Legal, Good / Illegal, Bad?

National Review ^ | June 1, 2007 | Mark Krikorian

[rmlew]

A common theme in discussing the immigration issue is “I love legal immigration, it’s just the illegal kind I’m against.” And there’s no question that political elite’s refusal to enforce the law is the most immediate immigration problem we face.

But the “legal is good, illegal is bad” mantra will only get you so far. Even if we were to address the pervasive illegality of today’s immigration flow — by, say, amnestying all the illegal aliens and increasing legal immigration, as the appalling Senate bill calls for — most of the problem would remain.

To begin with, the legal and illegal immigration flows are inextricably intertwined. It’s not as though legals are from Mars and illegals are from Venus — they come from the same countries, live in the same communities and families, and are often the same exact people. Take Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, for instance. He was the Egyptian immigrant terrorist who decided to celebrate the Fourth of July in 2002 by killing Jews at the El Al counter at Los Angeles International Airport. He had arrived legally years before as a tourist, then shortly before his permission to be here expired (which would have turned him into an illegal alien) he applied for asylum here, thus preserving legal status while his claim was adjudicated. After he was rejected and stayed here anyway, he became an illegal alien. Later, his wife won the visa lottery and he, as her spouse, also got a green card, making him legal again.

More broadly, as James Edwards of the Hudson Institute has written, legal and illegal immigration have risen in tandem, the same countries dominate the two flows, legal immigration creates the networks that enables illegal immigration to take place, and the screwy mechanics of the legal immigration system raise expectations abroad such that people see themselves as entitled to come to America, whether they have permission yet or not.

What’s more, every year large numbers of illegal aliens use the “legal” immigration system to launder their status. Edwards points to a survey of new “legal” immigrants which found that fully one-third had been illegal aliens at one point or another, a figure that rose to two-thirds for Mexicans. It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that our “legal” immigration system is a permanent rolling amnesty for illegal aliens.

Not only are the flows of legal and illegal immigration related, but the impacts they have on the United States are similar. The effect that illegal immigration has in reducing wages for low-skilled American workers, for instance, is only partly caused by the illegality. The majority of illegal immigrants actually work on the books, having provided a fake or stolen Social Security number, but they command low wages regardless because most of them lack even a high-school education and thus are unequipped for advancement in a modern society. In other words, the chief problem that immigration creates for less-educated or young or minority American workers is that it floods the job market with competitors, illegal and legal.

The same is true with regard to government services. In fact, here it is, in a perverse sense, actually better that immigrants be illegal, because they cost less. Households headed by illegal aliens represent a drain of some $10 billion a year at the federal level alone — i.e., they consume $10 billion more in federal government services than they pay in federal taxes. This is because they work, they’re poor, and they have lots of children, and our welfare system is specifically designed to help the working poor with children. But if the illegals were legalized, the costs to federal taxpayers would balloon, nearly tripling to $29 billion each year. This is because when you amnesty an uneducated illegal alien with a large family, all you do is turn him into an uneducated legal alien with a large family — his earnings, and thus his tax payments, do indeed go up somewhat, but his use of government services increases much, much more because now he’s legal, but he’s still uneducated.

Likewise in other areas. For instance, children born to immigrant mothers are responsible for 100 percent of the increase in the school-aged population — the strain this puts on local communities has nothing to do with the parents’ legal status. Immigrants using emergency rooms as doctor’s offices do so not because of a lack of legal status but because a lack of skills that can command high wages in a modern economy.

As Ramesh Ponnuru has written, “America has some serious immigration problems, but they are not distinctively problems of illegal immigration.” Calls of “Enforcement First” by critics of the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill are surely the place to start the immigration debate, because without a commitment to enforce the rules, it doesn’t much matter what the rules are. But in the long run, the substance of the rules themselves is the more important question.

---

Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.

[livius]

Russian immmigrants have been a big crime problem in New York, and Chinese and Vietnamese gangs on the West Coast are nothing to laugh at. Because there are still relatively small numbers of people from these countries (remember the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882?), naturally they are not going to equal the crime statistics of people from Latin America.

