Immigration

If the Mexican people want a free ticket to the US, they should be prepared to offer the same in return. Until then, I advise we adopt the Mexican immigration laws as our own.

Which is basically what we have now. That's why there are so many "illegals" living and working here. Adopting even stricter rules won't in anyway stop these so called "illegals." They'll just keep coming as long as they have a way to make a buck here.

And why do people think that innovation would simply stop if there was an over abundance of labor? More people usually means more ideas, not less, more opportunities, not fewer. It's an odd kind of concrete bound, tribal, limited, territorial, mentality that fears "too much," but it's a telling clue into the view of human nature held by some.

Post 21

Sunday, March 16, 2008 - 12:48pm

In post 16 K.Z writes

No one should be allowed to immigrate to America -- or even work here or visit -- unless they significantly enhance the quality of the nation. Considering the masses of foreigners who seek to come here, this should be an easy standard to meet. Citizenship and even denizenship are a magnificent benefit, privilege, and honor. Degraders, parasites, and enemies shouldn't be allowed inside. The exploitive anti-libertarian rabble should be resisted.

A better solution might be to require that anyone entering the country buy insurance sufficient to cover all expected costs to the U.S., such as injury and disability - on or off the job - that would end up otherwise with U.S. residents footing the bill at the ER, or other costs, such as criminal behavior, etc, and an additional fee to cover the expected use of public resources, probably in the range of a couple thousand bucks per year. Naturally the insurance premiums would be considerably higher for people who had a history of violent crimes, and perhaps astronomically high for those people who had been identified as Al Quida members. (The insurance pay-out for a client crashing a plane into a skyscraper might be rather large.) People carrying infectious diseases that can be passed on via casual contact or through the air are a threat to everyone whoever and whereever they are - U.S. citizen or not - and should be immediately quarantined or blocked from entry altogether unless they have prior arrangements for quarantine and care in the U.S.

I note that a recent study of rates of crime in various populations in the U.S. concluded that illegal immigrants commit crimes in general at about 1/5 the rate of legal residents and citizens. Thus, the onus is definitely on those who want to block such immigration to show how they would be improving things.

Post 22

Sunday, March 16, 2008 - 1:22pm

Jack:

I have no problem with open immigration - so long as the socialistic perks that lure the laggards are eliminated. I do; however, have a major problem with one-way borders. The imbalance causes economic disruption that runs like a shockwave from the border to the interior of the US. Any time you suddenly and dramatically increase the population you increase the demand for jobs and other resources such as housing, health care and the basic necessities of life. Until the capitalist system gets itself into gear and begins to satisfy the demand for material goods by taking advantage of the now-inflated labor pool of the suddenly unemployed, many who live in the affected country will suffer mightily.

I don't follow your economic theory there is economic "disruption" if different immigration laws between Mexico and the U.S. result in "one-way" borders. I'm not sure how you define disruption, but if it is defined as changes in the supply of laborers, such disruptions need not be necessarily bad. Would for an example an increase in the supply of oil, which would mean cheaper fuel costs, be a disruption in the economy? Sure, but wouldn't you want that disruption? I know I would.

So more laborers doesn't mean there is an increase in the demand for jobs as you say, it means there is an increase in the supply of jobs. Companies don't increase their labor force because more people demand jobs, they increase it to meet the demand for more of their products and services. More immigrants means an increase in the supply of laborers which means more competition for jobs, which results in better quality labor and lesser wages which result in better and cheaper goods and services. This means more people can purchase more goods and services and increase their standard of living. These cheaper and better products and services which would then be made in higher quantities to meet the increase in demand means more housing, more healthcare, more widgets, etc. The economy is a cycle between consumption and production. There is no one that exists solely as a consumer (except welfare recipients) or as a producer. Almost everyone does both. You get a job, you are producing, you get a paycheck and you spend it, you are a consumer. So more labor just means the economy grows in size because we get more producers and consumers, so wealth grows. It is not a finite pie.

So I say, I couldn't give a damn if say Mexico has tighter restrictions on immigration and we had more liberal laws on immigration (with fewer or no welfare entitlements in the U.S.), in that situation that would be their loss and our gain.

