Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

I thought a little more about this driving in:

 

In formulating immigration policy should the primary purpose be to help potential immigrants or to do well for the country (meaning the country accepting the immigrants)?

 

These purposes may sometimes be in alignment, but not always. How is the conflict to be resolved?

 

If we are to have a policy where, to at least some extent, we choose who will be admitted rather than just saying "whoever comes, comes", then choosing means choosing. This will always be subject to charges of ism of one sort or another. Racial bias, religious bias, cultural bias, etc. In fact, the choice, being a choice, will be based on something. Does this preclude us from ever setting a policy based on conscious choice of who will be admitted?

[y66]

From a 2010 Dallas Federal Reserve Board report on immigration:

 

“An interesting 2000 study showed that a selective immigration policy that admitted 1.6 million high-skilled immigrants age 40–44 years old annually into a hypothetical U.S.-style economy with a 50 percent debt-to-GDP ratio would have balanced the budget within five years and eventually eliminated the national debt. Balancing the budget via tax increases instead would have required a 4.4 percentage point increase in income tax rates, according to that study.”

Estimates from 1996—the most recent comprehensive estimates available—indicate that immigrants with less than a high school diploma cost $89,000 more than they contribute in taxes over their lifetimes, while immigrants with more than a high school education contribute $105,000 more in taxes than they use in public services. In other words, low skilled immigrants are a net fiscal drain, but overall, immigration need not be. High-skilled immigrants can offset the fiscal cost of low-skilled immigrants. The net effect depends on each group’s relative share.

Opening the border to people who have a high school education + some college or technical training or equivalent work experience is a no-brainer. So is investing in improving education and skills training in developing countries which would not just benefit countries that people are emigrating to.

[StevenG]

Estimates from 1996—the most recent comprehensive estimates available—indicate that immigrants with less than a high school diploma cost $89,000 more than they contribute in taxes over their lifetimes, while immigrants with more than a high school education contribute $105,000 more in taxes than they use in public services. In other words, low skilled immigrants are a net fiscal drain, but overall, immigration need not be. High-skilled immigrants can offset the fiscal cost of low-skilled immigrants. The net effect depends on each group’s relative share.

This type of argument ignores the effect that immigrants have on the rest of the population. How much less tax do people pay when they are in a lower-skilled job than they might have been had the high-skilled immigrant not blocked their career path? And what happens to the dead-end unskilled jobs that often only the poorer immigrants are willing to do?

[kenberg]

 

Opening the border to people who have a high school education + some college or technical training or equivalent work experience is a no-brainer. So is investing in improving education and skills training in developing countries which would not just benefit countries that people are emigrating to.

 

I think this identifies the disagreement.I am at least very skeptical of this and I cannot imagine it being set as policy. Even if we restricted this to people with Norwegian genes and an adoptive Croatian father, (my labeled box) I would still be very skeptical of such a plan. No racism, no religious issues, just caution and skepticism. Sometimes caution and skepticism are found to be a mistake, sometimes not.

 

 

Added: Traffic here is the pits so I have time to think while crawling along. It seems this would require a substantial change in my concept of a nation. When I moved from Minnesota to Maryland I consulted no official body. Different states, same nation. But if I decided to move to Paris, take up residence, avail myself of government services on an ongoing basis, medical care, retirement, etc, I expect that I cannot just do that, the French government would have some choice in the matter. Moving from one country to another, and then maybe to a third and later a fourth, with rights equivalent to those who were born there, all simply a matter of my own choice, and no one could possibly mind since I did complete high school and had a little college, is contrary to how I think of nations. I expect I am with the majority on this.

 

 

At any rate, I do think some clarity has developed. I am much less inclined toward open borders.

[phil_20686]

At any rate, I do think some clarity has developed. I am much less inclined toward open borders.

 

There is a strictly quantitative question here too. If Europe and the US really did open their boarders, how many people would actually come? And what does one mean by "open boarders".

 

America seems to believe that approximately the whole population of Mexico is desperate to relocate to america, but I imagine that not even nearly true. I expect that it would follow the pattern of the European Union Enlargement, where, it was feared, a large number of eastern europeans would sweep into richer states. In fact, less than 2% of the population took advantage, and they were disproportionately young highly skilled graduates or tradesmen. It has created something of a stereotype of the Polish Plumber in the UK, but at the time, which many people forget, good plumbers where in short supply in the UK and were earning a lot of money (there were reports of university lecturers quitting to become plumbers). And then, in a little reported phenomenon, many of them returned to Poland after doing 3-7 years in the UK. Its hard to permanently settle down in a new culture, and most people don't want to.