I am very much in favor of temporary immigration programs, but they have to permit realistic numbers in the first place, provide real supervision and enforcement of the length of stay, prevent people from going on welfare, and also get the enforcement cooperation of the home countries. One thing that is never addressed is the fact that we could use some economic leverage to get Mexico to enforce its borders more rigorously. Our immigration policy acts as if the immigrants pop out of nowhere.

[Diogenesis]

01.025.0.01.001. Marburg virus [Location of isolation: Marburg; Germany]
CHARACTERISTICS: Filoviridae; 800-100 nm elongated filamentous virion, single stranded, negative sense RNA

Virus is assigned to the genus 01.025.0.01. "Marburg–like viruses"; family 01.025. Filoviridae; order 01. Mononegavirales.

EPIDEMIOLOGY: 1967 - outbreak in Germany and Yugoslavia following exposure to African green monkeys imported from East Africa (31 cases with 7 deaths); 1975 and 1982-4 cases reported in South Africa (originated in Zimbabwe); 1980 - two cases in Kenya

Virions have a complex construction and consist of an envelope, a nucleocapsid, a polymerase complex, and a matrix. Virions are enveloped. Virions are filamentous, or pleomorphic with extensive branching, or U-shaped, 6-shaped, or circular forms occur (particularly after purification) flexible; about 80 nm in diameter; 790 nm long (after purification). The surface projections are distinctive knob-shaped peplomers evenly covering the surface. They are spaced widely apart; evenly dispersed and embedded in a lipid bilayer. The surface projections comprise surface glycoproteins (GP) and are composed of one type of protein. Surface projections are 10 nm long; spaced 10 nm apart. The nucleocapsid exhibits helical symmetry. The nucleocapsid is helical; is cross-striated; 50 nm in diameter. Axial canal is distinct; in 20 nm in diameter; basic helix is obvious; pitch of helix is 5 nm. Morphologically aberrant forms are observe (after centrifugation).

The incubation period for hemorrhagic fever Marburg virus is 2 to 21 days.

Intrahepatic Marburg

---

Transmission and Tissue Tropism

The mode of primary infection in any natural setting is unknown with Marburg and Ebola viruses. All secondary cases have been nosocomial or caused by intimate contact with a patient. Transmission occurs usually by contaminated blood samples. One Marburg case was acquired by sexual contact more than 60 days after the original infection. In addition, there is evidence to suggest respiratory spread of infection. Epidemiological data of the 1989 Reston outbreak suggest that droplet or vomit transmission was a major factor in virus spread within quarantine facilities. Virus is usually recovered from acute-phase sera and has also been found in throat washes, urine, soft tissue effusates, semen and anterior eye fluid, even when the specimens were obtained late in convalescence. It has also been regularly isolated from autoptic material, such as spleen, lymph nodes, liver and kidney but rarely from brain or other nervous tissues.

---

"The initial symptoms are a severe frontal & temporal headache, generalised aches & pains, malaise, by the second day the victim will have a fever. Later symptoms include watery diarrhoea, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, a dry sore throat, & anorexia. By day seven of the symptoms, the patient will have a maculopapular (small slightly raised spots) rash. At the same time the person will develop thrombocytopenia & haemorrhagic manifestations, particularly in the gastrointestinal tract, & the lungs, but it can occur from any orifice, mucous membrane or skin site. By day twelve the skin starts to peel away from the rash. Ebola causes lesions in almost every organ, although the liver & spleen are the most noticeably affected. Both are darkened & enlarged with signs of necrosis. The cause of death is normally shock, associated with fluid & blood loss into the tissues.

The haemorrhagic & connective tissue complications of the disease are not really understood, but may be related to the fact that the VP40 protein is antigenically related to human cell matrix proteins (abdominal aortic aneurism protein & MFAP-4), leading to autoimmune attack.

---

Why does the immune system not clear the infection?

