6 ms·

There are good arguments for border patrol but this is not one of them. These guns are legal in the US and all you have to do to get them into Mexico is load t

by hwillis 10y ago

There are good arguments for border patrol but this is not one of them. These guns are legal in the US and all you have to do to get them into Mexico is load them on a catapult and drive out to the middle of nowhere, or load them in one of the hundreds of small boats that make the trip. It's trivial to find guns illegally coming into mexico from a boat that can cross oceans and nearly impossible for a boat you can make in your garage. Border patrol will not solve gun violence in Mexico any more than it will solve cocaine in America. As an unrelated thing, I find it mind boggling that immigration is still an explicitly national issue in America. Refugees and immigrants would be much better handled if they were done on a per-state basis. If California wants to let in a ton of Mexicans and issue them state-only green cards, why should Texas be able to vote to stop them? Likewise if Texas wants to exclude immigrants, why should California force Texas to give them jobs? State-only green card programs would allow immigrants to be carefully tracked (national green card holders face deportation if their residence is not on file), gives them incentive to go from states where they aren't wanted to those where they are, and allows national money and patrol efforts to be focused where they are wanted. Immigrants can't steal Texan jobs if they live in California.

mikeash 10y ago
Leaving immigration to the states would require internal border controls. This is not something most people want.
- jzwinck 10y ago
  You could make a single-state work permit without internal borders. If workers from California want to spend their vacation money in Nevada, let them. You can still reject them if they apply for work in another state.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    It's not just about work. To make that effective you would have to eliminate federal birthright citizenship, or anyone could easily make their children US citizens (and then too many would). The "state immigrants" would also have to be disqualified from all federal programs or unwilling states would still be paying for them. And if that isn't enough to make it intractable, what do you expect to happen when an immigrant crosses into another state to commit a serious crime?
    - hwillis 10y ago
      >To make that effective you would have to eliminate federal birthright citizenship, or anyone could easily make their children US citizens (and then too many would). This is irrelevant; you can do this on a visa just as easily. Additionally, this exists for a reason even if you don't like it. If anything it reduces the incentive to do this, because you can get 99% of the benefits without doing it. Regardless all you have to do to make this birth-neutral is make it as hard to get a state green card as it is to get a visa. >The "state immigrants" would also have to be disqualified from all federal programs or unwilling states would still be paying for them. You are ignorant of the laws regarding legal and illegal immigration. Education, for instance, is explicitly provided to illegal immigrants. Social services almost all have a multi-year "pay-in" period. Additionally, immigrants pay more into taxes than they take out. I believe you are unintentionally arguing a strawman. Also, those states don't get a say in what they do or do not pay for. Massachusetts pays for Alabama. In fact, Massachusetts pays for immigration control that they don't want. In reality this would be a doubly more fair distribution of federal taxes. Even hypothetically it's an insignificant change. >And if that isn't enough to make it intractable, what do you expect to happen when an immigrant crosses into another state to commit a serious crime? I don't understand what you're trying to say at all- this would no different from anyone else, citizen or not, committing a crime.
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        > This is irrelevant; you can do this on a visa just as easily. Additionally, this exists for a reason even if you don't like it. If anything it reduces the incentive to do this, because you can get 99% of the benefits without doing it. Regardless all you have to do to make this birth-neutral is make it as hard to get a state green card as it is to get a visa. The whole premise is that some states want to make it easier than that. What is a state green card even for if it's just redundant with an existing H1B visa and doesn't increase the total number of immigrants whatsoever? > Education, for instance, is explicitly provided to illegal immigrants. And if the number of immigrants increases, so does the cost to the school system. > Social services almost all have a multi-year "pay-in" period. Additionally, immigrants