 

Its different when a country is war torn and people are desperate to leave, but its not the norm. Even during the Irish Potato Famine, less than 10% of the population emigrated over a 7 year period, which is probably the largest mass migration in European history.

 

Now, Poland is a much more comfortable country than some, but I think that probably only around 5% of the population of the world would seriously consider emigrating. I know an almost endless stream of UK PhD graduates who walked away from academia rather than face a post doctoral placement in a European country, people just don't want the hassle of a new language, a new culture, making new friends, etc. Never mind the fact that your romantic partner might not want you to go.

 

That means that there might be as many as 400 million persons in the world who would emigrate given the chance, and what fraction would come to the US? Maybe half? So your absolute worst case estimate is maybe 200 million. Now that is too many, the US could not absorb 200 million without serious problems, so maybe you don't do that, maybe you expand a free movement zone a bit at a time. Suppose the US struck a trade deal with Mexico that included free movement between the US and Mexico for Mexican citizens, in return for which mexico would secure its southern border. That is a totally reasonable. That is just the same as the EU did with eastern Europe, and it was not a problem. You could legitimise all your illegal Mexican immigrants, and those who come to the US return to mexico exporting US culture and creating a strong regional ally - nothing breeds peaceful coexistence quite as well as an exchange of culture. The US could, as part of its free trade agreements, steadily widen its free movement zone, maybe signing one with the European Union, and then, some successful southern american countries. This is what most practical and political people mean when they say "opening the boarders".

 

In time, a free movement zone including the EU, US Mexico, Japan, Australia and South Korea would be a model that other countries would want to join, and, like joining the EU, you could let countries in in return for government reforms that helps the west obtain their strategic goals. You could practically write a minimal constitution for it: Democracy, Free Media, and independent judiciary. It would be the highest form of a free trade partnership, and everyone would want in. It would be the absolute best way to use soft power and cultural exports to bind countries together strategically.

 

I mean, open boarders has challenges, but its not like anyone is saying just let absolutely everyone in the world come immediately. But I think free movement is the natural extension of free trade, allowing people to share culture, education, and technical skills learned in "the west" and binding countries together. How long before Russia and China wanted to join up? Better cultural exchange would erode barriers and reduce tensions between cultures that are very different and often seem to be talking past each other.

[y66]

I concede that opening the borders to people who meet minimum education or skill criteria is not a no-brainer after all for reasons given by brainier forum mates than me.

[kenberg]

There is a strictly quantitative question here too. If Europe and the US really did open their boarders, how many people would actually come? And what does one mean by "open boarders".

------

Now, Poland is a much more comfortable country than some, but I think that probably only around 5% of the population of the world would seriously consider emigrating. I know an almost endless stream of UK PhD graduates who walked away from academia rather than face a post doctoral placement in a European country, people just don't want the hassle of a new language, a new culture, making new friends, etc. Never mind the fact that your romantic partner might not want you to go.

 

Indeed. I am hardly a big traveler but I get here and there from time to time. I really like London, Paris is great. Madrid is a fine place. But I stay here. Even within the US this applies. Four of our five kids (two mine, three Becky's) are here. Many grandchildren. Becky's son loves in Oregon and the Pacific coast there is terrific. So Oregon maybe, Paris no. Not today, anyway.

 

 

Some negotiated deals with other countries allowing easier migration would be fine by me. The main problem I have with the current arrangement is that we act as if we have nothing at all to say with regard to the matter. Immigration from Mexico is way down, a net migration of about zero I understand. Some of this is because of better enforcement, so I understand anyway, but a lot of it is due to better conditions in at least some areas of Mexico and because of our struggling economy here. Conditions have changed, conditions will change. I would like us to have an immigration policy rather than a whatever happens happens approach.

 

About those Ph.D.s. No one (almost) objects to getting talented people here. In fact the objections often go the other way. Back in ancient times when I was a grad student there were many from other countries, even in Minnesota. (No insult to my home state intended, it's just hard to think of some guy in Pakistan waking up one morning and saying "I think I will go to Minnesota"). The idea was that they would come here and learn, and then return to help their country advance. The "come here and learn" part went very well. The "return" part was a good deal less successful. One of them put it to me clearly "I would have to be crazy to go back to ----".

