Minor Thoughts from me to you

David Bier writing at Reason.com, making one of my favorite points.

Migration is the exact opposite of an invasion. Nearly all these so-called invaders are coming to serve Americans. This supposed invasion will contribute to the strength and prosperity of the United States, not undermine it. This isn't Santa Anna's soldiers crossing the Rio Grande. It's four kids with their mom reuniting with their dad at a farm outside of Atlanta. They're not coming to blow us up or take our stuff—they're coming to work with us, work for us, and buy our products. They want to be us, not conquer us. And that's the most important point: A crackdown on migration does not vindicate the rights of Americans to be free from foreign attackers. Rather, it is a violation of our rights to associate, contract, and trade with peaceful people born in other countries.

The fact that these actions are so often illegal is lamentable. But Congress could pass a law tomorrow to legalize migration (as it in fact did for the first century of American history). The illegal part of illegal immigration is a problem easily solved by Congress. It does not warrant the suspension of habeas corpus or calling up militias to shoot the "invaders."

∞

As we prepare to celebrate America's Independence Day, it's important to stop, reflect, and remember what it is that America stands for. Shikha Dalmia, writing for Reason.com, offers a hint.

For months now, the Trump administration has been literally kidnapping children from parents arriving at the border in search of asylum and sending them off to prison-like detention camps thousands of miles away. In one particularly egregious case, authorities seized the 7-year-old daughter of a mother fleeing violence in Congo. Without offering her any explanation, they dispatched her little girl to a Chicago camp while holding the mother in San Diego. The mom wasn't being punished because she was trying to sneak in illegally. She presented herself to immigration authorities exactly as she was supposed to and even passed an initial screening to determine if she had a "credible fear" of harm in her home country. It took the ACLU four months of dogged petitioning before the distraught mother and the traumatized daughter were finally reunited.

In another case, an 18-month-old boy was taken away from his Honduran mother, who arrived at the Texas border. She showed the authorities copious records to prove that she was in fact the infant's mom, but they didn't care. They ordered her to place her baby in a government vehicle and drove him away to a San Antonio facility while she wept helplessly and her terrified son screamed inconsolably. She herself was detained in a facility in Taylor, Texas.

The administration pretends that these are isolated incidents but, in fact, a _New York Times_ investigation a few weeks ago found more than 700 cases of parents and children separated just since October, including 100 under the age of 4. The ACLU has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the parents.

Happy Fourth of July, everyone!

(Addendum: Yes, I'm aware that this article is 2 months old. It's still a good introduction to this particular horrible policy, for anyone who's been living under a rock. And I like the way Shikha Dalmia framed the issue.)

∞

Evangelical Christians are forming the backbone of President Trump's support — and driving the Republican Party's anti-immigrant agenda. I thought I'd review my Bible to see what God had to say about how his people should treat immigrants, the strangers and the sojourners.

You Were Immigrants

God reminds his people that they were the immigrants in Egypt. (Fleeing, let us remember, economic collapse in their own land.)

Exodus 22:21:

"You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

Exodus 23:9:

"You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 10:17–19:

For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. —

Treat Immigrants Well

God wants his people to treat immigrants well, to leave work for them to do, giving them a way to support themselves.

Leviticus 19:10, 33–34:

And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God. … "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 23:22:

"And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God."

Leviticus 25:35:

"If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you.

Deuteronomy 14:28–29:

"At the end of every three years you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in the same year and lay it up within your towns. And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall come and eat and be filled, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do.

Deuteronomy 24:14–22:

"You shall not oppress a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns. You shall give him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets (for he is poor and counts on it), lest he cry against you to the LORD, and you be guilty of sin.

"Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

"You shall not pervert the justice due to the sojourner or to the fatherless, or take a widow's garment in pledge, but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this.

"When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you beat your olive trees, you shall not go over them again. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow. When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not strip it afterward. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.

You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I command you to do this.

You Are Immigrants in God's Land

In fact, the Israelites are now living in land that God gave them, making them immigrants into God's land.

Leviticus 25:23:

"The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me.