Post 23

Sunday, March 16, 2008 - 2:45pm

So more laborers doesn't mean there is an increase in the demand for jobs as you say, it means there is an increase in the supply of jobs. Companies don't increase their labor force because more people demand jobs, they increase it to meet the demand for more of their products and services. More immigrants means an increase in the supply of laborers which means more competition for jobs, which results in better quality labor and lesser wages which result in better and cheaper goods and services. This means more people can purchase more goods and services and increase their standard of living.

In a perfect world, your view might have some validity, but this is not a perfect world. There is a lag between the time an overabundant supply of labor hits the market and the time it is absorbed into the economy. Natural born citizens and legal immigrants suffer the interim. And we're looking at the least skilled end of the labor force. You are not likely to see many campesinos magically turning into MD's and distributing medical services to the general public. There is a saturation point in the market for unskilled labor at which the economy will not accommodate any more. That means unemployment and poverty. Unemployment leads to crime. Poverty leads to crime. And I'm sure you are aware that the higher the population density, the higher the crime rate - it's a simple fact of human nature.

Post 24

Sunday, March 16, 2008 - 6:43pm

Jack:

In a perfect world, your view might have some validity, but this is not a perfect world. There is a lag between the time an overabundant supply of labor hits the market and the time it is absorbed into the economy.

Obviously, as with any resource, there is a lag between an increase in supply to it being reflected in price or in the case of an abundance of labor leading to job growth. But the lag isn't that long, and an abundance of labor ALWAYS leads to job growth. And the long term benefits significantly outweighs whatever short-term drawbacks there might be. And the alternative being protectionism that you propose keeps resources expensive and limited, thereby leading to either a decrease or a stagnation in the standard of living.

Natural born citizens and legal immigrants suffer the interim.

How do you mean suffer? You mean they have to more aggressively compete for their jobs? Are you saying competition is bad?

And we're looking at the least skilled end of the labor force. You are not likely to see many campesinos magically turning into MD's and distributing medical services to the general public. There is a saturation point in the market for unskilled labor at which the economy will not accommodate any more.

Markets grow, especially when more labor is introduced, so the economy is never finite and I find it hard to believe there is such a thing as a saturation in the labor market. If lower skilled labor is not high in demand, it gives people the incentive to either leave those marketplaces and look for markets where lower skilled labor is in demand, or there is the incentive to gain skills to receive a higher paid wage. If there is a higher demand for M.D.s, their salaries increase, their services being more sought after start to decrease once their prices for their services increase, and the incentive for more people to become M.D.s is there in order to gain a market share of those high doctor's profits. The free market always insures there are no shortages or surpluses in either labor or products and services, or at least very minimal shortages and surpluses, whereas protectionism almost always assuredly gives us shortages (high tarrifs and inefficient goods) and surpluses (subsidized industries).

Unemployment leads to crime. Poverty leads to crime. And I'm sure you are aware that the higher the population density, the higher the crime rate - it's a simple fact of human nature.

This is not an empirically sound statement. There are many regions in the United States where densely populated areas can have less crime per capita than more spread out populated areas. There is no causal relationship between how densely populated an area is and the crime rate. The causal relationship exists only where the judicial system is not effective in dealing with crime.

But what does protectionism accomplish? It degrades the standard of living, it increases unemployment because the economy shrinks in size, it makes what would otherwise be cheap products become extremely expensive and inefficiently made. Economically speaking, there is no reason why protectionism should be favored over free markets.

Post 25

Monday, March 17, 2008 - 5:25am

Obviously, as with any resource, there is a lag between an increase in supply to it being reflected in price or in the case of an abundance of labor leading to job growth. But the lag isn't that long, and an abundance of labor ALWAYS leads to job growth. And the long term benefits significantly outweighs whatever short-term drawbacks there might be. And the alternative being protectionism that you propose keeps resources expensive and limited, thereby leading to either a decrease or a stagnation in the standard of living.