[Trinidad]

I agree with Phil and Ken.

 

I have lived in a few different countries and you need to be pretty crazy to do that. It has broadened my view tremendously and I would not have wanted to live my life in the town where I grew up. (As a matter of fact, currently I happen to live in the country where I grew up and it makes me feel slightly uneasy...)

 

But the hassle (not to mention the cost) getting from one country to another is big: It takes a lot of hard work to integrate into your new culture. And on the administrative side, you won't get any help. Nobody knows what needs to be done. You have to figure out everything yourself. Public service people are clueless. And you are continuously dealing with impossibilities.

 

One of many examples:

When we moved to the Netherlands (the country where I was born, of which I have always been a citizen, and the country that my children were citizens of) we could not get the children registered as residents of the Netherlands. They were registered as citizens of the Netherlands, they had passports of the Netherlands, they were living with us in the Netherlands on a proper address, but they could not be registered as residents of the Netherlands. (For my Finnish wife and I there were no such problems.)

 

The reason (don't laugh too loud, I disclaim all liability for choking accidents): "We do not have a document that proves that they were born." The person who said this sentence had the kids' passports in her hand and was looking at the kids when she pronounced the sentence. And when I pointed out that it didn't seem to be a problem when they got their passports, she said: "Indeed. For a passport you don't need to proof that you are born, but to register as a resident you do."

 

And on my question: "How do I proof that they were born?", the obvious answer was: "I don't know. That is not my department."

 

In the end, we obviously got it all worked out. And after a few international moves, you get to know how to work the system. But it is a drag.

 

Rik

[billw55]

So, what is the practical difference between being registered as a citizen and a resident? Could they not go to school or something?

[Trinidad]

So, what is the practical difference between being registered as a citizen and a resident? Could they not go to school or something?

It happened a while ago, so I don't remember all the consequences, but these I am fairly certain about:

 

They would not have been allowed to live in the Netherlands. (They would be illegal residents.)

They would have to go to school. (All children of the appropriate age, residing in the Netherlands (legally, illegally, or otherwise (if there is an 'otherwise' ;)), have to go to school.)

They would not be able to get married in the Netherlands (and possibly not in some other places either).

They would get in trouble with the registration of their own children.

They would not be able to get a driver's license.

We would be considered dinkies for tax purposes (double income, no kids).

We would not get child support. (All parents get money from the government for their children.)

We would not get daycare support. (Parents get money to pay for daycare or after school care when both are working. This is income dependent.)

They would not be able to have a bank account, or a phone contract (can you imagine a Dutch high school kid without a phone?), or ...

They wouldn't be able to get work (or an internship, even if it is a mandatory part of their education).

They wouldn't be able to buy or rent a home.

 

You can imagine that this is only the start of the list.

 

So, we solved the problem and now (after lots of searching, some paperwork, some expenses, papers being sent back: "You shouldn't come to us", more paperwork, more expenses) the Netherlands officially is of the opinion that my children were born and they are legal residents of this wonderful country.

 

Rik

[kenberg]

It's been a while ago, so I don't remember all the consequences, but these I am fairly certain about:

 

They would not have been allowed to live in the Netherlands. (They would be illegal residents.)

 

 

A philosophical puzzle. You could try the argument that since seeing them in front of you is no proof that they were born then seeing them in front of you is not proof that they are here, so there is no need to deport them.

 

Bureaucrats are not usually interested in this sort of philosophy.. Apparently it is not legal to rent to someone who wasn't born, but mandatory to deport people who aren't here. I can imagine the argument for funding: We need a large increase in the budget to deport all of the people who are not here.

 

Of course I am joking, but apparently Texas is trying something along these lines. Kids who were born here are citizens. But of course they are kids, so it is their mother who has to get their documentation. But she isn't a citizen and so has no standing to ask for documentation. Or so I understand the argument. Despite my skepticism about the wisdom of birthright citizenship, this sort of maneuver is embarrassing, or it should be. Even if I don't have the maneuver exactly right, I think I got the essence of it.

[Zelandakh]

They would not have been allowed to live in the Netherlands. (They would be illegal residents.)