1 Chronicles 29:15:

For we are strangers before you and sojourners, as all our fathers were. Our days on the earth are like a shadow, and there is no abiding.

God Condemns His People For Mistreating Immigrants

And God uses his prophets to tell people that He's not happy about the way that they've been treating immigrants.

Ezekiel 22:7,29:

Father and mother are treated with contempt in you; the sojourner suffers extortion in your midst; the fatherless and the widow are wronged in you. … The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery. They have oppressed the poor and needy, and have extorted from the sojourner without justice.

Zechariah 7:8–12:

And the word of the LORD came to Zechariah, saying, "Thus says the LORD of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart."

But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears that they might not hear. They made their hearts diamond-hard lest they should hear the law and the words that the LORD of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. Therefore great anger came from the LORD of hosts.

Malachi 3:5:

"Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts.

How You Treat Immigrants Is How You Treat Jesus

Finally, Jesus sees how we treat others as a direct reflection of whether or not we love Him.

Matthew 25:35–46:

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'

And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'

Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?'

Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Arizona's immigration laws have hurt its economy. The 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) attempts to force unauthorized immigrants out of the workplace with employee regulations and employer sanctions. The 2010 Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (SB 1070) complements LAWA by granting local police new legal tools to enforce Arizona's immigration laws outside of the workplace.

LAWA's mandate of E-Verify, a federal electronic employee verification system, and the "business death penalty," which revokes business licenses for businesses that repeatedly hire unauthorized workers, raise the costs of hiring all employees and create regulatory uncertainty for employers. As a result, employers scale back legal hiring, move out of Arizona, or turn to the informal economy to eliminate a paper trail. SB 1070's enforcement policies outside of the workplace drove many unauthorized immigrants from the state, lowered the state's population, hobbled the labor market, accelerated residential property price declines, and exacerbated the Great Recession in Arizona.

LAWA, E-Verify, and the business death penalty are constitutional and are unlikely to be overturned; however the Supreme Court recently found that some sections of SB 1070 were preempted by federal power. States now considering Arizona-style immigration laws should realize that the laws also cause significant economic harm. States bear much of the cost of unauthorized immigration, but in Arizona's rush to find a state solution, it damaged its own economy.

∞

This is absolutely wrong and is a very good example of why the current hysteria over illegal immigration is a bad thing. We are a nation of immigrants. We shouldn't be so paranoid about immigrants that we're willing to treat citizens like crooks.

In a spate of recent cases across the country, American citizens have been confined in local jails after federal immigration agents, acting on flawed information from Department of Homeland Security databases, instructed the police to hold them for investigation and possible deportation.

Americans said their vehement protests that they were citizens went unheard by local police and jailers for days, with no communication with federal immigration agents to clarify the situation.

∞

Initially, I was cheered by this story: Yard signs welcoming immigrants to Madison are starting to appear on the snow-piled landscape..

The signs say "Immigrants Welcome" printed in English, Hmong and Spanish. The word "Welcome" also is handwritten in six languages: English, Hmong, Spanish, Norwegian, German and Arabic, by members of immigrant families in Wisconsin.

"We've heard a lot of angry anti-immigrant sentiment. We're glad to be giving people an opportunity to express welcome and love to immigrants," said Janet Parker, co-chairwoman of Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice.

Well, they sound like hippies, but at least I can agree with the message. I like immigrants and I'm glad that they see the United States as a good place to live and work. We must be doing something right.

Then I read down a bit further:

Parker said her group supports the work of immigrant rights groups like the Workers' Rights Center and Immigrant Workers' Union in Madison and Voces de la Frontera in Milwaukee.

"We see the war in Iraq as intrinsically tied to the war against immigrants," Parker said. "At the core, they are both about racism."

Ah, no. No, no, no. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with racism. Anyone who sincerely holds that opinion has tapioca between their ears. Also, Voces de la Frontera is a bit of an unsavory group.

As reported earlier members of Voces de la Frontera violated the home of State Senator Cathy Stepp last night shouting and attempting to intimidate her into signing driver license legislation for illegal immigrants.

