Tough Talkin' Tancredo

Andrew Sullivan doesn't like this Tom Tancredo advertisement:



He compares Tancredo to Rudy, characterizing this tactic as one favored by "small men in search of a balcony," his favorite tag for Rudy. Sorry, but this ad actually has a couple of things going for it. The first is honesty: it uses the phrase "Islamic terrorists," identifying the likely source and motivation for a major terrorist attack. Give Tancredo credit for that, at least.

The second is that Tancredo's proposed security measure -- better border security -- actually has some likelihood of achieving beneficial results. Unlike, say, harassing innocent photographers, or the idiotic security theater at airports, it is actually possible that potential terrorists might seep through our lax border security and commit terrorists acts.

Of course, there's no particular reason for likely Islamic terrorists to go to the trouble of swimming the Rio Grande, or risk heat stroke in the Arizona desert, when they can just get a student visa, like the 9/11 terrorists did. The Bush administration has done all sorts of really stupid things in response to the 9/11 attacks -- undermining the liberty of millions of Americans. Denying student visas to Saudi and Egyptian nationals would have been both simple and effective, and it would neither have expanded government power nor invaded the rights of Americans. So of course the Bush Administration didn't even consider it.

My Top Five Ever

Megan McArdle links to this Ogged post criticizing the whole enterprise of nominating the best blog posts ever. She says she is more interested in what people would pick for their own best blog posts. So interested, she says, that "I'm like, this close to tagging five bloggers . . . except that I'm afraid they wouldn't do it, and then I'd be like that kid who nobody comes to his birthday party."

Megan's display of insecurity is charming, but of course utterly without rationality. She is an A-lost blogger who gets to hang out with all the cool kids. I mean, there is a whole blog dedicated to running her down, which proves that she is a certified A-lister. However, if she is really worried about "tagging" bloggers and having them ignore her, here's a foolproof method: tag five bloggers much lower in status than herself. They will be so delighted to get a link from Megan McArdle that they will probably name their firstborn son "Megan" just to curry favor with her.

In any case, I am so anxious to curry favor with Ms. McArdle that, in addition to naming my firstborn son "Megan," I will do her bidding even without being tagged.

So here they are: the best of The Cheerful Iconoclast.

At number five, I would put this post, entitled "Libertarians Against Vouchers -- Accpeting Members Now." Granted, it's not exactly consistent with my attempt to curry favor with Megan McArdle, since I express disagreement with her, but I hope that the Mighty Megan can tolerate some amount of dissent.

My fourth favorite post continues my pattern of disagreeing with my heroine Ms. McArdle. This is the post where I articulated the cultural rationale for opposing the Bush-McCain immigration amnesty bill. Essentially I argued that American culture is better at wealth-creation and democratic institution-building than Mexican culture, and that letting more Mexicans in is therefore a bad idea.

I've done a lot of blogging on the whole Jena 6 matter, and a number of my posts on that have stood up pretty well. I considered naming my very first post on the matter, in which I called for skepticism on the media narrative. Or the one (linked by Instapundit!) where I said "I told you so." But my favorite Jena 6 post, and my third favorite overall, is the post where I called the Jena 6 a Mob of Cowardly Thugs.

My second favorite post deals with my favorite topic: religion. The title of the post is "Suck It, Jesus. You Too, Mohammed." In it, I defend Kathy Griffin's comments at the Emmy Awards. Note that I don't just defend her right to say them -- I defend the comments themselves.

Finally, in my favorite blog post (so far), I trash Mother Teresa and her Sadomasochistic Theology. Yep, beating up on a nun is even better than showing Rudy in drag.

Marxist Bombings Shut Down Mexican Auto Plants

Via Instapundit, this article about a series of bombings in Southern Mexico by the "Popular Revolutionary Army," a rebel group located in Veracruz. The bombings, which targeted natural gas pipelines, have idled GM, Ford, Chrysler, VW, and Honda plants in Mexico. Glen speculates that Hugo Chavez is behind it, and I suppose he might be right. But, noxious as he is, Chavez is a symptom, not an underlying problem. The underlying problem is that hard-core Marxist leftism continues to have an appeal in Mexico and Latin America. Oh, it's not a majority view -- of course -- but there are enough people who sympathize with such views that "leftist guerillas" are still a problem.