This may be associated with the two forms of the virus glycoprotein. The glycoprotein gene has a translation stop codon in the middle of it, preventing the synthesis of the full length protein. Approximately twenty percent of the mRNA isolated from infected cells had been edited to contain an extra adenosine in a stretch of seven adenosine residues at positions 1019-1026. This causes a frame shift, allowing the synthesis of the full length protein . The larger protein (130Kd - GP) is membrane associated protein, & the truncated version (approximately 60 Kd - SGP) is secreted.

A possible role for SGP is to protect the virus from the immune system as a decoy antigen. However, SGP binds to neutrophils & interferes with their function. Moreover, GP also appears to be immunosuppressive, further interfering with the response to infection."

[Travis McGee]

Fight how, if the political “fix” is in, and by the time we get to vote again, the deed is done, and we are swamped with new dirt poor illiterate non-english-speaking socialist-for-life voters?

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

How dare you! Every American knows that “Our Diversity Is Our Strength!” After all “Diversity” is a gift that just keeps giving i.e. disease, death, degeneration. Only Dialogue, Debate, Discussion, “Room At The Table,” “A Big Tent,” “True Love,” Respect and Dignity will solve everything.(Plus trillions of taxpayer dollars.)

[Pelayo]

"E Pluribus Unum."

"Unius linguae uniusque moris regnum imbecille et fragile est"- St. Stephen, King of Hungary.

[Lurker]

if the political “fix” is in,

We can kill this thing in the House, again, if we swamp them with phone calls and letters. Show up at their stupid town meetings. Call their local offices (not DC) and get a few of your friends to do call, too. Tell your friends to get their friends to call.

Call local talk radio.

When the droids from the RNC or any of their related paid beggars call, tell them why you're not going to give them a single dime. One thing these bastards understand is money drying up.

Come on my friend, you of all people should understand that while you're still breathing you're still fighting or at least you should be.

This monstrosity hasn't passed yet and if enough of us, and it sure seems like there are enough of us, yell, kick, and scream our Reps will do the right thing and kill this thing like they did the last time.

Never give up.

Never give in.

Never admit defeat.

I don't mean to be presumptious, but I'm sure you heard the droning voice of some sadistic Master Chief in BUDS repeating over and over again "Don't give up....don't give up...." as you were slogging along some beach tired, wet, hungry and cold.

Well I'll bet your conditions are somewhat more comfortable now so there's no excuse for someone with your training, background, and abilities to just toss in the towel and walk away.

We need you my friend, and we need you very, very badly.

"Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? HELL NO. Well it aint over now...."

L

[Libertina]

I agree absolutely about our many levels of government that are actually expanding the “immigration” problem with their handouts. As Ronaldus Magnus said - Government IS the problem (for so many things!)

And I agree with Michelle Malkin who says the idea of “deporation” is a red herring. This accusation is just to make conservatives look mean.

If our border is tight, if jobs are given only to American citizens (or valid guest workers), no banking or drivers’ licenses without proof of citizenship, and all welfare is halted (medical, education, ssi, food stamps, housing assistance) vitually all illegal residents would drift back home (where most of them DID have jobs by the way...but at less per hour.)

I have to admit that when I watch the hostile, racist, ungrateful behavior of masses of protesting “hispanics” in my American streets, I feel I really don’t want any more immigration in my country at all. But meeting people one on one, I have sadness that their country, primarily Mexico, is so corrupt. However they are responsible for making it better. Everyone in the world cannot come live here because of problems, and Americans are not “bad” for pointing this out.

When I think of Mexico, I see thousands of miles of beautiful beaches just perfect for tourism, a warm climate for crops, there are good natural resources and products - these people have no reason for such poverty - it’s just their horrible governemnt. Who can save them? ONLY they, themselves. We know how hard it is - look at how out of control OUR government is!

No, Mexcio, Cenral America, South America - I think they have the possibility of wonderful economies - but it will take work. Unfortunately many have leaders who tell them to come here, that WE owe THEM.

And one further point - I believe that the only people who should be determining the level of immigration into a country are her citizens. They can have much, some, or none. And it is their decision only. I am sick and tired of hearing foreigners telling us how much immigration we “must” have. Or that we have had too little. Nonsense. Button up and go tend to your own affairs.