The deluge began over a decade ago. I'm still waiting to see how long this "short-term" lag lasts. Check the wage rates along the border with those less affected by uncontrolled immigration and get some figures to support your facts. As for the long term benefits, tell that to a young couple struggling to survive among hordes of illegal workers willing to accept slave wages. Only if we had OPEN borders would the wages in Mexico rise to an acceptable level, while we continue to have one-way borders only the rich and politically connected benefit...on both sides of the border.

How do you mean suffer? You mean they have to more aggressively compete for their jobs? Are you saying competition is bad?

If someone who can do YOUR job is satisfied with $2.50 per hour because the government in his home country is corrupt and a handful of the presidente's cronies flourish due to the patronage system are you going to welcome him in and hand him your job or encourage him to pitch the system of slavery where he came from?

This is not an empirically sound statement. There are many regions in the United States where densely populated areas can have less crime per capita than more spread out populated areas.

Name two.

It seems you are too willing to give away the farm...probably because you have no dog in this fight. As I said before, so long as we have OPEN borders, things will eventually work out, but so long as there are one way borders WE continue to be the solution to Mexico's problems and Mexico will remain a major problem for US.

They want to eat their cake and give us the garbage...sorry, but I find that unacceptable.

Post 26

Monday, March 17, 2008 - 6:27am

John -

Labor is every bit as much a commodity as steel, cars, produce. So let's say you are the CEO of Ultra-Servile Automatons, Incorporated (USA, Inc). You produce small, compact and artificially intelligent robots who perform menial tasks from waiting tables to stoop labor in the fields. You call them "Toil-ettes". You hire locally and pay a decent wage because there is competition in the industry.

Someone from Mexico sees you are making good money, so he goes back to Mexico and begins making similar robots at a fraction of the cost - because government corruption, cronyism and the established system of patronage has kept Mexican wages at a slave labor rate.

The US has an open border philosophy, but Mexico is....well....Mexico.

As Mexican robots flood the market, you begin to loose money. As an astute businessman, you decide you, too, must take advantage of cheap labor and you go to Mexico to establish a manufacturing plant. BUT WAIT. This is Mexico. You are a gringo and robot manufacturing is a protected industry.

Oh, well...so much for that idea - so you begin manufacturing widgits.

Someone from Mexico sees you are making good money....... GET THE IDEA??

Open borders are GREAT, but one way borders SUCK.

Post 27

Monday, March 17, 2008 - 12:47pm

Jack

The deluge began over a decade ago. I'm still waiting to see how long this "short-term" lag lasts. Check the wage rates along the border with those less affected by uncontrolled immigration and get some figures to support your facts.

Well show me some figures! Why do you want me to do your homework? I can readily find national figures for you, over the past ten years we have had net economic growth in this time period. GDP per capita increased in the past ten years, which means an increase in the standard of living:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=67

While the unemployment rate stayed relatively the same in the past years hovering around its usual 2-4%.

That means people got richer in this country, while unemployment rates stay about the same. So this "deluge" seems to have improved our economy.

As for the long term benefits, tell that to a young couple struggling to survive among hordes of illegal workers willing to accept slave wages.

Sorry but if you're going to go down the emotionalism route, you're not going to get much sympathy from me considering we have had net economic growth for the past decade. I suppose I could say back to you why would you deny so many millions of young couples who have greatly benefited from immigrant labor their increased standard of living? Tell that to the well off young couple who now has a job because the economy grew.

And slave wages? Are you a Marxist? Do you think people are entitled to a wage they demand? How about we raise the minimum wage to 100 dollars an hour and completely shut down our borders to all immigration?

Only if we had OPEN borders would the wages in Mexico rise to an acceptable level, while we continue to have one-way borders only the rich and politically connected benefit...on both sides of the border.

And what is an "acceptable" level? An arbitrary wage level that you Jack McNally will set? Wage levels are determined by supply and demand. If we opened our borders while Mexico continued to close theirs, I see no reason why that would hurt our economy as I stated in my previous post:

"Markets grow, especially when more labor is introduced, so the economy is never finite and I find it hard to believe there is such a thing as a saturation in the labor market. If lower skilled labor is not high in demand, it gives people the incentive to either leave those marketplaces and look for markets where lower skilled labor is in demand, or there is the incentive to gain skills to receive a higher paid wage. If there is a higher demand for M.D.s, their salaries increase, their services being more sought after start to decrease once their prices for their services increase, and the incentive for more people to become M.D.s is there in order to gain a market share of those high doctor's profits. The free market always insures there are no shortages or surpluses in either labor or products and services, or at least very minimal shortages and surpluses, whereas protectionism almost always assuredly gives us shortages (high tarrifs and inefficient goods) and surpluses (subsidized industries)."