So what does that say about the desirability of importing a few million more Mexican and Latin American immigrants?

What Arrogance! Part 2

Back at the height of the "comprehensive reform"/amnesty debate, I blogged about an Op-Ed by former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Casteneda about American immigration policy. It was an incredibly arrogant editorial, the thesis of which was that the then-proposed "comprehensive" reform -- the one voted down because American stood up and rejected amnesty in on very loud voice -- was too harsh on illegal immigrants in general and Mexicans in particular. The gall was just amazing -- a former Foreign Minister dictating immigration policy to the United States. As if he gets a vote on that issue.

Now, via Rightwing Nuthouse, I find that that former Foreign Minister Castenada has been one-upped in his arrogance -- by none other than the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon. This Houston Chronicle article reports a recent speech made by none other than the President of Mexico -- a speech that blasted American illegal immigration policies while at the same time challenging American sovereignty:

President Felipe Calderon blasted U.S. immigration policies on Sunday and promised to fight harder to protect the rights of Mexicans in the U.S., saying "Mexico does not end at its borders."

The criticism earned Calderon a standing ovation during his first state-of-the nation address.

"We strongly protest the unilateral measures taken by the U.S. Congress and government that have only persecuted and exacerbated the mistreatment of Mexican undocumented workers," he said. "The insensitivity toward those who support the U.S. economy and society has only served as an impetus to reinforce the battle ... for their rights."

He also reached out to the millions of Mexicans living in the United States, many illegally, saying: "Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico."

"Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico."

So let me get this straight. The United States of America isn't free to protect its own physical borders. But Mexico's sovereignty extends to wherever there are Mexicans. What an incredible double standard. I think that the United States ought to have tougher enforcement against illegal aliens, but I don't seek to dictate Mexico's policy toward American illegal aliens in Mexico (if there are any). Cut off their feet and send 'em back in a shipping container, for all I care. If people are in Mexico illegally, do what you want with 'em. But don't seek to dictate American treatment of illegals within our own territory.

Just to be clear, I don't think that a bunch of Mexicans are sitting around in a room cleverly plotting the Reconquista. But here we have the President of Mexico asserting Mexican sovereignty over those portions of the United States which contain Mexicans. I'm flabbergasted -- why does the President of Mexico think he can dictate American immigration policy to America? And why has the President of the United States, George W. Bush, not (to my knowledge) protested this insult to America's sovereignty?

Purely as a Matter of national security, this claim by Mexico makes it imperative for the United States to expell as many ilegal aliens of Mexiican ancestry as possible, and to keep new Mexican illegals from entering. And, further, the US should require any naturalized Americans of Mexican descent to renounce and abjure their Mexican citizenship. To make it abundantly clear that they do not claim the protection of Mexico.

[Editing glitch now fixed.]

Who Counts?

Megan McArdle responds to one of her commenters, "Spencer," who suggests if we limit unskilled and illegal immigration, it will raise wages of those at the bottom and encourage innovation. Which, he argues, will make Americans better off. Megan seems to accept this premise (at least for the sake of argument), but she seems to think that's not enough:

That would seem to make closing the borders a win: Americans get higher wages and more automation. But it assumes that the immigrants themselves have absolutely no moral standing. Their lives aren't made better by the fact that America has automatic fruit picking machines.

This is linguistically misleading in a couple of ways. First of all, if we keep them out, they're not immigrants; they're foreigners who might become immigrants. Second, nobody is arguing that foreigners have no moral standing at all. Immigration restrictionists don't favor hunting them for sport, or bombing their countries at random for our own amusement. Everybody agrees that foreigners have some moral standing.

