« Hmm... | Main | Why is it so hard to keep the house clean? »
Should pro-immigration forces favor a fence?
I am beginning to wonder:
Legislation passed by Congress mandating the fencing of 700 miles of the U.S. border with Mexico has sparked opposition from an array of land managers, businesspeople, law enforcement officials, environmentalists and U.S. Border Patrol agents as a one-size-fits-all policy response to the nettlesome task of securing the nation's borders.
Critics said the fence does not take into account the extraordinarily varied geography of the 2,000-mile-long border, which cuts through Mexican and U.S. cities separated by a sidewalk, vast scrubland and deserts, rivers, irrigation canals and miles of mountainous terrain. They also say it seems to ignore advances in border security that don't involve construction of a 15-foot-high double fence and to play down what are expected to be significant costs to maintain the new barrier.
And, they say, the estimated $2 billion price tag and the mandate that it be completed by 2008 overlook 10 years of legal and logistical difficulties the federal government has faced to finish a comparatively tiny fence of 14 miles dividing San Diego and Tijuana.
"This is the feel-good approach to immigration control," said Wayne Cornelius, an expert on immigration issues at the University of California at San Diego.
Construction of a fence, of course, would defuse many other pressures. Here is the full story.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 11, 2006 at 04:19 AM in Law | Permalink
Comments
Is this a joke or what? 2000 years ago the Romans and Chinese built walls over rough terrain that included “scrubland and deserts, rivers, irrigation canals and miles of mountainous terrain”, but somehow modern day America can’t. Somehow Israel, faced with rather similar geography, hasn't had too many problems, but the United States just isn’t capable. Never mind that where we have built fences they have been highly effective. Never mind that much of the border is totally flat and can be easily fenced. Never mind that the easy parts are (currently) the key routes for illegal immigration.
As for the “advances in border security that don't involve construction of a 15-foot-high double fence”, they can be summarized “lets do things that we know won’t work, so that we can implement our real agenda of Open Borders by claiming that the border can’t be controlled”. The bottom line is that when Israel finally decided that stopping suicide bombers was more important than fantasies about “Greater Israel”, they built a fence (not a wall contrary to what most people think). The bottom line is that when the US decides that real border control is more important than cheap labor for the plutocracy, we will build a fence.
The debate about the details of building a fence is a thin veil for the real issues. The Open Borders/Cheal Labor lobby wants an endless stream of illegals to keep wages down and will use any argument to get its way. For them the problem isn’t that a fence won’t work, but that it will.
However, it is absolutely true that a fence won’t stop illegal immigration. 50-60% of the illegals entered the United States legally as tourists, students, etc. The reality is that we must have “comprehensive” immigration enforcement inside the United States, not just at the border. That includes using local police and harsh employer sanctions. The current reality is that the US is a 3 million square mile sanctuary for illegals with near zero enforcement. A quote from Wayne Cornelius “we probably as a nation make a a less of an effort to enforce immigration laws in the work place than any other major industrial country in the world” (http://www.kued.org/productions/shadowofhope/interviews/cornelius.php) .
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Oct 11, 2006 9:43:35 AM
Greg Mankiw’s blog references a deeply disturbing (but very predictable) study of the impact of immigration on American life. A few quotes from the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c4ac4a74-570f-11db-9110-0000779e2340.htm) article
"Now, after several years of further research, Putnam has come up with a more disturbing picture of contemporary American life: the more people of diverse ethnic backgrounds live in a community, the lower the level of trust among the community’s citizens."
"This is, as he knows, an extremely contentious finding in a climate of growing concern about immigration in the US."
"His diversity research reveals not just that bonding capital is strong and bridging capital weak in ethnically diverse communities, but also that both are weak in such societies: distrust permeates all relationships and people try to “minimise the hits on them from the society around them” by withdrawing into private space, often in front of a television."
"That is a depressing picture. But Prof Putnam, a liberal who sometimes seems to shrink from the impact of his own findings"
Two obvious conclusions. First, Official "diversity" as in multiculturalism and affirmative action only makes a bad situation worse by giving both sanction and value to ethnic/racial/linguistic/religious differences. Second, ending immigration will over time diminish the adverse impact of diversity. The author appears to know this but never admits it.