pay more into taxes than they take out. Welfare is redistributive. (The programs that aren't are net harmful and do nothing but sell you your own money with bureaucratic waste and corruption-induced strings attached). Its purpose is to transfer resources from those who have more to those who need more. The only way anyone should give more than they get is if they have above average earnings, which is true of current legal immigrants (because that's basically the criteria that gets them accepted), but not true of the typical unskilled workers who would be the apparent target of this program. > Also, those states don't get a say in what they do or do not pay for. Sure they do, in the US Senate. No federal money gets spent without majority approval from both houses of Congress. To make this happen you need their approval. > I don't understand what you're trying to say at all- this would no different from anyone else, citizen or not, committing a crime. And the political consequences?
- hwillis 10y ago
  I don't think so. What I'm thinking is that "state green cards" would let you live in one state, and your residence will be checked up on periodically. If you don't live there, or if you're found in another state without a visa, you become an illegal immigrant, and fall under the purview of the federal immigration services. This has very little negative changes- since many/most illegal immigrants are here on overstayed visas (anecdotally, every one of the illegal immigrants I know), and because travelling from a state into inner states is so easy, it doesn't make enforcement particularly harder. Since immigrants have a readily available alternative in the states that want them, stricter enforcement of illegal immigration is much more justifiable. All this system requires is that the federal government maintains and checks on a list of expanded green card holders (ie non-citizens) that are restricted to certain states. This system is already in place for normal green card holders. If you aren't where you're supposed to be, the feds start looking with you, with the added advantage of having a last known location, picture, description, identifiers, and information about your family and friends. It would be much easier to track people who entered legally, and justifies much stronger controls over illegal entry. Hypothetical situation: California says "okay we'll take 30,000 Syrian refugees annually". The Feds screen, admit, and register 30,000 Syrians and tell them "Okay, you are not citizens- you can't leave California without a visa, you can't vote, and you might never become citizens. You may live and work in California as long as you pay state and federal taxes, and you can use public education and medicaid (after ten years). You will be tried for a felony if you leave California. We will check with your landlord, check on where you pay taxes, and stop by every 3-6 months to verify where you are". In return the refugees provide everything a normal green card holder does- name, identification, family, location, occupation etc. Edit: the best argument I've heard against this is the deontological one. Essentially that the feds should be the only ones who control who enters the union, and that since they are the feds they can't contain people in one state. This argument completely disregards the possibility of the feds making deals with states.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    You're right that overstays are a big problem. Now imagine how much worse it would be if every state got to choose who comes in. The federal government tries real hard to issue visas only to people who won't break the law. They're not entirely successful, but the bar is decently high. The Syrian refugee hypothetical would have a different problem altogether. The opposition to admitting refugees isn't economic, it's about terrorism. If you can't stop a terrorist posing as a refugee from traveling from California to Texas then the only way to keep Texas safe from that person is to keep him out of the country altogether. (To be clear, I think the worry over terrorists posing as refugees is just paranoia. But the fear is real.)
- toomanybeersies 10y ago
  The EU manages to have immigration on a per-nation basis (for non-EU countries), without internal border controls.
  - hwillis 10y ago
    True, but there are some partial exceptions (Britain and France) and reality hasn't stopped people from pointing to the EU as an example of the system gone horribly awry. Despite the lack of conditionals placed on EU immigrants, the lack of tracking and free movement, there has been very little migration from border countries that accept migrants willingly.
  - briandear 10y ago
    Actually there are Schengen border controls which are not the same thing. You cross outside of Schengen and you do border controls. Go from France to the U.K. for example -- even pre-Brexit.