I think that Steve Sailer has it just about right when he argues for "citizenism" -- that is, American elected officials should tailor our domestic policies, including immigration policy, to benefit current American citizens. After all, we don't expect Mexico, or El Salvador, or Guatemala or even Canada to arrange their policies to benefit us, do we? Their elected officials are elected by their citizens to benefit that political community. Like it or not, until we put in place a world government, the nation-state is the fundamental political unit.

So the short answer to her question is no, the welfare of foreigners who might become immigrants doesn't count. I would arrange immigration policy to benefit current American citizens.

So what would that entail? I am perfectly willing to be convinced that the raw amount of immigration should go down, should stay the same, or even be increased. I'm not wedded to any particular one of these suggestions, but here's a rough cut.

To begin with, most illegal immigrants are unskilled, and, on average, are going to end up being tax-eaters rather than tax-payers. Dramatically reducing illegal immigration has to be top priority. Obvious first step: use physical barriers to seal the border with Mexico. Authorize Border Patrol Agents to use force, including deadly force, against illegal immigrants. It's clear we cannot deport ten or twelve million illegals in one go, but we can streamline the hearing process and hire more immigration judges.

After that, there's a lot we can do to make self-deportation a more desirable choice. Make it a felony to knowingly provide any material assistance to any illegal immigrant -- and by "any material assistance" I mean so much as a glass of water. Certainly setting up a place for day laborers to hang out counts, if you know that lots of them are illegals. Require states and municipalities which receive federal money to cooperate fully with federal immigration authorities. Bar illegal immigrants from receiving any government assistance of any sort.

Once that's done, it's fairly easy to reform the system of legal immigration. To begin with, get rid of chain migration by scaling back family reunification. Limit it to minor children and spouses, not parents, adult children, cousins, nephews, aunts, or uncles. Then select immigrants based on whether they are likely to be tax-payers rather than tax-eaters. As a first approximation, we should look for English fluency, and either scientific or technical skills or demonstrated business acumen. Smart students we let in, even if they are likely to remain in the United States after graduation. Particularly if they are likely to remain in the United States after graduation.

Finally, the United States should actively encourage "brain drain." Not only should we allow the smartest, the most innovative, the most productive people in the world in, but the United States should target, say, ten thousand people a year for active recruitment. We are not competing for land or resources these days, but we are competing for the ultimate resource: brains and talent. So the United States should design its immigration policy with that goal in mind.

Bryan Caplan: What's His Problem?

Economist George Borjas, somebody who goes against the pro-immigration tide among economists, has a new blog. This leads economist Bryan Caplan to ask about Borjas: "what's his problem?" Steve Sailer then accuses Caplan of suffering from "Immigration Derangment Syndrome." I think I know what Caplan's problem is. This post is an example:

George Borjas, the most academically reputable critic of immigration in economics, is now blogging. To be frank, I just don't get him. There isn't a decent economist alive who would oppose free trade in textiles by pointing out that it hurts American textile workers. But Borjas has made a career out of pointing out that unskilled immigration hurts unskilled natives. (The only surprising thing is how small an effect he finds). A major point of economic reasoning, as far as I'm concerned, is going beyond the obvious losers of trade to all of the less-obvious - but equally human - winners.

For Caplan, immigration is just another form of trade. It's trade in labor rather than trade in goods, but, to him, it's all the same thing. He wouldn't care if, instead of illegal immigrants, we imported remote-controlled robots to do the work, with the controllers living comfortably in Mexico.

The problem is, as I pointed out in my post about changes in political culture, when we import immigrants, we aren't just importing economic inputs. We are importing people, people who have beliefs and practices, people who vote in our elections and shape our culture. I'm totally down with free trade -- if we could import remote-controlled robots to mow our lawns and pick our vegetables, I'd be all for it. But the fact is, we can't. and we have to consider the long-run impact on our social, economic, and political culture. And one glance at Mexico and Latin America tells you that it can't be good.

But now, thanks to James Miller over at Tech Central Station, I get the joy of finding out that Caplan's own work supports my argument. As Miller explains:

Although very pro-immigration himself, economist Bryan Caplan provides a powerful argument against allowing millions of new uneducated illegal immigrants to become citizens. As he explains in The Myth of the Rational Voter, the lower a person's level of education, the less likely he is to politically support intelligent economic policies. So providing a path to citizenship for millions of uneducated illegals may eventually provide millions of votes for harmful economic policies.