"He points to the “melting pot” period of early 20th century America, a time when all kinds of people came to the US – Irish, Italians, Germans, Swedes, Jews. “The picture that they all, after a little friction, got on and that Jews taught the Irish how to dance the hora, was mainly wrong,” he says. “It was more like “Gangs of New York”. It changed very slowly, but it did change."
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Oct 11, 2006 9:56:09 AM
This is from another Financial Times article based on the same (Putnam) research. A few more quotes:
"His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor."
It's hard to believe, but the motto of Harvard is "Veritas"...
"Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity"
Once again, Los Angeles as the low point of America, and a warning about our future...
Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history”,
Not that Putnam has anything useful to say about assimilation...
“What we shouldn’t do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us.”
See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c4ac4a74-570f-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html for the Financial Times article.
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Oct 11, 2006 10:02:29 AM
I have worked on automated surveillance systems.
The "alternatives" to a fence are less expensive and less effective. To give you an idea, a single mast with a camera and computer can spot every person and vehicle for hundreds of meters. Make thousands of them, and you have a canonical electronic fence.
Now what? You watch as your system counts the mass of people as they walk right across your border, while you didn't allocate the resources to do anything.
A fence would be an order of magnitube cheaper than an electronic solution. An electronic fence on top of a real one would make the system much more reliable. That is where you have value: deter the honest people, and reliably automatically detect the dishonest ones.
The biggest benifactors of illegal immigration control would be legal immigrants. My guess is that we will pay more attention to calls to import foreign brains when the unskilled, illegal flow is reduced.
Posted by: Ivan at Oct 11, 2006 10:21:02 AM
RE: Putnam's study - Another paper shows that once you control for corruption and some other factors the trust-homogeneity correlation goes away.
Tyler - I made a similar argument - maybe with a fence people will realize the benefits of immigrants and relax the quotas.
Posted by: Chris at Oct 11, 2006 10:25:08 AM
Liberalizing immigration regulations to follow economic demands rather than political ones would pretty much eliminate the need for a fence. Why cross in the middle of a desert when it's much easier to cross at an official checkpoint?
Posted by: shecky at Oct 11, 2006 12:00:42 PM
RE: “Another paper shows that once you control for corruption and some other factors the trust-homogeneity correlation goes away”.
This is funny, if you control for flooding, wind damage, property destruction and mass deaths, hurricanes are really OK. Sure they are.
The Sam Quinones, Los Angeles Times article (see http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-quadruplets28jul28,0,931508.story?coll=la-home-headlines) contains numerous statements about how Open Borders has turned LA into a hell on earth (illegals are fleeing too Kentucky).
If poor unsophisticated illegal immigrants can see the horrors of uncontrolled, low-skill immigration, how is that supposedly smart intellectuals can not? Mindless greed? Class interest? Political correctness? Ideological blinkers? I guess it took a long term for intellectuals to reject communism… Some still haven’t
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Oct 11, 2006 12:26:37 PM
Ivan, thank you for your real world input. Yes, virtual fences are like virtual money. I promise to give everyone on earth as much as they want.
Chris, I liked your quote at the end of your post
“Update: I missed another option, which is probably the most likely of all - the farmers will simply automate picking, replacing labor with capital. This mitigates my enthusiasm for a lesson to be learned by quite a bit.”
However, you don’t seem to have reached the obvious conclusion. Machines for automating crop production are infinitely superior to an ever expanding, imported underclass. That should be obvious to anyone with even a passing interest in economics. Somehow it is not.
Did I mention that in Georgia, wages went up immediately after an immigration crackdown? Poor black people can now get a job? Can’t have that you know. American workers getting a raise? Next think you know someone will suggest that the earth orbits the sun.
Shecky, sure economic demands should drive immigration. Makes sense to me. When US wages fall to Bangladesh levels, immigration will slow down. Not stop of course, because the US does provides welfare, public hospitals, schools, etc. What a glorious vision of the future. I can’t wait.
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Oct 11, 2006 12:59:30 PM
I wonder where we can find some cheap labor to build this gigantic wall.
Posted by: Barbar at Oct 11, 2006 1:00:04 PM
"The "alternatives" to a fence are less expensive and less effective. "
Clearly with my later comments, I meant "more expensive, less effective".
Posted by: Ivan at Oct 11, 2006 2:06:29 PM
Peter:
You who are so eager to pull up the draw bridge, now that you and your family have reached the promised land...seem a little harsh sometimes...but you say in your own defense:
1) These immigrants are breaking the law, and
2) These immigrants are ruining life in America....