I took the following from their website:

Description of Agency/Activities: Voces de la Frontera is a low-wage and immigrant worker's center that opened in Nov. 2001. The center was created to respond to the immediate problems low-wage immigrant workers face. The center provides a legal clinic where workers can obtain free legal advice about labor and civil rights, as well as ongoing English language and citizenship classes. The agency provides classes to train workers and other immigrants about discrimination, OSHA regulations, labor laws, worker's compensation, legalization and work visas, and more day-to-day topics such as how to obtain a driver's license, how to buy a house, and how to fill out taxes and open bank accounts. Ongoing campaigns include legalization and access to higher education for immigrant students.

Notice any trend there? All kinds of training on how to get government cash and sue people, nothing on job training or English language courses or fitting into society.

Don't expect to find one of those yard signs in my lawn. Not if buying the sign means supporting groups like Voces de la Frontera.

The Republican party thought it had the perfect issue to both rev up the base and angry blue collar Democrats -- attack immigration. After all, the Republican base supposedly hates the idea of people breaking the law and entering America without Uncle Sam's express written permission. And blue collar Democrats hate the idea of someone "stealing" their job by accepting lower wages.

All the Republicans needed to do was push for an "enforcement only" immigration bill. Refuse to do anything about our mess of immigration laws until the border had been locked down tight. "No changes without fences!" was their rallying cry. Republicans like John Kyle and John McCain, who tried to push for a comprehensive bill, were demonized and ostracized.

The strategy failed miserably. Instead of turning out the vote for the GOP, it destroyed whatever inroads the GOP had previously made with Latino voters. Richard Nadler, of America's Majority, recently completed an in-depth study of how the Republicans' position on immigration affected Latino voters. The results aren't pretty.

Nadler wrote about his results in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal.

Undocumented Latinos constitute 3.8% of the American work force. But these 5.6 million workers are a mere fraction of the 17.3 million Latino citizens 18 years or older. Of these, 4.4 million are themselves foreign born.

In my recent study for the Americas Majority Foundation entitled "Border Wars: The Impact of Immigration on the Latino Vote," I document not what Hispanics opined, but how they actually voted, given a clear choice between advocates of "enforcement first" and comprehensive immigration reform. The results, based on returns from 145 heavily Hispanic precincts and over 100,000 tabulated votes, indicate this: Immigration policies that induce mass fear among illegal residents will induce mass anger among the legal residents who share their heritage.

In these three races, Republicans' vote share in heavily Latino precincts dropped 22 percentage points.

What does this mean nationwide? Republicans' presidential Hispanic vote share increased to 40% in 2004 from 21% in 1996. In 2004, Latinos comprised 6% of the electorate, but 8.1% of the voter-qualified citizenry. With the partisan margin shrinking, the incentive for major Hispanic registration efforts by either party was scant.

That changed in 2006, when the GOP's Hispanic vote share declined by 10%. And, as we have seen, the drop was twice as precipitous where Republicans disavowed comprehensive immigration reform. With the huge wedge in vote share that "enforcement-only" opened, the cost-effectiveness of voter-registration efforts improved dramatically -- for Democrats.

Great work guys. Can we finally put to rest the idea that slamming shut the border and demonizing entire racial groups is a good way to win elections? Can we finally start working on a way to fix the entire immigration process rather than pretending that a border fence is the only thing missing?

Eduardo Gonzalez is a petty officer second class, in the U.S. Navy. He's a naturalized citizen. His wife, Mildred, is not. Eduardo is about to be deployed to overseas. His wife may not be in the States, by the time he gets back.

In Gonzalez's case, his wife, Mildred, came to the United States with her mother in 1989 when she was 5 years old. They were granted political asylum because of their status as war refugees from Guatemala.

In September 2000, Mildred's mother applied for legalization and included her daughter in that application. Her mother was granted legal status in July 2004, according to Gonzalez.

However, six weeks earlier, Gonzalez and Mildred got married, canceling Mildred's ability to apply for legal status through her mother because she was no longer an unmarried daughter under the age of 21. As a result, her legal status still remains in jeopardy.

