<p>
</p>
<p>epiphany, do you have figures for what annual legal immigration levels are to the U.S.? The U.S. is certainly not the only country to which people are immigrating.</p>
<p>When you look at all of the incredible harm being done to others with drugs, it is outrageous that these dealers, who may or may not be minors, are dealt with this way, with taxpayers’ money. They need to be turned over to the INS to be deported, which then makes it harder for them to come back or stay here again if they are caught. Isn’t the age actually 16 in many jurisdictions to be tried as an adult for felony charges?</p>
<p>This is very discriminatory if these drug dealers are being treated this way, while blacks and whites and other groups born in the US are treated differently. Drug dealers shouldn’t get unlimited plane rides home with no penalty. </p>
<p>These drug dealers know what they are doing, regardless of age. They need to be dealt with cheaply and quickly, which means deportation. Deport them to be tried in their own country. Which probably means life in prison, as other countries are not so soft on crime as the US is. That could send a message that the US does not look the other way about drug dealers.</p>
<p>Just start arresting some city officials in charge of this ruse. On Federal conspiracy charges charges of abetting criminal activity.</p>
<p>“The U.S. is certainly not the only country to which people are immigrating.”</p>
<p>If you don’t understand yet that the U.S. is the EASIEST country for those making either legal or illegal attempts, then I’m not sure where you’ve been for most of your adult life. Even Canada, once easy itself, no longer has the level of tolerance that we have. France & Britain are gradually getting over their own guilt complexes about this & finally becoming alarmed at some of the consequences of unchecked immigration. Read the papers. I’m sure statistics are out there. I don’t need to do your research for you.</p>
<p>I appreciate the important legal observations in Posts 20 & 23 as well.</p>
<p>correction: the easiest highly developed, relatively wealthy & relatively free country – to which to immigrate. There is a handful of Lands of Opportunity out there: we’re the big catch. Check it out. Yes, some people from the Middle East, etc., have gone to Australia, but there’s hardly a rush on that, at least yet.</p>
<p>Edit again: I should add the opportunity for low-cost, universal higher education, which is not evenly true of all democratic countries, btw.</p>
<p>[Shielded</a> by SF, illegal immigrant crack dealers escape](<a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/BAR211HGVL.DTL&tsp=1]Shielded”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/BAR211HGVL.DTL&tsp=1)</p>
<p>"Eight Honduran juveniles who had been convicted of dealing drugs in San Francisco were sent within the past few weeks to the company’s group homes, where one month’s placement costs $7,000 per youth - an expense borne by San Francisco taxpayers.</p>
<p>Within 10 days of being sent to the unlocked group homes, however, all eight youths ran away, said Bill Siffermann, head of juvenile probation in San Francisco. He said his agency has issued arrest warrants for them."</p>
<p>Do the taxpayers still have to pay the $7000 for the month or was it prorated? Think of how much $56,000 a month could do for homeless families in SF. </p>
<p>"Lidia Stiglich, president of the San Francisco commission that oversees the Juvenile Probation Department, said she was working with the mayor’s office and the probation department to decide what to do with offenders the city refuses to turn over to federal immigration authorities.</p>
<p>“Everyone is looking at the current policies,” she said. She would not comment on the San Bernardino County escapes.</p>
<p>With flights home and cooperation with federal authorities ruled out and the Southern California group homes off the table, Siffermann said, “We’re running out of options.”"</p>
<p>Um, what is wrong with turning them over to INS authorities? Why are they protecting these drug dealers?</p>
<p>How many kids could go to college from San Fran on the $672,000 that the city was going to use to have 8 illegal illegal drug dealers frolic on a farm (and probably sell drugs to the other residents there.) </p>
<p>Have these authorities and taxpayers in San Francisco gone crazy???</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Basic economics 
– when economic profit normalises to zero. (Which as you know from Economics 101 that isn’t a bad thing – it means all resources are efficiently allocated.) </p>
<p>That immigrants want to come here means that there is an oversupply of one type of human resources in the origin country and a shortage of the same type of human resources on the other side. Entry and exit of markets. </p>