If immigrants founds themselves not finding a job, they would have no more an incentive to immigrate here and choose a different market to migrate to. Which actually has happened historically as during the Great Depression immigration was at an historical low:

I originally wrote: "How do you mean suffer? You mean they have to more aggressively compete for their jobs? Are you saying competition is bad?"

To which you respond:

If someone who can do YOUR job is satisfied with $2.50 per hour because the government in his home country is corrupt ...

If someone is willing to take a job at $2.50 an hour, that is what the job is worth. You have no right to dictate to a company and employee who freely chose to enter into an agreement with each other that you Jack McNally do not "approve" of their transaction. No more so than if someone took a job at $8.00 an hour do you have any more moral authority to disapprove of that transaction, or $50, or $100. It's none of your business. If people don't want to compete for a job, or learn a new skill or start their own business and stop whining about having to be productive, then they can join the rest of their comrades in the unemployment line.

I originally wrote:

"There are many regions in the United States where densely populated areas can have less crime per capita than more spread out populated areas."

You responded:

Name two.

Sure. Here's a wikipedia link to crime rates in 2006 by metropolitan area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

Baltimore has a murder rate of 42.0 while a city like Philadelphia that is more than twice the size in population has a murder rate of 25.6. Detroit has a murder rate of 39.3 while Los Angeles which is almost four times larger in population has a murder rate of 12.6.

Just look at the numbers.

It seems you are too willing to give away the farm...probably because you have no dog in this fight. .... They want to eat their cake and give us the garbage...sorry, but I find that unacceptable.

Did you ever stop to think and say to yourself "hey maybe I don't know much about this topic for me to come to any judgment?" You obviously demonstrated a lot of ignorance on the subject matter, perhaps you can take a step back, be honest with yourself and realize maybe you don't have all the information you need to make a sound judgment, and instead make a sincere effort to learn more and take what I and others have said on this thread and internalize the data.

(Edited by John Armaos on 3/17, 4:23pm)

Post 28

Monday, March 17, 2008 - 12:50pm

So you build robots to manufacture your robots and do it better and cheaper than the cheap Mexican human labor. They can steal, but you can innovate. There will always be parasites. Do you starve your dog to spite his fleas? There is room for Apple and Microsoft in this world. I guess we could just call it a day and move to Galt's Gulch. That'll show 'em!!

Post 29

Monday, March 17, 2008 - 12:51pm

John:

John -

Labor is every bit as much a commodity as steel, cars, produce. So let's say you are the CEO of Ultra-Servile Automatons, Incorporated (USA, Inc). You produce small, compact and artificially intelligent robots who perform menial tasks from waiting tables to stoop labor in the fields. You call them "Toil-ettes". You hire locally and pay a decent wage because there is competition in the industry.

Someone from Mexico sees you are making good money, so he goes back to Mexico and begins making similar robots at a fraction of the cost - because government corruption, cronyism and the established system of patronage has kept Mexican wages at a slave labor rate.

The US has an open border philosophy, but Mexico is....well....Mexico.

As Mexican robots flood the market, you begin to loose money. As an astute businessman, you decide you, too, must take advantage of cheap labor and you go to Mexico to establish a manufacturing plant. BUT WAIT. This is Mexico. You are a gringo and robot manufacturing is a protected industry.

Oh, well...so much for that idea - so you begin manufacturing widgits.

Someone from Mexico sees you are making good money....... GET THE IDEA??

So that means CHEAPER goods are imported to America and Americans are able to afford more products and the purchasing power of their dollar increases, so their standard of living increases. As we have seen net growth in this nation you do not have any facts to back up your claim protectionism is good.