And of course, those same charges were made against your family when they first arrived here. Even against those who came before we started restricting immigration very much. They were constantly accused of all sorts of immoralities and law breaking, quite often just because some of those already here were jealous &/or afraid of the hard working newcomers and their "low class" lifestyles. And quite often because laws were crafted specifically to make these newcomers illegal. Which is just what you want more of ! !
Just a wild guess based on your very, very long series of comments.... you may not always obey various laws and norms yourself. Any chance you consistently obey speed limits, get to work when you said you would, pay your taxes to the precise letter of the law? Do you actually know any accountant who would have you take less depreciation than typically accepted because... well... because you know just how much it's value actually depreciated?
As to them ruining our lifestyle (and safety) most Americans live in houses that are twice as big and twice as nice (and several times as safe, if you define safety broadly) as 50 years ago and it's not some remarkable coincidence that lots of creative, hard-working immigrants have poured in from every point of the compass during that period of amazing progress.
Possibly read a little of Julian Simon...possibly find yourself with a kinder view of your fellow man and his potential for good.... possibly find your relationships with friends and family growing much, much richer?
Posted by: Dave Meleney at Oct 11, 2006 2:35:45 PM
Peter Schaeffer,
We have different opinions about the harm and the benefits of Mexican immigrants. I do not favor open borders, but I do favor a large guest worker program. But I'd rather not discuss those issues with you again.
I oppose a 2,000 mile fence for two reasons: it will be an ineffective waste of billions of dollars; it will harm the ecology of the desert Southwest.
I don't understand why you feel a 2,000 mile fence will effectively deter Mexican immigrants. As you pointed out, most illegals initially gained access legally. Furthermore, the existence of so many ladders alongside the San Diego fence indicates Mexicans are not being deterred, only slowed. As the San Diego Union-Tribune reports, border crossers:
"prop up ladders and try to climb over the fence before anyone spots them. Others use ropes to hoist themselves over the top, or shimmy up the 12-foot-tall concrete pillars. ... migrants crawl onto a brick wall on the Mexican side that offers a place to leap over the fence. "
If the Border Patrol cannot stop Mexicans from crossing a 44 mile stretch along the edge of a city, how are they going to stop entry across a 2,000 mile long, mostly wilderness border?
Only a much larger Border Patrol can stop border crossings. And they could do so just as well without the fence that will permanently harm our desert Southwest. The fence is an expensive joke.
Posted by: JohnDewey at Oct 11, 2006 2:51:35 PM
Eisenhower dealt with illegal immigration effectively without passing any laws with "Operation Wetback". The fence won't go all the way there, but it will be a good start, and I think it will be more difficult for future leaders to sneak something with similar results to the 65 act while there is a large physical barrier to be dealt with.
I always laugh my head off when someone points out that my ancestors were immigrants and were likely resented by nativists. Well the first nativists were native americans, and being as inhospitable as possible to the Vikings was the best move they ever made. Letting Europeans move in was the worst thing that ever happened to them. So should the natives of today let ourselves get screwed over just because other people made such a boneheaded mistake in the past or should we ensure our own quality of life? Do I want to live in a United States with a system of property rights and restricted government inherited from the English tradition that other people like enough to seek, or a country with a dysfunctional political system and an economy that causes a huge portion of its citizens to flee (as is the case in latin america and to a much lesser extent has become so in states with high immigration)? Such a tough decision.
Posted by: TGGP at Oct 11, 2006 3:20:34 PM
MSM always have these articles with throwaway lines like "$2,000,000,000 to build a 700 mile fence..." How can that be? How can it cost $100,000,000 to build a mile of highway? Do we just countenance all calculation and bargaining when it comes to public works expenditures? Any southwestern contractor could just empty all the local Home Depots of fencing and day laborers to get that done at less than $250,000,000.
Just a pet peeve, sorry to interrupt.
Also, I loved the line: "Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history”,". I just walked in from a Thai lunch after getting propositioned by some Hasids selling calendars, Hare Krishnas doing god knows, various Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, Japanese and Oakies selling produce at the farmers market, a Jamaican selling potpourri, a Frenchman selling cheese, and passed several British-owned & operated pubs, two silver haired Russian ladies haranguing a deaf Chinese beggar, and I even saw that celebrity "at home" chef guy shooting a bit for T.V. while surrounded by all sorts of production assistants (with, probably, 5 Ivy League degrees among em). Whatever the good professor's conclusions about how awful that is, I dig L.A.'s diversity quite a lot.