Holland seems to have some legal issues here. Any EU citizen has a right to become a resident of the Netherlands. It might be that your story came before the relevant treaty was signed of course but if it is still the case I think they are asking to be taken to the European Court.

[Trinidad]

Holland seems to have some legal issues here. Any EU citizen has a right to become a resident of the Netherlands.

IANAL, but I don't think that is true. Any EU citizen has a right to look for work for three months and reside in the Netherlands. The movement of labor is free. A non-working citizen is not labor.

 

Furthermore, nobody was denying my children the right to become a resident of the Netherlands. They only needed to show a birth certificate. But Sweden, where we came from, doesn't have birth certificates. The Dutch Embassy in Stockholm knew that of course, so they issue passports to Dutch citizens that are born in Sweden without the need for a birth certificate. But the local county clerk in a small county in the countryside couldn't understand/believe that and wasn't able to handle the case: "no birth certificate, no residency".

 

So, this means that you need to do the work of the county clerk yourself: Find out how you can get something from the Swedish authorities that would be accepted by the Dutch government. The solution that we found, after quite a bit of searching, was a route through the City of The Hague: The kids were first registered there (with the aid of the Dutch Embassy in Sweden and a Swedish law firm: '$$'). Then the City of The Hague issued a (Dutch) birth certificate to the county where we lived. Now, all was fine and dandy.

 

So, though it is all legally allowed, that doesn't mean that it is easy to move from one country to another (not even within the EU). A hassle is an understatement.

 

Rik

[helene_t]

IANAL, but I don't think that is true. Any EU citizen has a right to look for work for three months and reside in the Netherlands. The movement of labor is free. A non-working citizen is not labor.

This is almost true but not quite. You don't have to work, but you need sufficient income/savings so that you don't need to apply for benefits. https://www.juridischloket.nl/verblijf-en-immigratie/eu-regels-en-wonen-in-nederland/

[Zelandakh]

Here is a link with the rules given in simple form. To my thinking you should have been covered by point 4. It seems that you were directed via point 2 and the "administrative formalities" were anything but a formality.

[Trinidad]

Here is a link with the rules given in simple form. To my thinking you should have been covered by point 4. It seems that you were directed via point 2 and the "administrative formalities" were anything but a formality.

In those days, there were no nice web sites and brochures.

 

And, no, my children were covered by point 4 (family members are allowed to join). But how can I prove that they are members of my family? ... Exactly, with a birth certificate.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Sometimes, the law really is an ass. More often, the ass is a bureaucrat.

[Trinidad]

Sometimes, the law really is an ass. More often, the ass is a bureaucrat.

I agree.

 

But to be fair, in this case it really is an incompatibility of systems and philosophies on how to run a civic register. In Sweden all the information (by government agencies and private profit and non-profit organisations, e.g. also the Swedish Bridge League, SBF) is tied to one thing: (the equivalent of) a social security number. And this number has been the basis of the register for a long time. You get one when you are born or as soon as you enter the country as an alien resident (So, I have one too and I still know mine by heart, even though it's been more than 10 years ago since we lived in Sweden. You need this number for everything.)

 

In the Netherlands everything is tied to your birth information. This makes a birth certificate relatively important. I also have a Dutch social security number. I don't know what it is, since I rarely need it and I know where to find it. This social security number is also a fairly recent thing. I guess it has been in use for about 25 years now.

 

The Swedes cannot imagine that a country can run a civic register without a social security number. The Dutch can not imagine that one number can be the key to all the information about you. In addition, the Dutch are very apprehensive of efficient civic registers. (It is somewhat like the American right to bear arms to form a militia.) In WWII, the civic register was very efficient. It made it very easy for the Germans to pick out the Jews. So, from the Dutch perspective, obtaining and exchanging information should be difficult. From the Swedish perspective (Sweden was never occupied) it should be as easy as possible.

 

If I would have it my way, I would implement the Swedish system today. But ...

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Y'ask me, the Dutch trepidation over civic registers is well founded.

 

Here in the US, Social Security numbers were established with the original Social Security Act 80 years ago. Thirty years later, when I got my SSN, the card said on its face "not to be used for identification". It was in fact illegal for anyone to use it for that purpose, and you didn't have to give it to anyone but the SS Administration. At that time, the program was voluntary — you didn't have to participate in it at all. Later on, TPTB apparently decided that the citizenry had been indoctrinated enough into the "benefits" of socialism (although the government of course would never call it that) to make participation in the program mandatory, and to use the SSN as a pretty much universal ID number.