Post 30

Monday, March 17, 2008 - 2:46pm

What to GDP figures and immigration figures from the census have to do with the impact of illegal immigration on the border? Most of the illegals I know won't be showing up on employment statistics - THEY DON'T FILE for unemployment. They also don't fill our census forms.

Your effort to install verbiage in my oral cavity is a farce. I never said I was for minimum wage or anything BUT a free market. The problem is that with direct government control, corruption and patronage there IS NO FREE MARKET IN MEXICO. And they are making it OUR problem.

Thank you for proving my point about population DENSITY (not just headcount) - http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027.html

Did you ever stop to think, "...hey maybe I don't understand the premise?" You obviously demonstrated a lot of ignorance on the subject matter, perhaps you can take a step back, be honest with yourself and realize maybe you don't have all the information you need to make a sound judgment and make a sincere effort to learn more and take what I and others have said on this thread and internalize the data. (I HATE ad hominem attacks - don't you. They demean the attacker, don't they?)

So that means CHEAPER goods are imported to America and Americans are able to afford more products and the purchasing power of their dollar increases, so their standard of living increases. As we have seen net growth in this nation you do not have any facts to back up your claim protectionism is good.

So long as Mexico can continue to enrich its anointed and appointed by sending its problems to the US it will continue to do so and the artificially low wages it fosters - even temporarily - will continue to cause economic dislocations over here. Nations need to be held accountable for their actions as well as individuals. Do you want your Mafia neighbor's delinquent kid in your home?

I don't want protectionism. I prefer open borders, but I demand parity.

Post 31

Monday, March 17, 2008 - 5:33pm

Jack:

What to GDP figures and immigration figures from the census have to do with the impact of illegal immigration on the border? Most of the illegals I know won't be showing up on employment statistics - THEY DON'T FILE for unemployment. They also don't fill our census forms.

Jack it shows that citizens of this country are not experiencing any kind of net loss in jobs because of the "deluge" in illegal immigration as you originally claimed. This apparently went over your head. The fact that illegals don't report for unemployment or for a census doesn't mean anything when we're talking about whether citizens are losing jobs to "slave labor". If they were we would have seen an increase in unemployment and a decrease in GDP per capita.

Your effort to install verbiage in my oral cavity is a farce. I never said I was for minimum wage or anything BUT a free market. The problem is that with direct government control, corruption and patronage there IS NO FREE MARKET IN MEXICO. And they are making it OUR problem.

So your response to Mexico not having a free market, is to see to it that America doesn't have a free market? If you deny the freedom of movement, you can't claim you are for free markets lest you be considered a moral hypocrite.

Thank you for proving my point about population DENSITY (not just headcount) - http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027.html

So why does New York have a lower murder rate than Detroit despite New York being ranked the highest in population density while Detroit is ranked seventh? AGAIN, smaller population densities can have a higher crime rate (like Detroit) than larger population densities like New York. Please drop the sloppy thinking and if you're going to post links at least read them.

So long as Mexico can continue to enrich its anointed and appointed by sending its problems to the US it will continue to do so and the artificially low wages it fosters - even temporarily - will continue to cause economic dislocations over here. Nations need to be held accountable for their actions as well as individuals. Do you want your Mafia neighbor's delinquent kid in your home?

What is "artificially low wages"? Lower wages meant a boost in our economy as I have provided you statistics that show GDP per capita has increased, not decreased, while unemployment stayed the same. You can keep saying the same thing over and over again but argument ad nauseum will not make your proposition anymore correct. Either explain to me why unemployment for citizens stayed the same while their wealth increased while there was a deluge of immigration or concede to my points. If we suffered economically because of illegal immigration than show us some statistics, but you can't can you?

I don't want protectionism. I prefer open borders, but I demand parity.

So if you don't get parity from Mexico, you demand protectionism. This just demonstrates you're a hypocrite. If Mexico denied rights to its citizens where is the moral argument the United States should respond in kind to its own citizens?

(Edited by John Armaos on 3/17, 8:56pm)

Post 32

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 8:53am

Many good points in the posts from John Armaos.
Among them:
So if you don't get parity from Mexico, you demand protectionism.

