Friday, February 24, 2006

Not Mastercard, it's Mexican Express

Backfill underfunded Federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP):
Governor's revised 2003-2005 budget


753 prison inmates with ICE holds @ $23,389.20 /year:
My ICE detainer list and simple math


Inflated housing prices, wasted school resources, crime victims, drugs and having to learn Spanish to survive in America:



BEAR said...

This should be expanded to national numbers and handed to J.D. Hayworth. Brief, and so eloquent. Kudos, Daniel.

Brent said...

Daniel -- do you know how many of the wetbacks living in Woodburn-Salem area are illegal?

Sue K. said...

Daniel, The following will appear in the Sunday edition of the Gazette Times (Corvallis) and the Democrat Herald (Albany). It is an opinion piece by Hasso Hering.

Consider an open border with Mexico

John Trumbo, the sheriff of Umatilla County, has asked Mexico to pay for the upkeep of inmates from that country who came to the United States illegally. It’s a good occasion once again to address the relationship between the U.S. and our neighbor to the south.

Mexico will not, of course, pay Umatilla County anything. It has no more reason to do so than does any other country whose citizens come to the United States and then get arrested.

In addition, as the Mexican consul general in Oregon properly pointed out, if some Mexican citizens add to the cost of the Pendleton jail, other Mexican citizens also add to the revenue of the government there by working in the economy, earning and spending money and paying taxes. So as far as the county and the state are concerned, the money angle is probably a wash.

Trumbo’s request, though, has indirectly opened another line of inquiry: Why don’t Mexico and the United States cooperate more broadly on a lot of things so that the question of the border would matter less?

We have the North American Free Trade Agreement, which links the economies of the United States, Mexico and Canada. But this arrangement doesn’t seem to extend to the movement of people.

If it did, there would be no such person as an illegal alien from Mexico — or Canada — in the United States. Instead, citizens of each would be free to move from any one of the three countries to one of the others. They could live where they wanted and work wherever they were qualified to work, or where their labor was wanted and needed. In fact, Mexico already allows Americans to come in and stay indefinitely if they can support themselves.

This isn’t such a radical notion. Europe has worked out something like it with the European Union. As far as trade and the movement of people are concerned, borders have disappeared. But the countries themselves continue to exist. Europeans still live in their same old countries and under their same old laws, with some modifications to promote continental unity.

Look at the potential benefits if we did something similar in North America. No more hassling of Hispanics in Oregon. No more building of fences along the border. No more deaths of migrants in the Sonora Desert. No more disputes over whether Oregon and other states should issue driver’s licenses. Reforms in Mexico (we must hope) to raise living standards of those people who now feel their only choice for economic survival is to sneak into the United States.

Sure, there are all kinds of potential pitfalls. But if borders can be erased in a continent that includes economies as diverse as Sweden and Sicily, North America should be able to do the same. (hh)

I think it is time for me to cancel my subscription (again).

BEAR said...

So, Mr. Hering, " far as the county and the state are concerned the money angle is probably a wash." If I can do my math correctly, that means that for every dollar of benefit produced by illegal aliens (including, I presume, the multiplier effect of dollars spent in the communities) another dollar of cost is incurred. That translates to a 100% tax on that benefit....but no, since $14-$16 BILLION is sent back to Mexico each year from this country, the economy suffers exponentially. Illegals are not paying taxes, anyway. Yeah, let's open THAT border. We're losing money on every transaction, but we'll make it up on volume! You'd better hope the accountant at your paper doesn't think like that.

Anonymous said...

Bear, Daniel, et al. --

The question of the impact of immigrants on the US economy is an empirical one and sociologists, economists and demographers have spent a considerable amount of time investigating it. Thus far, even accounting for remittances, there seems to be no conclusive evidence either way. The National Research Council Commissioned a Study that found immigrants to have a short-run negative impact, about $200 per household, that eventually turned positive in the long run. These results were written up in a book by James Smith and Barry Edmonston (1997). Also, in 1994, Jeff Passel found that the country gained $30 Billion from the presence of both authorized and unauthorized immigrants. Moreover, Douglas Massey, who has a book on the OFIR recommended reading list found that nearly 75% of undocumented migrants paid federal taxes. Such work seems to contradict your assertion that immigrants are bad for the economy, based on what?

Great piece by Hering. The EU-model seems to be working pretty well. What started as a mechanism to avoid intracontinental war has turned out to be a pretty nice economic and global-political arrangement. I was in Europe all last Summer, and there seems to be know apparent loss to national identity, which was one of the concerns.

Anonymous said...

Are you chicano?

America is a continent. not a country