<p>That American companies are looking to outsource in search of cheaper labour and that there is a strong influx of cheap labour into the US is a natural movement of markets. Why? The American economy is a developed one, and it is an inefficient use of human resources to use the “average American,” who has been raised in a higher standard of living for say, orange-picking in California. The natural economic trend is for higher-skilled labour to move to higher-skilled positions and for incoming labour to take up the “vacuum”. Later on, these individuals can move on to their own high-skill positions when those before them move forward as well. </p>
<p>The movement stops when the suppliers of labour reach the equilibrium point – the y prime that pertains to the logistic differential equation that describes this movement becomes zero. From an economic point of view, regulated, mostly-free-flow immigration (except for criminal and health screenings) is the way to go. It is the free market way. It is the American ™ way.</p>
<p>Would you prevent the half state of Louisiana from migrating to say, Florida or Virginia if the carrying capacity of Louisiana drops due to another hurricane? I mean, by this kind of logic it should be legal to prevent any group’s mass movement – even within the country. “But, but – if we allowed the entire state of Louisiana to come over it would compromise the health and survivability of existing Texans!”</p>
<p>San Francisco’s problem is not the liberalism of many of its inhabitants, but rather the pandering incompetence of some of its highest-ranking politicians. This is a more high profile case nationally perhaps, but the more heartbreaking one to me is that of a father and two sons gunned down in cold blood a little over a week ago by a gang member essentially for nothing. The district attorney had refused to work with federal prosecutors to put a crackdown on gang violence, and her department had let this animal go free two or three weeks before on another case for lack of evidence.</p>
<p>Between a mayor who wants headlines for declaring SF a sanctuary city (that leads to the kind of ridiculous situation in this case cited in this thread) and a DA who wants headlines for NOT being a law and order type even though she’s the chief prosecutor, the city is getting the incompetence it voted for.</p>
<p>[Widow</a> pleads for death penalty / She says home is cold and silent after husband, 2 sons slain in S.F.](<a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/27/MNV711FT7I.DTL&hw=bologna&sn=001&sc=1000]Widow”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/27/MNV711FT7I.DTL&hw=bologna&sn=001&sc=1000)</p>
<p>The current state of the economy can take all the current candidate immigrants. Really, the majority of the population of Africa and Latin America aren’t thinking of moving to the US. Since market entry / market exit is a long-run economic process, this means that as immigration occurs, additional economic growth will occur because of the immigration. (In this case then it is not so much as “economic profit” as “economic growth profit”.) Ceteris paribus, the only thing changing in the economy being immigrants, economic growth caused by immigration can be modelled by a positively-increasing, concave-down function.</p>
<p>In the short-run, things will be tighter. But that’s because market correction hasn’t occurred yet (and it will never happen if the government never allows it to occur).</p>
<p>Rather cheesy, but this post was brought to you by the AP Economics syllabus. Blame them. </p>
<p>“the majority of the population of Africa and Latin America aren’t thinking of moving to the US.” </p>
<p>If you believe this, then you haven’t been following recent research on this. Certainly the majority of Mexicans and Central Americans are “thinking” of moving. I don’t “think” is the right word. And it wasn’t that I suggested a conscious plan. I suggested that if we gave blanket invitations to all those in the 3rd World (or, similarly, merely refused to enforce immigration statutes, not unlike what we do now), a large percentage of such populations who could find a journey, however crowded, would go for it. You’re quite naive, whatever your AP Economics instructor & syllabus tell you.</p>
<p>As to market exit, there’s nothing to go back “to” that approximates this country. The vast majority do not return, once settled & once they’ve tasted the varieties of opportunities here that we refuse to similarly cultivate in their native countries. In fact, when, as has happened recently, immigrants find conditions uncomfortable – such as enforcement of immigration law – they begin returning to the relative known quantities of their own land. It’s The Comfort Zone which we, by design & by neglect, have been habitually providing, that provides no incentive to return.</p>
<p>BedHead,