A judge in June granted her a one-year extension to remain in the United States. If her legal status does not change by June 8, 2008, she will have 60 days to voluntarily leave the country or face deportation.

Why do we still have an immigration system that's more interested in kicking Mildred out of the country than in welcoming her into the country? Why did it take four years for her mother to be legalized? Will it take another four years for her to legalized?

Eduardo is serving this country, putting his life on the line. Are we really going to reward him by kicking his wife back to Guatemala -- a country she hasn't lived in for 17 years -- and making her go through "the line" for the next 4-10 years? Do we really want to send the world a message saying "Stay Out! America for Americans Only!"

It sure looks to me like that's what we're doing. And we don't have to. All we need to do is change immigration law. The law should treat relatives of the military as though we actually value the sacrifice that the military makes. That law should provide an easy, relatively painless process to enter the country -- not the labyrinthian mess that we have now. Why is doing the right thing so hard?

Finally, comments like this are hardly helpful.

That's just fine, according to Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which lobbies for tougher laws on illegal immigration.

"What you're talking about is amnesty for illegal immigrants who have a relative in the armed forces, and that's just outrageous," he said. "What we're talking about here is letting lawbreakers get away with their actions just because they have a relative in the military. ... There's no justification for that kind of policy."

Lawbreakers? Mildred isn't a lawbreaker. She immigrated and was granted asylum because her homeland was tearing itself apart. She spent her entire life her. She wants to spend the rest of her life her. And you're calling her a lawbreaker?

Give me a break.

The truth is, I really enjoy saying "I told you so". So I read this article with great pleasure and much chuckling.

A little more than a year ago, the Township Committee in [Riverside, NJ, a] faded factory town became the first municipality in New Jersey to enact legislation penalizing anyone who employed or rented to an illegal immigrant.

Within months, hundreds, if not thousands, of recent immigrants from Brazil and other Latin American countries had fled. The noise, crowding and traffic that had accompanied their arrival over the past decade abated.

The law had worked. Perhaps, some said, too well.

With the departure of so many people, the local economy suffered. Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet; several closed. Once-boarded-up storefronts downtown were boarded up again.

Here's the town's former mayor, on the law:

"The business district is fairly vacant now, but it's not the legitimate businesses that are gone," he said. "It's all the ones that were supporting the illegal immigrants, or, as I like to call them, the criminal aliens."

Or, as I like to call them, taxpayers and the backbone of the local economy.

Many people want to limit immigration in order to provide more jobs to Americans. They theorize that without lots of immigrants willing to work for cheap labor, farmers and businesses will be forced to employ more Americans, at higher wages.

It's a nice theory. But that's all it is. The law of unintended consequences applies even to immigration policy. Rather than accepting a loss of Mexican field hands, farmers are being to move their fields to Mexico.

Steve Scaroni, a farmer from California, looked across a luxuriant field of lettuce here in central Mexico and liked what he saw: full-strength crews of Mexican farm workers with no immigration problems.

Farming since he was a teenager, Mr. Scaroni, 50, built a $50-million business growing lettuce and broccoli in California's Imperial Valley, relying on the hands of immigrant workers, most of them Mexicans and many probably in the United States illegally.

But early last year he began shifting part of his operation to rented fields here. Now some 500 Mexicans tend his crops in Mexico, where they run no risk of deportation.

"I'm as American red-blood as it gets," Mr. Scaroni said, "but I’m tired of fighting the fight on the immigration issue."

Oops.

This post is a random grab bag of what I found interesting this weekend.

A Long Line for a Shorter Wait at the Supermarket. A search for higher customer satisfaction (and higher profits) led Whole Foods to revamp their checkout lines.

Lines can also hurt retailers. Starbucks spooked investors last summer when it said long lines for its cold beverages scared off customers. Wal-Mart, too, has said that slow checkouts have turned off many.

And they are easily turned off. Research has shown that consumers routinely perceive the wait to be far longer than it actually is.

Whole Foods executives spent months drawing up designs for a new line system in New York that would be unlike anything in their suburban stores, where shoppers form one line in front of each register.