by hwillis 10y ago

mikeash 10y ago

Leaving immigration to the states would require internal border controls. This is not something most people want.

jzwinck 10y ago
You could make a single-state work permit without internal borders. If workers from California want to spend their vacation money in Nevada, let them. You can still reject them if they apply for work in another state.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  It's not just about work. To make that effective you would have to eliminate federal birthright citizenship, or anyone could easily make their children US citizens (and then too many would). The "state immigrants" would also have to be disqualified from all federal programs or unwilling states would still be paying for them. And if that isn't enough to make it intractable, what do you expect to happen when an immigrant crosses into another state to commit a serious crime?
  - hwillis 10y ago
    >To make that effective you would have to eliminate federal birthright citizenship, or anyone could easily make their children US citizens (and then too many would). This is irrelevant; you can do this on a visa just as easily. Additionally, this exists for a reason even if you don't like it. If anything it reduces the incentive to do this, because you can get 99% of the benefits without doing it. Regardless all you have to do to make this birth-neutral is make it as hard to get a state green card as it is to get a visa. >The "state immigrants" would also have to be disqualified from all federal programs or unwilling states would still be paying for them. You are ignorant of the laws regarding legal and illegal immigration. Education, for instance, is explicitly provided to illegal immigrants. Social services almost all have a multi-year "pay-in" period. Additionally, immigrants pay more into taxes than they take out. I believe you are unintentionally arguing a strawman. Also, those states don't get a say in what they do or do not pay for. Massachusetts pays for Alabama. In fact, Massachusetts pays for immigration control that they don't want. In reality this would be a doubly more fair distribution of federal taxes. Even hypothetically it's an insignificant change. >And if that isn't enough to make it intractable, what do you expect to happen when an immigrant crosses into another state to commit a serious crime? I don't understand what you're trying to say at all- this would no different from anyone else, citizen or not, committing a crime.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      > This is irrelevant; you can do this on a visa just as easily. Additionally, this exists for a reason even if you don't like it. If anything it reduces the incentive to do this, because you can get 99% of the benefits without doing it. Regardless all you have to do to make this birth-neutral is make it as hard to get a state green card as it is to get a visa. The whole premise is that some states want to make it easier than that. What is a state green card even for if it's just redundant with an existing H1B visa and doesn't increase the total number of immigrants whatsoever? > Education, for instance, is explicitly provided to illegal immigrants. And if the number of immigrants increases, so does the cost to the school system. > Social services almost all have a multi-year "pay-in" period. Additionally, immigrants pay more into taxes than they take out. Welfare is redistributive. (The programs that aren't are net harmful and do nothing but sell you your own money with bureaucratic waste and corruption-induced strings attached). Its purpose is to transfer resources from those who have more to those who need more. The only way anyone should give more than they get is if they have above average earnings, which is true of current legal immigrants (because that's basically the criteria that gets them accepted), but not true of the typical unskilled workers who would be the apparent target of this program. > Also, those states don't get a say in what they do or do not pay for. Sure they do, in the US Senate. No federal money gets spent without majority approval from both houses of Congress. To make this happen you need their approval. > I don't understand what you're trying to say at all- this would no different from anyone else, citizen or not, committing a crime. And the political consequences?
hwillis 10y ago
I don't think so. What I'm thinking is that "state green cards" would let you live in one state, and your residence will be checked up on periodically. If you don't live there, or if you're found in another state without a visa, you become an illegal immigrant, and fall under the purview of the federal immigration services. This has very little negative changes- since many/most illegal immigrants are here on overstayed visas (anecdotally, every one of the illegal immigrants I know), and because travelling from a state into inner states is so easy, it doesn't make enforcement particularly harder. Since immigrants have a readily available alternative in the states that want them, stricter enforcement of illegal immigration is much more justifiable. All this system requires is that the federal government maintains and checks on a list of expanded green card holders (ie non-citizens) that are restricted to certain states. This system is already in place for normal green card holders. If you aren't where you're supposed to be, the feds start looking with you, with the added advantage of having a last known location, picture, description, identifiers, and information about your family and friends. It would be much easier to track people who entered legally, and justifies much stronger controls over illegal entry. Hypothetical situation: California says "okay we'll take 30,000 Syrian refugees annually". The Feds screen, admit, and register 30,000 Syrians and tell them "Okay, you are not citizens- you can't leave California without a visa, you can't vote, and you might never become citizens. You may live and work in California as long as you pay state and federal taxes, and you can use public education and medicaid (after ten years). You will be tried for a felony if you leave California. We will check with your landlord, check on where you pay taxes, and stop by every 3-6 months to verify where you are". In return the refugees provide everything a normal green card holder does- name, identification, family, location, occupation etc. Edit: the best argument I've heard against this is the deontological one. Essentially that the feds should be the only ones who control who enters the union, and that since they are the feds they can't contain people in one state. This argument completely disregards the possibility of the feds making deals with states.
- mikeash 10y ago
  You're right that overstays are a big problem. Now imagine how much worse it would be if every state got to choose who comes in. The federal government tries real hard to issue visas only to people who won't break the law. They're not entirely successful, but the bar is decently high. The Syrian refugee hypothetical would have a different problem altogether. The opposition to admitting refugees isn't economic, it's about terrorism. If you can't stop a terrorist posing as a refugee from traveling from California to Texas then the only way to keep Texas safe from that person is to keep him out of the country altogether. (To be clear, I think the worry over terrorists posing as refugees is just paranoia. But the fear is real.)
toomanybeersies 10y ago
The EU manages to have immigration on a per-nation basis (for non-EU countries), without internal border controls.
- hwillis 10y ago
  True, but there are some partial exceptions (Britain and France) and reality hasn't stopped people from pointing to the EU as an example of the system gone horribly awry. Despite the lack of conditionals placed on EU immigrants, the lack of tracking and free movement, there has been very little migration from border countries that accept migrants willingly.
- briandear 10y ago
  Actually there are Schengen border controls which are not the same thing. You cross outside of Schengen and you do border controls. Go from France to the U.K. for example -- even pre-Brexit.