From the beginning of the thread, I was thinking of the same recent crime you cite. But I disagree that a misguided & misdefined liberalism is not at the core of these decisions, however incompetent the deciders. Further, the deciders such as The Mayor have higher political goals in mind: Governor, then President. He doesn’t give a rat’s behind for The City and will not dirty his hands to clean it up. (crime, Public Works, etc.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Greater opportunities => economic profit. It so happens that the word “opportunity cost” contains the word “opportunity”. There wouldn’t be opportunities if there weren’t a <em>demand</em> for the migrants that take them. American employers are offering those opportunities. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They would actually stop when supply meets demand, when MB-MC = 0. </p>
<p>I do not know what study are you citing, but I did not know that the vast majority have subconsciously (and seriously) pondered moving. Maybe it’s like how I ponder about what it’s like in Finland or Iraq. That immigrants receive more opportunities here than in their home countries means that their labour contributes more to the global economy here than than if they stayed. Comparative advantage – and Americans benefit. Why? Because skilled Americans (yes, and those includes those who dropped out of high school to work – they are more skilled in many respects than many others in the world, and can readily “get back on track” again) aren’t wasting their abilities on a job that demands less skill, and employers can actually used the saved labour to hire more skilled Americans in another field.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s called “outsourcing”.</p>
<p>Alas, protectionism and xenophobia has it that any company that outsources is lambasted as unpatriotic. woohoo.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but it’s an artificial barrier – dead-weight loss.</p>
<p>
We already knew you were regurgitating information that you had been spoon fed. It’s very clear in your posts and it’s frankly, more than a little tiresome.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Epiphany,</p>
<p>You know, there’s such a thing in discussion as civil discourse. Your response to my comment is absolutely rude and was totally unnecessary. My point in commenting to your post was that you specifically said “massive global immigration to a single country” as if everyone in the world wants to move to the U.S. This isn’t true and it also isn’t true that the U.S. is the only country which has a legal immigration policy. Where I ‘have been for my adult life’ is living in both the U.S. and Canada and the reason for my question was two-fold; I’m familiar with the levels of legal (and illegal) immigration for Canada and I wondered, since you are so vociferously debating this issue, if you knew the levels of legal immigration to the U.S.; and secondly, if those levels are of approximately the same percentage of population as other countries’ policies. I never asked you to do research for me. I made the mistake of assuming that you knew what you were talking about and would be willing to include the information in the discussion. I’ve participated in these forums for several years now and always attempt to maintain a level of politeness and decency in my posts. I don’t appreciate your rudeness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s absolutely not true that everyone in the world wants to move to the US. It is true that those unfortunates who can risk their lives because they are able to walk across our border, feel that they have no choice. Speak to them directly and many would much rather stay at home and make a living wage in their own communities. The subgroup of what I choose to call radicals, the La Raza types who want to take back the Southwest, are a small-ish group whose agenda isn’t about the wellbeing of the people who migrate. Somehow those people are always lost in the battle of agendas.</p>
<p>We have tried to prop up the Mexican economy in the past with massive amounts of foreign aid. It, obviously, didn’t work. The best way to stem the tide of illegals flowing into this country is to have Mexico with a thriving economy so that there are decent jobs for their workers down there. NAFTA was supposed to, in part, provide for this. I’m sure it has helped their economy to a degree but mostly with skilled, educated labor. Unless we play hardball it won’t stop.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do agree with this. It’s not an accident that it’s the indigenous people who are shifted across the border. Mexico, in particular, is an incredibly racist nation and until the government and the elite population is forced to do right by its poor, they will continue to come across the border whether they want to or not. I, for one, refuse to condone that ethnic cleansing. It always astounds me that so many people who are no the war path (pardon the pun) about the mistreatment of Indians in the US, are just fine with their current, ongoing abuse in Mexico and Guatemala.</p>
<p>“I made the mistake of assuming that you knew what you were talking about”</p>