Posted by: Who? me? at Oct 11, 2006 3:32:51 PM
TGGP:
Yes, these people have fled countries with worse politics and worse economies.... and you were born here and probably educated in public schools here. And we are to assume you'll help protect our freedoms and institutions better than those who worked so hard and risked so much to get here?
By your own language: "So should the natives of today let ourselves get screwed over just because other people made such a boneheaded mistake in the past or should we ensure our own quality of life?" you seem to see the world substantially as a place where somebody or other is destined to get "screwed over." Hardly the worldview that made America great.
Posted by: Dave Meleney at Oct 11, 2006 3:58:37 PM
As soon as the War on Drugs is won, then we can move onto the War on Honest Hard Workers from other geographical areas.
Posted by: Mr. Econotarian at Oct 11, 2006 4:53:18 PM
Since congress has passed legislation for a 700 mile fence to keep out smugglers and illegal immigrants. One can only assume they are determined to sabotage our economy and waste money. Trying to keep problems out will never make them go away. As long as there is a demand for drugs and illegal workers, there will be a supply. The only thing this wall will do is increase the cost of drugs and illegal workers. With these price increases there will be negative social impacts. If the costs of drugs rise, people wont stop buying them, they might start stealing or doing other illegal activities to finance their addiction. And if there is diminish in the migrant labor pool, crops will go unpicked and our resources wasted.
Why congress cant learn from past mistakes is quite the riddle. If they could spend this "fence money" on reducing the demand for drugs and illegal workers, maybe then some problems might start to be alleviated. On the ironic note, one might wonder how many illegal workers will be used to build this wall?
Posted by: Scott Korfmann at Oct 11, 2006 5:42:15 PM
Peter - I fail to see why machinery is superior to imported labor. Perhaps I'm not so opposed to low-income people from other countries trying to make a living for themselves.
Posted by: Chris at Oct 11, 2006 5:44:34 PM
For those who missed it, there is a fascinating series on a college student-turned-sex worker from South Korea in the SF Chronicle. The most interesting part details how she came to the U.S. illegally. She first went to Mexico and there Korean people-smugglers made a fake U.S. visa for her and she was driven to the legal border crossing between Tijuana and San Diego. There, the car she was in was pulled aside for intensive inspection by customs agents. Panicked, the driver looked around, saw that no customs officials were watching her car while it was idling in the inspection line and simply pulled out of line and drove right across the border without being stopped.
The moral of the story is that expensive technology and fences are no substitute for better border agents and better security at all checkpoints.
Posted by: Mark at Oct 11, 2006 6:14:59 PM
I wonder if the Amish favor a fence around Lancaster county. Y'know, to keep out the lazy, violent, "English" (riff-raff) who just want to take advantage of the high standard of living they have built. And I bet it would be a helluva fence, too.
Posted by: Eric H at Oct 11, 2006 9:31:51 PM
There's little funnier than listening to people who have paid a lot extra to live in a gated community explain why fences can't possibly work.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Oct 11, 2006 10:53:05 PM
Since installing the fences will cause problems the biggest question I have is do these problems outway the benefits of the fence. The article said that the government spent a lot of money installing high tech monitoring equipment along the border and a lot of it is now not working. What is to stop something from happening to the fence that the government wants to set up and causing the government to waste a lot of money.
Posted by: Robert S at Oct 11, 2006 11:09:13 PM
What should pro-transparency forces favor?
Posted by: Douglas Knight at Oct 11, 2006 11:30:00 PM
Hey, Peter, how do feel about murder? Be careful, now. You might have illegally double-parked or drove faster than the speed limit, and you could be accused of hypocrisy if you came out against murder.
Of course, illegal immigration isn't murder. But then, freeway speeding isn't illegal immigration either. There's probably some bad logic in there somewhere when I (almost) accused you of hypocrisy.
Mea maxima culpa.
Posted by: garysixpack at Oct 12, 2006 4:05:00 AM
Steve - Gated communities don't stop crime, they stop loitering and soliciting. There is also a signifigant difference in the incentives to clime over the fence to a gated community that offers nothing but crime and a nation that offers signifigant opportunity.
Posted by: Chris at Oct 12, 2006 10:18:44 AM