The result is one of the fastest grocery store lines in the city. An admittedly unscientific survey by this reporter found that at peak shopping times "” Sunday, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. "” a line at Whole Foods checked out a person every 4.5 seconds, compared with 19.6 seconds for a line at Trader Joe's.

Put Kieran on a poster. A student in Saskatchewan, Canada learned that independent learning is a quick route to the principal's office.

King, who is in Grade 10 at a high school in tiny Wawota, Sask., started researching marijuana after he and his fellow students were given an audiovisual presentation about drugs earlier in the year. The presentation, from his entirely believable description, was typical of its kind: short on background facts and long on horror stories.

On May 30, Kieran, who is described as "research-obsessed" by his mother, was chatting with friends around the school lunch table and telling them about what he'd discovered, largely from scholarly and government sources. He argued that marijuana carries a near-zero risk of overdose, that it has been approved by Health Canada for medical use and that it kills an infinitesimal fraction of the people that alcohol and tobacco do every week -- claims so uncontroversial you'd have to be high on something much stronger than pot to dispute them.

But one of the students who'd witnessed the conversation apparently finked to the warden. (From this day forward I'm going to avoid the use of the term "principal." If schools are going to be run like prisons, let's adopt the appropriate lingo.) Boss bull Susan Wilson ordered Kieran to stop talking about marijuana on school premises -- even though he had been outside the classroom, where school officials have to meet a justifiably high standard before interfering with a student's freedom of speech -- and later she called his mother to warn her that "promoting drug use" would not be tolerated. According to the education director of the school division, she was also told "if there were any drugs brought into the school, the police could be involved."

Next up, robots may make arguments over illegal immigrants moot. Farms Fund Robots to Replace Migrant Fruit Pickers

Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.

The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the migrant labor force. Farmers are "very, very nervous about the availability and cost of labor in the near future," says Vision Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa.

Once again, we see an example of political uncertainty leading companies to make investments and decisions that they wouldn't ordinarily make. Something to keep in mind anytime Congress starts debating something -- the debate itself can affect the real world.

Finally, many men are so afraid of child molestation accusations that they're no longer volunteering for any position that would put them near children. See Daily Pundit » Where Are The Big Brothers?.

The article sets out a number of possible reasons men don't volunteer at Big Brothers-Big Sisters in greater numbers "“ but the fact that the rate at BB-BS is less than the overall average for volunteer-based organizations moves me to throw out an undiscussed possibility: men are afraid of having their lives destroyed by a false accusation, and fear the BB-BS will protect itself by throwing its resources behind the accuser.

In Arizona, almost 60 percent of grade school principals and nearly 90 percent of teachers are women. Six years ago, the majority of principals were men. Some schools have no men, meaning kids may not have a male teacher or principal until middle or high school. It's the same picture nationally.

... Scottsdale's Serna said the fear of being accused of inappropriate touching or abuse has made lots of educators uncomfortable. Many administrators and teachers leave the profession out of fear of lawsuits or false accusations.

Two stories caught my attention this morning. First, the current immigration bill would create a work database for all Americans.

The so-called Employment Eligibility Verification System would be established as part of a bill that senators began debating on Monday...

All employers -- at least 7 million, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- would be required to verify identity documents provided by both existing employees and potential hires, the legislation says. The data, including Social Security numbers, would be provided to Homeland Security, on penalty of perjury, and the government databases would provide a work authorization confirmation within three business days.

Even parents who hire nannies might be covered. The language in the bill, called the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act, defines an employer as "any person or entity hiring, recruiting, or referring an individual for employment in the United States" and does not appear to explicitly exempt individuals or small businesses. (Its Senate sponsors did not immediately respond on Monday to queries on this point.)

Why is this considered a good idea? One screw-up by the government and American citizens will be legally barred from working. What kind of controls will there be on this database? How will you challenge a denial of your work authorization? How will you know that someone in Washington didn't put you into the database out of sheer spite? This is a bad, bad, bad idea.

Secondly, Ed Morrissey relays the story of a sex slavery ring that exploited illegal immigrants.

The women came mostly from Mexico and Central America.