The logic of protectionism would close the USA to all immigration until the rest of the world met our standards for political liberty... if not artistic integrity... and oral hygiene.... What makes America attractive to all of us is specifically that it is a better place to be.

A few month back there was a discussion here on the Metaphysically Impossible. "Suppose you woke up and found yourself on a ledge..." There is no need to reply to such challenges. Equally impossible is the hypothetical case that manufacturers in Mexico can produce robots better and cheaper than manufacturers in America. Having worked in the robotics industry for two years, I assure you that the edge is still with Japan and Japanese branches in the USA and American firms licensing Japanese technology. So, that whole discussion is pointless. "What if..." is unimportant when contrasted with "What is."

Post 33

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 5:29am

Try revising your GDP based on the price of gold, oil, or the dollar vs world currencies. Graphed in real terms of value on the world market it is shriveling like a prune.

What happens to the 'employment stats' when - because of artificially low wages - a one earner household MUST become a two earner household in order to survive? Compare the wages along the border with the rest of the nation - the border as a whole, not just a city or two that bucks the trend.

Yes, all cases of higher population density do not fit the mold of higher crime but the trend predominates - if you drop the sloppy interpretation and see the gist of ALL the stats.

It is not possible to claim that uncontrolled illegal immigration is not negatively impacting citizens of this country. One of the FEW legitimate functions of government is to protect its borders.

Post 34

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 11:41am

John Armaos:

Baltimore has a murder rate of 42.0 while a city like Philadelphia that is more than twice the size in population has a murder rate of 25.6. Detroit has a murder rate of 39.3 while Los Angeles which is almost four times larger in population has a murder rate of 12.6.

John, while your two examples of pairs of cities do succeed (see below), the criteria was population density, not population size.

                    Population density     Murder rate
Baltimore          8,058/sq mi              42.0
Philadelphia    10,883/sq mi              25.6
Detroit              6,856/sq mi              39.3
Los Angeles      8,205/sq mi              12.6

On the other hand, compare Philly to L.A, and Baltimore to Detroit.

Post 35

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 12:04pm

Jack:

if you drop the sloppy interpretation and see the gist of ALL the stats

Jack, still waiting to see your "stats". Where are they? I did my homework, why don't you get off your intellectually lazy rear end and start showing me how illegal immigration has negatively impacted our economy in a net loss? Where is your data?

You don't have any do you?

That's because the economy grew in the past decade in real GDP growth, that means adjusted for inflation. So it doesn't matter if we adjust it for the price of gold, or the price of oil, or the price of world currencies. Adjusting it for inflation gives us a more accurate measure of the purchasing power of the dollar when comparing it over time. Inflation takes into account the increase in price for ALL GOODS AND SERVICES, not just OIL AND GOLD. Bottom line, wealth grew, if you don't understand what "real GDP growth" means please take an economics course.

Yes, all cases of higher population density do not fit the mold of higher crime but the trend predominates

Perhaps yes perhaps no, but you certainly haven't made any effort to show me a trend graph showing this to be the case, and even so since there are so many examples where cities with higher density populations have lower crime rates than ones with lesser population densities, it begs the question how strong is this correlation? And if so what is the cause? Is it population density that is the cause or is it an ineffective local judicial system? Since places like New York and Los Angeles have lower crime rates than places like Detroit and Baltimore yet New York and Los Angeles have much much larger population densities, you can't honestly say there is some causal link between population density and crime.

And since you originally said: "And I'm sure you are aware that the higher the population density, the higher the crime rate - it's a simple fact of human nature."

So obviously since the data is replete with examples where this is not the case, IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT HUMAN NATURE, AND OBVIOUSLY NOT A FACT THE HIGHER THE POPULATION DENSITY IS, THE HIGHER THE CRIME RATE. It is obviously the result of the judicial system and ultimately, what people's values are. Larger population density DOESN'T CAUSE more crime.

It is not possible to claim that uncontrolled illegal immigration is not negatively impacting citizens of this country.