<p>Wow. And you think <em>I</em> was rude? Your reply is not an examle of “civil discourse,” in case you thought it was. What you said was i.m.o., considerably more offensive, both in this one phrase and in the rest of the superior tone of your lengthy paragraph, which pretends to know more about immigration than I do. You don’t. Point #2: I never said that “the U.S. is the only country which has a legal immigration policy.” Never. In fact I listed other countries who have had, & are now beginning to question the wisdom of, similar (but not as) liberal policies. </p>
<p>The reason for my comment about “where you’ve been most of your adult life,” is that I cannot believe – couldn’t then, couldn’t now, that any well-read, educated person on CC (which would presumably include yourself) would seriously question (and demand statistics about) whether the U.S. is both the most open-bordered (legally AND illegally) of all the free, First World countries, AND whether. given a choice of several such countries, it is not the first choice, given our exceptionally accepting policiies welcoming legals & forgiving illegals. Since immrigants, some of whom are much less well-read than yourself, know it, I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t know it. It is common knowledge. Investigate the level of immigration in France, and in England, and in Germany, and in Australia, and in Central Europe, etc. (And I assume you would already know it for Canada, including their earnest reduction of it over the last few decades.) I’m just not interested in getting that mathematical about it. I’m not interested in side-tracking this thread with demands for statistics about what is transparently obvious.</p>
<p>We are not only the first choice, world-wide, (not the only choice: I never said that). If we were further to liberalize our immigration practices, there would be an exponential increase in new arrivals. Naturally the whole globe wouldn’t come. Clearly I was using hyperbole. For as many masses would attempt the journey, just as many would not be interested, able, nor have any hope of making it in a new environment.</p>
<p>[EDIT: I cross-posted with zooserman, but I agree with her & have made this point myself previously: <em>If</em> conditions could/would improve in their native countries, most immigrants would have preferred to stay in their countries of origins. They come here out of desperation & neglect AND because we offer a far better life, on many dimensions. A minority of people from all walks of life, all countries, would simply seek to come here out of some wanderlust. The inequalities of environment, the survival instincts, and the attractions we offer are the driving forces. The <em>permanent</em> and humane solution is not endless immigration but a larger First World & lands on which other nations can survive & prosper – their inhabitants, not just their governments, – while maintaining their cultures, etc.]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL at #28. Yes, apparently Honduras has an oversupply of crack cocaine dealers and the U.S. does not have enough! As soon as we reach an “equlibrium,” then our problem is solved!</p>
<p>epiphany, I have to give you credit for at least being consistent in your tone. How did my comment indicate that I ‘pretended to know more about immigration than you’? You have missed my point completely. Where did I indicate that you said this, “the U.S. is the only country which has a legal immigration policy.” ? My comment was responding to your statement of “single country”, which I already pointed out.</p>
<p>Where did I “demand statistics”? It was a simple question. I don’t know for a fact that the U.S. immigration policies for legal immigration are the “most open bordered” which is why I asked the question about the relation to percentage of population. In total numbers, undoubtedly it is. I was curious about how it related to population size as I know that Canada accepts a large number of immigrants each year in relation to the country’s total population. My inquiry was not a demand, it was a simple question and I truly have no idea why you took such offense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This, actually, isn’t true. Immigration levels have increased. In the 80’s, the annual intake was approximately 130,000. In the 90’s, it increased to the 200,000 range. Since 2000, it’s been up near 250,000, with 2005 and 2006 hitting highs of 262,000 and 251,000. I’m not sure if these numbers include the numbers of refugee claimants each year. I believe that due to international human rights obligations that Canada allots about 10% of its number to refugees each year. There has been a call by many groups to increase the level to 1% of the country’s population but there has been resistance by some to this proposal.</p>
<p>An interesting aside on individuals from Mexico seeking to move. For the past several years, Mexico has been the #1 country for refugee claimants in Canada. Many are educated, upper middle class individuals who are trying to escape the corruption which is rampant in Mexico. The immense social and economic issues in their country, unfortunately, are unlikely to change anytime soon, and I’m unsure of how much those of us outside of Mexico, or our governments, can do to change those problems.</p>