When they arrived in Minnesota, the women had their passports and other identifying documents taken away and they were forced into a world of prostitution. In one night, two women serviced more than 80 men in a south Minneapolis house.

Ed has a solution for this problem:

This is a horrific case, and one which points out the need for strong border control. The men conned the women into crossing the border, and then they took advantage of their illegal status to force them into prostitution.

Sure, these women were conned and controlled because they were not legally allowed to work or live in the United States. Preventing them from coming here at all would have prevented their enslavement. On the other hand, allowing them to enter legally would have also prevented their enslavement. Placing high barriers to immigration increases the chances that people will be "helped" across the border, then exploited. Placing low barriers to immigration allows people to come to the U.S. in search of a better life, without fear of future enslavement. Why are we so eager to choose the first path and not the second?

N.Z. Bear put the entire text of the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 online. It is hyperlinked for easy access to specific sections and readers can leave comments about specific sections. This is a great way to read the bill and build citizen awareness of what Congress is trying to do.

Hugh Hewitt has been reading through the bill and offering his criticisms. Specifically, the bill apparently has a gaping loophole that would allow almost any existing illegal immigrant to gain a Z-visa without a full background check. Furthermore, the bill seems to assume that the Federal government has no chance of completing background checks on 12 million illegals and starts the blame game early. Finally, the bill would impose a huge hidden tax on businesses hiring immigrants.

So far, not so good.

However, John McCain says that the loophole really isn't a loophole.

I may or may not have further thoughts on this later. Mainly, I wanted to publish these resources for anyone that's more interested in them than I am.

The Senate appears to have reached a compromise on an immigration reform bill. Here's a list of links for your edification:

• Dafydd ab Hugh has an outline of what might be in the bill
• John Hinderaker and Paul Mirengoff don't trust the bill.
• Fred Thompson doesn't like the bill.
• Former Senator Bill Frist doesn't like the bill.

On the other hand, I'm somewhat encouraged that these folks don't like the bill:

• Hugh Hewitt really doesn't like the bill. (Also, here, here and here. Like I said, he really doesn't like the bill.)
• Michelle Malkin really doesn't like the bill.

Finally, Ed Morrissey doesn't really like the bill, but thinks it's the best that the Republicans are going to get and is a tolerable compromise.

Me, I'm still thinking. I'll let you know my feelings in a later post.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey defends the bill against Republican haters.

Yesterday, Colorado's legislature and governor reached a deal on what looks like a very good immigration reform package. The legislature passed HB 1023, restricting welfare to citizens and legal immigrants.

Here's what's in the bill:

How would an applicant get public assistance?

Applicants for taxpayer-funded benefits would be required to show they are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. They would also be required to sign an affidavit attesting to their legal status.

What is the penalty?

If an applicant falsely signs an affidavit, he or she would face a misdemeanor charge of perjury in the second degree.

Each offense would carry a maximum penalty of 18 months in jail, a $5,000 fine, or both, and a minimum penalty of six months in jail, a $500 fine, or both.

What would be curtailed?

Any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, post-secondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar payment.

The bill would also ban any grant, contract, loan, professional license or commercial license provided by an agency of state or local government.

This is a very good bill and I applaud the Colorado government for passing it.

Jenna is worried about the effects of immigrants on our social services:

Mexico is a very destitute country, especially when compared to the United States. With completely open, unfettered borders, we would become, as I said before, the bassinet of the world, handing out our social dollars to those who are not citizens of our country. While I am not an isolationist, we must be autonomous.

Joe also argues that with open borders, the immigration flow will subside, as the workforce market becomes saturated. That too I disagree with. With open borders, cheap labor will become the preferred choice, and American citizens will see their jobs vanish. As well, while the illegal immigrants are taking American jobs at an ever increased rate, immigration will never subside. Once they hear not of our saturated job market, but of our strong social net and welfare dollars, they will quickly enter the United States to take advantage of this. Instead of moving away from socialism, as Joe prefers, we would move towards it, with multitudes more people living on the taxpayers' buck.