Um....yes it is possible to claim that. But my claim is that it has had a NET positive impact. I'm sure some citizens may suffer from illegal immigration, BUT IT IS COMPLETELY DISINGENUOUS TO IGNORE THE MILLIONS OF OTHERS WHO HAVE BENEFITED FROM ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND IGNORE THE *NET* IMPACT.

Post 36

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 12:15pm

Yes Merlin you are correct. But even still there are many examples where population *density* does not necessarily equate to a higher crime rate. As Jack claims this is human nature, it obviously isn't. And we haven't even compared foreign cities, Japan barely has any crime rate at all but their cites have very large population densities. Let's compare Tokyo to any American city. So Jack's statements are simply false.

Here is a graph of population density by country:

Here is a graph of crime rates by country:

Again there are dozens of examples where population density doesn't mean higher crime rate. Perhaps there is a correlation, but definitely not a causal link, and I question how strong a correlation it is. But it is far from it being human nature.

Post 37

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 5:11pm

John,

Merlin's figures of density vs. murder rate actually agree with your stand, which I find terribly interesting (and amusing.)

Detroit has 6,856 people living in a square mile, and had 39.3 murders.
Philly, on the other hand, has almost 11,000 people living in a square mile, but only had 25.6 murders.
L.A. has 8,205 people (and most probably way way more non-documented workers) per square mile, but suffered fewer than 13 murders.

Isn't that interesting, Jack? Doesn't that impact your ideas just a little bit? Maybe your view of human nature is slightly off center after all, huh? ;)

Facts is facts, but you just keep on believing what you believe.

Even when the facts are staring the man in the face...fascinating. Everyone should see this. It's the biggest problem facing mankind: Evasion.

Post 38

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 5:35pm

You want statistics...OK

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html
Real GDP Growth:
1 Azerbaijan                 31.00 2007 est.
2 Timor-Leste            24.00 2007 est.
3 Macau                         16.60 2006
4 Angola                      16.30 2007 est.
5 Armenia                    13.70 2007 est.
6 Sudan                         12.80 2007 est.
7 Equatorial Guinea     12.70 2007 est.
8 Georgia                     12.00 2007 est.
9 China                         11.40 2007 est.

183 United States         2.20 2007 est.
184 Hungary                  2.10 2007 est.
185 Morocco                 2.10 2007 est.
186 Eritrea                    2.00 2007 est.
187 Greenland              2.00 2005 est.
188 Virgin Islands         2.00 2002 est.
189 Italy                         1.90 2007 est.
190 Japan                     1.90 2007 est.
191 France                    1.80 2007 est.
192 Iceland                    1.80 2007 est.
193 Denmark                1.70 2007 est.
194 Portugal                 1.70 2007 est.

Tell me again how them "free market" forces cause REAL GDP growth. The 'free market' countries are in the toil-ette.

10 years ago, I'd work a week for 6 oz of gold, now it is 1.5 oz. And 10 years ago I'd make 60 barrels of oil a week. Now it is 15. The Euro was less than a dollar, now it takes three dollars to buy two Euros. Canada used to gripe because their dollar was a quarter shy of the greenback. Now they flock here for the bargains. Figures lie and liars figure. You can make statistics say anything you want. The bottom line is my currency is worth a fraction of what it used to be. And inflation is about to break out like the 80's. Of course uncontrolled immigration has NOTHING to do with that...lol.

Yes, the government self servingly corrals the inflation rate at 3-4% and uses the fact that our deflating currency lowers all ships. Our economy compared to the global economy is (op cit) deflating so when you limit your scope to domestic goods and services GDP looks better and inflation doesn't look so dismal.

Again, what happens to the 'employment stats' when - because of artificially low wages - a one earner household MUST become a two earner household in order to survive? Compare the wages along the border with the rest of the nation - the border as a whole, not just a city or two that bucks the trend.

As for crime - I will concede that the correlation between population density and crime must be sifted through the filters of poverty and unemployment in order for the trend to be clearly seen. Of course that is what Mexico is exporting - poverty and unemployment - and you seem so eager to accept it.

Actually most of the illegals I know aren't unemployed. They are doing quite well selling pharmaceuticals - you know, the ones with out the warning labels.

Post 39

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 9:42pm