In other words, while opening up the borders may well be a more libertarian thing to do, it is likely to lead to a far less libertarian society in the long term, because the poorer, less-educated immigrants are likely to vote for bad economic policies. Well, I understand why Democrats want legalization. It's still not clear why President George W. Bush wants to do it.

And Miller makes another point as well, one that seems pretty obvious. Low-wage immigrants end up using government services which cost us all money:

Much of the cost of new immigrants comes from the government services they consume. In 1900 the U.S. provided relatively few government benefits to anyone, so poorly paid immigrants couldn't become too much of a burden on the economy. Today, however, government spending is about five times larger (as a percentage of the economy) than it was in 1900. And legal immigrants today have the right to consume considerable government services. Indeed, according to the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector, in 1994 the average low-skilled immigrant household received $30,160 in direct governmental benefits. But this same average family paid only $10,573 in taxes. As a result, low skilled immigrants are net tax eaters. (But read this for a contrary view.) The difference between the taxes paid by unskilled immigrants and the government benefits these immigrants receive is mostly made up by taxes imposed on U.S. citizens. Such additional taxes slow our economy.

It's a classic example of the theory of the second best. Sure, we'd be better off if we had no welfare state. But we aren't the sink-or-swim country we were in 1900, and one of the prices we pay for this relatively more-lavish welfare state is that poor immigrants end up getting the benefits. Note that I'm not saying that they're lazy and shiftless people who come here to get welfare. I'm sure they work very hard, for low pay. But these social services are available, and they would be idiots not to take advantage of them.

For whatever reason, Caplan seems to have this blind spot where immigration is concerned. Sure, the principle of comparative advantage tells us there are gains from trade. But there are also some pretty hefty externalities, which he doesn't seem to want to consider.

And let me add this, something else that is wrong with him. Read this other passage from Caplan:

Borjas' latest post just reinforces my puzzlement. He blogs his research showing that immigration increases black crime by reducing black wages. In other words, "The immigrants made me do it." I'm not surprised by the result, but I'd think the obvious solution (drug legalization aside) is harsher punishments for a few thousand murderers, not exile for millions of hard-working immigrants.

"Exile"? "Exile"? Dude, they're illegal immigrants. They have no legal right to be here in the first place. If I am kicked out of France it's hardly an "exile." Exile is being kicked out of your home. Sending them back home isn't "exile."

Might I suggest that this particularly bad turn of phrase is revealing indeed. As an economist, Bryan Caplan is trained to think about everybody's welfare equally. To him, a unit of social utility is a unit of social utility -- if illegal immigration makes (current) Mexicans better off and worsens the life of (current) Americans, well, it's good if the benefits to the Mexicans are greater than the costs to us. In this sense, Caplan's loyalties are to humanity, and not to the United States and his fellow citizens.

He's entitled to take that view if he pleases. But surely the rest of us are entitled to weigh the costs to ourselves and our fellow Americans above those to current Mexicans. And surely we have the right to expect the President of the United States to act as our agent in this matter. I just castigated the Foreign Minister of Mexico for his arrogance. But, even so, I expect him to put his loyalty to his own country first. I expect the same of our President, George W. Bush.

What Arrogance!

Steve Sailer comments on this New York Times Op-Ed by former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Casteneda. This is a former Mexican foreign minister writing in an American newspaper telling us what our immigration policy ought to be. What arrogant presumption.

At first, I read Sailer's excerpts from the Op-Ed, and it is basically a list of demands. Now, when I read the excerpts over at Sailer's I assumed there had to be more -- Castenada had to make some argument as to why these demands would be good for the United States, why we should accept them. Nope. He just says what Mexico wants, and give us no indication as to why we should, you know, care.