There's so much I disagree with here, that I'm not sure where to start. Jenna argues that an influx of cheap labor will destroy American jobs. This is a common idea, but a wrong one. Many of Mexico's immigrants are unskilled. As such, they're hardly likely to be taking the jobs of American software engineers, pharmacists, doctors, professors, or the jobs of anyone else working in skilled professions. Many, many Americans are in no danger of competition from Mexican immigrants.

Additionally, cheap labor doesn't destroy jobs, it creates them. How many times have conservatives bemoaned the labor market in Madison -- so weighed down by regulations and government edicts that labor is too expensive to hire? General Motors is on the verge of bankruptcy thanks to labor unions making labor too expensive. As a result, General Motors is shedding jobs as fast as possible in an effort to save money and remain open for business. Ford is facing similar problems. Good, hard working American workers are losing their jobs because their labor is too expensive for their employer to keep.

Cheap labor allows existing business to create new jobs, offering new services to the public. Cheap labor allows new businesses to spring into existence, creating wealth where none existed before. As cheap laborers become skilled laborers, demand for their services will increase. Their wages will rise. As a result, we'll have a new company where none existed before. The employees of that company will be constantly increasing their skills and abilities and their wages will rise commensurately.

Jenna proposes a vision where every company hires the cheapest labor possible. Why? What company in their right mind would do that? An unskilled carpenter may have a low salary, but he offers little expertise and ability to his employer. Employers will always have room for both skilled and unskilled labor, for both cheap and expensive labor. No company can long exist while employing only cheap, unskilled labors. No laborer will long work for a company offering only low wages and no benefits. They'll either leave for another employer or take their skills and become their own employer.

This is basic Economics 101. For someone who describes herself as an economic libertarian, I'm surprised to see Jenna repeating such Marxist ideas.

Secondly, We don't need immigrants to bring socialist ideas to our shores -- Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Jesse Jackson, and Russ Feingold are doing that already. It's true that immigrants use social services at a slightly higher rate than the native-born population does. Should we punish them for taking advantage of what's offered or should we focus our energies on the politicians who continually dip into our pockets?

Why assume that every immigrant will vote in favor of more welfare? The ones that actually make the journey to the United States -- across the desert sands of the southwest -- are hardly the laziest of Mexico's workers. Some immigrants will vote for a higher welfare state, some will vote for more freedom just like native Americans. The good news is that immigrants start their own businesses at a much higher rate than native Americans do. Given that small business owners generally vote for smaller government, I see reasons for optimism.

After all, why do immigrants migrate to America? They migrate because they have few opportunities for success in their native land. Mexico is not poor because its people are stupid, lazy, or illiterate. Mexico is poor because its political, legal, and social institutions prevent people from using their human capital to generate wealth. Immigrants migrate to America because America gives them the opportunity to succeed, when their native land won't. Given those conditions, how likely are they to support policies that would turn America into an imitation of Mexico?

The second question Jenna raised is the question of national borders.

We must have controlled borders in our nation to be a nation. We must have rules and regulations on whom can enter to be an autonomous United States of America. ... Is there any nation in this world that has completely open borders? I believe not. To do this would completely degenerate the underlying fabric of our nation, that which ties us together.

What is the underlying fabric of our nation? What is it that ties us together? I would argue that it is a common ideal. The idea that all men are equal under the law. The idea that anyone can become anything that they want. The idea that status and prestige are not linked to who your family is or what job your parents had, but to your own achievements, character, and efforts. America is more than just land with a certain outline -- it is an idea that has inspired millions around the globe.

Maybe there aren't any nations in the world with completely open borders. That's hardly a compelling argument against the very idea of a nation with completely open borders. Before 1776, had there ever been a nation that offered representative democracy to everyone? America has been unique throughout its entire history. Let's not fall into the trap of trying to make America more like other nations or arguing that America should follow the example of other nations. We should be providing the example for everyone else to follow.

Why would an open borders policy completely degenerate the underlying fabric of our nation? Are you worried that those who would enter the country wouldn't believe in the American ideals of social equality, equal justice under the law, and unlimited opportunity? Those are the very ideas that have drawn millions of immigrants to America. The vast majority of American immigrants came because they were unable to enjoy the "blessings of liberty" in their native lands. Our immigrants have tended to hold the American ideal in higher regard than most Americans do.