[JasonC]

The reason we dislike the welfare state is that it is a piece of political technology that sets us at each other's throats and empowers worthless mountebanks, not because it costs us one extra night out a week. If we wanted a turkey melt instead of freedom and justice, we'd like the welfare state instead of despising it.

And I am under the impression, which is not a delusion, that you think the case against illegal immigration is a case against immigration of any kind, and that said case is economic and about a better bottom line for US workers. Which is illiterate Maltusian nonsense. There is no economic case against immigration. There is a perfectly sound case against amnesty and against illegal immigration, and it is about justice and politics and culture - not economics.

And trying to sell the fight against amnesty as an economic program is a good way to lose half of those opposed to amnesty, and the better half. It is politically stupid of you and you should stop. It is also economically false. (On which more below).

"this is basic economics."

Hardly. Our level of income is set by our actual productivity and not by eating other human beings.

Our productivity is not reduced by another man working. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my nose.

Men working support themselves. If they weren't adding more value to the output pie than they are taking themselves, it would not be profitable to employ them.

And men working in Mexico are part of the labor supply. They won't disappear from the face of the earth by being on the other side of a legal line. If their productivity is less than yours, so are their wages.

Capital can move to them as readily as the reverse. And some does. If a man's productivity is higher working here than there - and it is, due to better laws and working enviroment etc - then moving a man from one place to the other adds value, it does not subtract any. The labor time supplied is the same either way, but what it produces is higher when that labor accomplishes more. That is the economic case always - resources moving to the point of their greatest marginal utility enriches all, it does not impoverish.

Maltus thought that as long as there was "excess" population, wages would fall to the level of subsistence, as some workers "bid" lower to get "the available" jobs. (Fallacy, what jobs are available is not static). This results in the predictions that (1) wage levels will fall as population rises and (2) wage levels across the world will converge over time.

Both are directly contradicted by the clearest historical evidence. Wages rise right along with population because their level is set by productivity, and higher productivity readily supports larger populations. And wage differentials are vastly wider now than they were a few hundred years ago. And they continue to widen in absolute terms. A few of the best managed poorer countries, economically speaking, get partial catch-up with our wages - that is the only convergence seen in the matter. And that process has never in recorded history been accompanied by a falling standard of living in the leading countries.

Marginal utility economics explains why, Maltusian economics fails to do so. Note that the same error of Malthus was copied verbatim by Marx and is the source of all the economic illiteracies of socialism.

The US consisted of 3 million poor farmers and fishermen at the edge of a howling wilderness. The population being 100 times lower did not mean everyone was 100 times richer. On the country, each of the 100 times as many people here now, is more than 100 times as rich. Increasing population is great for economic growth and development and enriches us all. It does not impoverish us. Legal immigration built the country.

But sustained legal immigration requires a rule of law, it requires efforts at assimilation, there are rates the culture can handle readily and others it can't, it needs to be paced to the tempo of job creation and the cycles of full employment and slack. The cultural consensus in favor of *legal*, but opposed to *illegal and uncontrolled*, immigration, is entirely sound - economically, culturally, and politically.

The present bill is bad because it encourages illegality and abandons control of the process (which will wreck it), not because immigration of any kind is economically harmful.

And those opposing it are not illiterate Malusian protectionists, but principled conservatives who understand economics, but understand more profoundly than economics that its roots and sources lie in a rule of law.

[livius]

I agree, these places in Latin America could be wonderful. Calderon is working hard on Mexico but it’s going to take a long time because the situation there has been allowed to be so bad for so long. Fox was awful, and it was depressing to think that he was the first “conservative” party president elected in 70 years.

