school and high praise from his previous employers. More important, he has shown the courage to leave his home, to travel thousands of miles, to learn a new language and an unfamiliar culture--all to pursue his chosen career and to work for a better life. The second applicant has no particular skills for the job you are offering; he expects you to train him. He never performed well in school. When his previous employer, in a different field, closed down, he did not try to acquire new talents or to move elsewhere to seek work. He expects new skills and a new job to be provided to him, with no need for any initiative on his part. Which applicant would you hire? Clearly, the first one, because he will be more productive for you. Hiring him would be an act of justice: It would reward the one who has worked harder to improve himself. Under our current immigration laws, however, you would be told that you cannot hire the first man and that you must hire the second--because the second is a native of this country and the first isn't. Wouldn't you consider this an intrusion on your right to choose the best worker for your company--and on the worker's right to take the best job he is offered? Wouldn't you consider it a crude injustice to punish a man of greater ability and initiative merely because he is not "one of us"? Yet this is precisely what America's immigration laws require. Defenders of those laws often argue that increased immigration is a drain on the American taxpayer, who will have to finance additional welfare payments. But this is just a smokescreen. If the anti-immigrationists truly oppose parasitism, why is it somehow more acceptable if the non-productive moocher is a native-born American than if he is an immigrant? And if welfare is the problem, why do they complain about highly skilled foreigners coming here specifically for the purpose of working? Perhaps, as Clinton maintains, domestic workers could be pulled off the streets and be trained to perform some of the high-tech jobs taken by H-1B immigrants--but why should they have to be? Why should employers be forced to chase workers who have not taken the initiative to acquire valuable skills on their own? And why should these jobs be refused to those who have taken that initiative? The irrational premise behind our nation's immigration laws is that a native-born American has a "right" to a particular job, not because he has earned it, but because he was born here. To this "right," the law sacrifices the employer's right to hire the best employees--and the immigrant's right to take a job that he deserves. To put it succinctly, initiative and productiveness are sacrificed to sloth and inertia. The "American dream" is essentially the freedom of each individual to rise as far as his abilities take him. The opponents of immigration, however, want to repudiate that vision by turning America into a privileged preserve for those who want the law to set aside jobs for them--jobs they cannot freely earn through their own efforts. The quotas on H-1B visas--along with all other visas--should not just be expanded; they should be eliminated. Any immigrant who wants to come to America in search of a better life should be let in--and any employer who wants to hire him should be free to do so. Anything less would be un-American. Robert W. Tracinski is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Well, most of illegal migrants aren't highly educated, highly skilled people. Those ones usualy migrate legaly.