His list of objections to the bill is particularly arrogant:

First, it has unduly harsh enforcement provisions at the border and the workplace, which will undoubtedly generate abuses and mistreatment. Still, if every Mexican in the United States who arrived before Jan. 1, 2007, is legalized, enforcement inside the United States, including discriminatory raids, will become redundant. And if nearly everyone who wants to go north can obtain a guest-worker visa, there will be no need to cross illegally and face rough treatment at the border.

A second objectionable feature is the steep fines
and fees in the Senate bill: up to $5,000. While this is not cheap, it’s also not much more than the “coyote” charges to smuggle a migrant across the border.

The last objection is more substantive; it is, in fact, a potential deal breaker. The Senate voted last week to cut the number of guest worker slots to 200,000 from 400,000. The earlier figure would have allowed roughly the same number of workers who now cross illegally to obtain guest status. But if the final law has too few slots, it will not end illegal immigration, but simply perpetuate the status quo.

Deal Breaker? DEAL BREAKER? Listen Mr. Foreign Minister, this isn't a treaty, it's a law passed by the United States Congress dealing with a purely domestic matter. You aren't a party to the deal. If we want to close the border, we have that right to do that. And if you're worried about the "rough treatment" your citizens receive at the borders, well, you can try to stop them from coming here illegally yourself, rather than aiding and abetting them. Or you could actually try to fix the problems of your own country, so that illegals don't want to come here.

But leave aside his arrogance for a moment, and look at what he wants. He doesn't want any sort of tough enforcement. He doesn't want illegals to have to pay any fines or suffer any consequences. And he wants a guest-worker program that lets in the same number who come her illegally anyway. In other words, he wants us to legalize all past illegal immigrants, and to prevent future illegal immigrants by just letting everybody in who wants to come.

And he says this bill gives him nearly everything he wants.

Mexicans Show Their Class

Powerline, the folks at Pajamas Media and Michelle Malkin have all covered the disgraceful incident at the Miss Universe Pageant in Mexico City. Anxious to make excuses for this classless behavior, Julian Sanchez suggests it's because the average Mexican is "acutely aware of" and "vehemently opposed" to American policy -- presumably immigration policy.

As Ms. Malkin observed, this isn't the first time Mexicans have been inexcusably rude to Americans competing in their country -- in 2004 boos drowned out the Star Spangled Banner, and some Mexicans even chanted "Osama! Osama!" at our soccer team.

I suspect, contra Sanchez, that they just don't like us. Probably because we are, you know, a far more successful and prosperous country than them.

And even if it's true -- what the hell right do they have to be pissed about OUR immigration policy? We can let in as many Mexicans as we want. It is our country, after all.

"Amnesty"

Representative Arthur Davis (D-Alabama) is on C-Span while we await Monica's return. It's quite amazing -- he says he doesn't favor amnesty, but he defines "amnesty" as letting illegals off Scot-free. Since there are some consequences, he says, the new bill isn't "amnesty."

To me, any bill that lets current illegals stay in the United States is an amnesty.

The Immigration Bill

It seems that the Bush-Kennedy-McCain immigration bill is provoking some harsh reactions. Even Hugh Hewitt is skeptical about the bill, and when Hewitt is skeptical of something George W. Bush is doing, well, it suggests that that Bush is in it deep.

I think that Jonah Goldberg has the politics of it about right when he says that there is zero trust for President Bush on this, right now. That is, even if the bill has some elements that immigration reformers might support, like an ending of chain migration and an English requirement, promises of future enforcement don't work, because such promises are not believed. We'll get the amnesty, but the tougher enforcement and English requirements will be vaporware.

The point is that several million illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico and Latin America, will get legalized nearly immediately if this bill passes. It is easy to make fun of those who have qualms about massive Latin American immigration as a bunch of racist bigots or know-nothings. At the same time, however, it's worth noting one raw fact: The United States has a per capita GDP of $43,500 per year. Mexico's per capita GDP is $10,600 per year.

Many take this is a fact of life -- we're a rich country and they're a poor country, and that's just the way things are. They don't ask why the United States is more than four times richer than Mexico, on a per capita basis.