Finally, why must we have rules and regulations on whom can enter? And why would these rules, or the lack of them, affect our autonomy? Autonomy is completely separate from the concept of borders. Autonomy is freedom from external control. As long as America's laws are created by America's citizens, America will remain an autonomous nation. In the final result, borders have little to do with how we govern ourselves. Many people that are inside of America's borders are not allowed to vote -- children, felons, the insane, etc. Many outside of America's borders are allowed to vote -- the military, those vacationing on election day, those living overseas at the request of their employers, etc.

Borders delineate the area over which a nation's laws extend. If you live inside of those imaginary lines, you follow one set of laws. If you live outside of those imaginary lines, you follow another set of laws. I would like to think that we can enforce America's laws inside of America's borders without needing to control who lives on which side of the border.

Next, Jenna brought up the issue of citizenship.

Immigration clearly has ties to economics, which is where Joe sees an issue. However, immigration first has ties to our nationhood, and our system of laws, and our definition of citizen. And we must respect that.

Being a citizen means being a member of a political community -- having the right to vote and a voice in making a nation's laws. Given voter turnout over the last several decades, it would seem that many of America's citizens don't think citizenship is anything special.

Citizenship is a separate issue from borders, involving the question of who can vote and where they can vote. It's true that many precincts are subject to voter fraud. This isn't an argument for kicking out immigrants -- it's an argument for creating an election system that actually works. I'm all for requiring positive identification before allowing someone to vote. After all, if you can't be bothered to get a State ID, how committed to citizenship can you possibly be? That goes for both immigrants and for native-born Americans.

We must make a clear distinction between people who live in the United States and people who are allowed to affect the future and direction of the United States. Learning America's history, learning America's language, learning America's culture and ideas must be prerequisites for becoming an American citizen. That is the source of America's common ties and social fabric. As long as we restrict citizenship to those who are committed to American ideals, I don't fear immigration.

Jenna argues that even if our per-capita resources are higher than they were doing the last wave of immigration, that still doesn't mean that we can accomodate another large wave of immigrants.

We should not deduce our ability to handle a large flow of legal immigrants in comparison to the past. The two time frames have no bearing on each other whatsoever. In 1920, the US population was just over 100,000,000. Today, we are reaching 300,000,000. So yes, our infrastructure has expanded since the early century, but that is to accommodate current US citizens. Resources are higher, even at a per capita, but that is not indicative of an ability to drastically increase our domestic population. That is indicative of our lifestyles.

Perhaps so. I know I enjoy having lots of open spaces and uncrowded roads. But I don't buy the arguement that immigrants are making the country more crowded. Immigration opponents will point to two main negative effects of immigration: crowded schools and crowded emergency rooms. Both of these things have something in common: government intervention. Your local public school monopoly is under the direct control of government. Local emergency rooms are forced by the government to treat everyone who walks through their doors. The negative effects of these policies are all too easy to predict.

Public schools are completely unable to allocate resources in a rational manner. By its very nature, the school must cater to every constituency -- including the teachers unions. Schools are unable to handle sudden population changes because of their bureucratic nature. Emergency rooms face a similiar dilemma. The government mandates that they provide service to everyone. Unfortunately, government reimbursements for those services are somewhat on the stingy side. As a result, emergency rooms are a huge drain on a hospital's resource. The hospital responds by rationing care in the only way they can: lengthy wait times.

Immigration -- legal and illegal -- is revealing the down-side of government provided services. The solution isn't to limit the number of people who can come into the country, but to allow market incentives to provide what those in the country need. When was the last time we heard of shoe shortages? Or clothing shortages? Or shortages of kitchen supplies, office supplies, or any of the other thousands of items that litter our lives? There is no rational reason why medical care and education should be subject to sudden shortages. The solution isn't to limit immigration, it's to remove the barriers that prevent the market from working. After all, isn't that one reason why we're supporting Mark Green for governor?