 

"Any time a society becomes so complex as to require ID cards, it is time to leave." -- Robert A. Heinlein

[Winstonm]

 

"Any time a society becomes so complex as to require ID cards, it is time to leave." -- Robert A. Heinlein

 

We will miss you but will attempt to move on, nonetheless. ;)

[kenberg]

Y'ask me, the Dutch trepidation over civic registers is well founded.

 

Here in the US, Social Security numbers were established with the original Social Security Act 80 years ago. Thirty years later, when I got my SSN, the card said on its face "not to be used for identification". It was in fact illegal for anyone to use it for that purpose, and you didn't have to give it to anyone but the SS Administration. At that time, the program was voluntary — you didn't have to participate in it at all. Later on, TPTB apparently decided that the citizenry had been indoctrinated enough into the "benefits" of socialism (although the government of course would never call it that) to make participation in the program mandatory, and to use the SSN as a pretty much universal ID number.

 

"Any time a society becomes so complex as to require ID cards, it is time to leave." -- Robert A. Heinlein

 

Some voluntary things are more voluntary than others. I got my social security card in the early 1950s when I took a job setting pins in a bowling alley. If I wanted the job, I was told, I needed a social security card. So I got one. Someone said I had to give my name. Ken Berg. No one suggested that I use Kenneth, let alone Kenneth R.

 

But your larger point is certainly right. Not everyone had social security, no one other than an employer asked you for a social security number, and you were supposed to keep it private. We now go through a charade of keeping it private but charade it is. For example, my medicare number is definitely not my social security number, that would be wrong to use my social security number for my medicare number. So of course we don't do that. My medicare number is my social security number with a letter after it. No one would ever guess the connection.

[barmar]

Many states use your SSN as your driver's license number, but I believe there's a requirement that they allow you to opt out, and they'll assign some other number. But I think SSN is allowed to be used as a universal identifier in any financially-related systems, such as credit reporting.

[billw55]

Many states use your SSN as your driver's license number, but I believe there's a requirement that they allow you to opt out, and they'll assign some other number. But I think SSN is allowed to be used as a universal identifier in any financially-related systems, such as credit reporting.

In my state, the driver license number encodes your birthdate. Which is strange because the birthdate is also listed on the license in cleartext. I have never understood the point of this.

[y66]

Is Ted Cruz sitting pretty? Here's a guide to where he stands on the issues.

 

Excerpts:

 

Repeal Obamacare — at any cost

 

Opposes granting legal status to illegal immigrants

 

Make school choice a civil rights issue

 

Climate change is not a problem.

 

Flatter and simpler taxes. Abolish the IRS. Audit the Fed. Stop "bankrupting our country" with federal spending. Reduce spending by changing Medicare and Social Security (means testing, raise age of eligibility).

 

End the Export-Import Bank

 

No net neutrality -- it's the "biggest regulatory threat to the internet".

 

Supports free trade.

 

Reform mandatory sentencing. Let states determine pot laws

 

Require proof of citizenship for voter registration. Allow unlimited campaign donations. Limit congressional terms

 

Abortion is a grave injustice

 

States should decide on same-sex marriage

 

Defines gun control as hitting what you aim at.

 

Between McCain (überhawk) and Paul ("I am not an isolationist") on foreign policy. Was against striking the Syrian regime. Wants to ramp up the war against ISIS. Obama is too lenient on Iran and too tough on Israel

 

Reform the NSA (stop bulk collection of metadata; appoint a public advocate to argue against NSA in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

[kenberg]

Apparently Cruz is attracting attention, at least from columnists. George Will has a column in today's Washington Post on the same theme.

Getting elected is a strange business, favoring those who can see how people will vote rather than how they should vote.

 

i had been wistfully hoping that maybe the Republicans would want to go after my vote. This clearly is not in the cards.

 

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has, after months or years of careful consideration, come to the remarkable conclusion that our policy in Syria is not going well. She favors safe zones. Who could object to safe zones. As to her new views on the Pacific pact, I was listening to an NPR discussion where David Brooks praised this, saying that our current problem in politics is that there are far too many people with principles, all causing problems, so this is a welcome relief. (Yes he was joking.)

 

Maybe it is time to consider moving. Anyone want an aging mathematician? Can I qualify as a refugee?

.