It seems fairly clear that our culture is, in terms of creating the sort of society which produces material wealth, superior to theirs. Now, it may be that Mexicans are happier than Americans, or more spiritually-enlightened, or better in other respects. But, in terms of the ability to produce huge piles of wealth, we've got it. I don't pretend to know everything that goes into this. Maybe it's about corruption and the rule of law, or the value of education, or the nuclear versus extended family, or the role of the Catholic Church and religion. Whatever causes the differences, it's clear that, over the long run, American political culture has been more successful than Mexico's, and that the Mexicans who come to the United States will bring much of that culture with them.

As an American, much as I enjoy Tex-Mex cuisine, I do not want the United States becoming socially or economically more like Latin America and Mexico. If we legalize ten or twelve million immigrants now, it seems likely that we will move further in that direction. Particularly since it is is predictable that we will have another amnesty in 2026, just as we had one before in 1986.

I understand why George W. Bush is quite happy with the notion of the United States becoming a country where patrons live happily in big houses on the hill while peons gather below in their squalid huts. George W. Bush is constitutionally incapable of imagining himself or any member of his family ending up in one of the huts below. Same with Teddy Kennedy and quite a few of his buddies in the Senate. I understand why rich people want more immigration -- it means cheaper servants and cheaper meals at fancy restaurants. I even understand why Democratic politicians want it -- they believe, probably correctly, that the Democrats will end up the political winners.

What I don't understand is why ordinary liberals support this. Liberals claim to be worried about wealth distribution, about the gap between rich and poor. Well, surely adding tens of millions of poor people from Mexico and Latin America over the next decade or so will add to that gap. They claim to want to help the little guy, less skilled workers who have been left behind over the last couple of decades. My liberal friends, those less skilled workers whom you claim to be worried about are competing with illegal immigrants for entry-level and low-skill jobs. They want a generous welfare state, with lots of social services. Surely you know that a generous welfare state is less feasible when you have twenty million more relatively poor people in the United States. It's crazy -- this amnesty will won't help the cause of genuine liberalism, or the constituencies liberals purport to want to help.

O'Reilly!

Oliver Willis thinks that Bill O'Reilly has gone crazy. Looking at this Youtube video, he does kind of have a point -- O'Reilly seems to be a bit out of control. I'm not a defender of Bill O'Reilly; I think he's an ignorant, arrogant blowhard, and, even worse, a bit of a bully to people who appear on his show.

In this case, however, O'Reilly isn't being his usual bullying self, because his interlocutor is Geraldo Rivera, a longtime TV veteran himself who is more than comfortable and able to hold his own in a TV environment. He's not picking on some poor schlub who's squinting at the lights; he's going toe-to-toe with a worthy adversary. As Ann Althouse says of Geraldo, "He's going to hold his own and he does. O'Reilly knows he can roll out his righteous anger in a grandly theatrical way and he does." However Geraldo and O'Reilly might differ, they both have a flair for dramatic showmanship, and that's what they're doing.

It's also worth noting that Willis makes a fairly common mistake among folks on the left -- he identifies O'Reilly as being a "conservative." O'Reilly may have some cultural conservative leangings -- he hammers rappers whose music he finds objectionable, and he likes to highlight cases of child molesters whose sentences are too lenient. His overall views are all over the map. If he's anything, O'Reilly is a right-leaning populist. But he's certainly not a movement conservative, or a Republican "team player" like, say, Rush Limbaugh.

Oh, and on the substantive argument, for once O'Reilly has a point. Allison Kunhardt (17), and Tessa Tranchant (16) were killed by a 22-year-old illegal immigrant with a history of arrests, at least one of which appears to have been alcohol-related. Why isn't the fact that he had been previously arrested, but not deported, a relevant question? The fact is that he's here illegally, and two teenage girls are dead because of his conduct. If he had been deported earlier, they would not be dead.

And Geraldo's notion that we "lured" the illegal immigrants here is ludicrous. "Lured," how? By having a more successful economy than Mexico and other Latin American countries? That's our fault? How? Rivera is simply being deliberately obtuse.