I think these countries, particularly Mexico, which is NOT a poor country, should take more responsibility for their emigrants. If there were some cost to them to having their entire working-age population flee, they might sit up and take notice. But the economies in these places do not, in most cases, function on the basis of productivity, but on the distribution of benefits from state-owned properties (such as oil franchises, copper, natural gas, etc.). Naturally, most of the benefits go to the members of the government and the already wealthy handful who own the land, the oil refinery, or whatever. It’s not a lot different from the Middle East in some places. And while the wealthy invest the money, they usually do so in international businesses or something that is also not that productive for their own country. The people are not starving, since they seem to be given just enough to stay alive, but on the other hand, there is no economic progress for them and no chance of doing much more than surviving.

I do think somebody has got to put pressure on these countries, particularly Mexico: for example, bill them for the health care received by their citizens in this country, or even for the education or other benefits. That would certainly stimulate them to get a grip on the situation!

[blackbart.223]

"We've reached a point where it's time to simply END immigration for a while in this country."

I thought that after 9/11.

[MarkL]

Again, as I said, I wasn't aware of any outbreaks of Ebola Marburg in the US. In fact, as far as I know, the only case of ebola-like outbreaks in the US was of Ebola Reston, named after the location of the outbreak, Reston, VA, as documented in the book "The Hot Zone." Luckily, that strain is only fatal in monkeys, and causes flu-like symptoms in humans.

Mark

[blackbart.223]

"What if the "political fix" is in, and no matter what 75% of the voters demand, we get railroaded, and by the time we get to change leaders, we have 75 million new voters who are dirt poor, non-english speaking, and will vote socialist for life?"

A sobering thought. But I never let despair cloud my judgment. My uncles didn't in world war two. Stay the course.

[Travis McGee]

We always will stay the course, but being Pollyanna isn’t a solution either.

[Lurker]

but being Pollyanna isn’t a solution either.

Screaming like bloody Hell is, however.

I had some fun with a 'College Republican' fundraiser the other day. The conversation went something like this:

Phone rings during dinner: "Hello."

"Hello Mr. ******. I'm calling from the College Republicans with an urgent message regarding a college professor at Kent State who is teaching people how to make bombs."

Me: "Hold on a second. You have information that a college professor at Kent State in Ohio is teaching people how to make illegal weapons?"

Him: "Yes sir. It's outrageous isn't it."

Me: "Have you contacted the FBI?"

Him: "What?"

Me: "Well young man, if you have information that someone is telling college students how to make weapons illegally you are duty bound to contact the FBI lest you become an accessory after the fact."

Him: "Huh?"

Me: "Oh yes. If you're in possession of information like that you need to contact the FBI right away. If this clown actually helps to blow something up or hurt someone and you didn't say anything, you could be prosecuted as an accessory. Come to think of it, now that I know about it I have to contact the FBI as well. Can I please get your full name and address for my records?"

Him: "Click"

Well, that was fun.

L

[Travis McGee]

I guess we can find small pockets of humor, as the Titanic goes down.

[VOA]

bump

[Lurker]

We'll beat this thing my friend, just like we did last time.

Just keep hammering away a the bastiches...

L

[blackbart.223]

"We always will stay the course, but being Pollyanna isn’t a solution either."

I am no Pollyanna. But I don't let myself sink into pessimism either.

Fight the good fight and let the chips fall where thy may.

[WOSG]

“We need to place a moratorium on immigration “

A) That will never happen. too many interests depend on immigration.
B) That is not *necessary* to make the system better
C) That plays intothe hands of open borders folks by erasig the legal/illegal differences

“Legal, Good / Illegal, Bad?”
YES, that is what we need to say until the amnesty idea is as dead as a doornail.

“In fact, here it is, in a perverse sense, actually better that immigrants be illegal, because they cost less. Households headed by illegal aliens represent a drain of some $10 billion a year at the federal level alone — i.e., they consume $10 billion more in federal government services than they pay in federal taxes. This is because they work, they’re poor, and they have lots of children, and our welfare system is specifically designed to help the working poor with children. But if the illegals were legalized, the costs to federal taxpayers would balloon, nearly tripling to $29 billion each year.”

This is one reason the status quo is better for taxpayers than amnesty. But even better would be to have moderate legal immigration combined with better enforcement of it.