Centerfield

I noticed the states you listed with the highest % uninsured, were the ones nearest Mexico, and perhaps the ones with the highest numbers of illegal immigrants.

Perhaps securing our borders would go a long way towards improving the financial health of hospitals and related entitlement programs.

Posted by: Susan at April 27, 2005 11:53 PM

Perhaps it would have a negative effect upon collection of social security revenues, too, Susan. As well as fruit prices and the cost of landscaping. We know there's no free lunch, right? :-)

Seriously though, it's fine to engage in such speculation, but do you have any good evidence that it would go a "long" way towards improving the financial health of hospitals etc? I'm just asking. For example, how much higher is the rate of uninsureds in such states, and how many actual people does this represent above average? Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions?

How many illegal immigrants are you suggesting deporting or denying healthcare to in order to bring down government medicaid costs? And what sorts of savings could we expect to realize? A fraction of a percent? 1 percent? Several percent?

Would such changes really go a LONG way to controlling healthcare costs, or would they only provide some small savings? My sense of the healthcare problem is that the main things driving high annual cost increases are the graying of the population and the pace of expensive medical treatment advancements. I won't dismiss the notion that medicaid costs for illegal immigrants play some role, but absent data, I'm skeptical that changes in immgration policy would go a LONG way towards changing the underlying dynamics. I might be wrong though, I'm really just guessing.

Anyone have any mathematical thoughts on this?

Posted by: bk at April 28, 2005 09:43 AM

Well, I know one thing that COULD go a long way toward cutting government healtcare costs.....

Medicare looses well over $10 BILLION annualy by simply purchasing drugs, supplies and other medical equipment at a higher price then other government agencies.

For example the VA pays $1.02 per liter for saline solution. Medicare pays $8.26 per liter for THE EXACT SAME PRODUCT.

Another $10 Billion or more is lost annualy through "payment errors".

Address those problems and you could cut 20 billion dollars from the budget while not cutting services by a single band-aid.

I agree that there is no such thing as a "free lunch" but that is a far cry from spending $20 for a $5 hamburger.

Posted by: cengel at April 28, 2005 10:15 AM

If the states with the highest number of illegal immigrants were to head the list, Louisiana wouldn't be there and California and New York would be. On the data used, simple poverty covers much of the explanation.

A better check on uninsured vs. immigration status is uninsured children, and there the figures reflect states with large numbers of immigrants (though not by legal status). On that list Texas, California, and Florida reign. But surprisingly Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are right up there. Less surprisingly, Washington state has seen a real boost to get in the running over the last several years with a 30% rise in uninsured children.

Having pointed that out, let me also note that children are not nearly the health care cost drivers that adults are. In particular, the elderly, almost all of whom ARE covered in one form or another. The Medicaid flap in particular hits the elderly on nursing home care. The demographics of longevity just keep right on rollin'.

Posted by: Tully at April 28, 2005 11:40 AM

Hi bk, illegal immigrants only represented about 15 percent of the uninsured in the mid 1990s. However, with illegal immigrant population having doubled since, perhaps the figure is now a bit under 30 percent. (Employee Benefit Research Group study, January 1995. “The study suggests the very high degree to which that population [illegal aliens] is contributing to uncompensated costs.” EBRI President Dallas Salisbury, Washington Post, January 25, 1995.)

Also keep in mind that illegal immigrants use health care services at a much greater rate than the overall population. The utilization rate of hospitals and clinics by illegal aliens (29 percent) is more than twice the rate of the overall U.S. population (11 percent). (Assessment of Potential Impact of Undocumented Person on National Health Reform, National Health Foundation, April 14, 1993.)

Here are some numbers for california--
Uncompensated medical outlays for health care provided to the state's illegal alien population amount to about $1.4 billion a year. (additionally 1.4 billion per year for incarceration, and 7.7 billion per year for education of illegal immigrants). These numbers have already subtracted out the estimated tax contributions of illegal immigrant workers.

In California, delivery of babies to illegal immigrant mothers consumes more than half of the Medi-cal budget. Medi-cal had 760,000 illegal alien beneficiaries in 2003. (Madeleine Peiner Cosman, Ph.D., Esq. “Illegal Aliens and American Medicine,” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Spring 2005.

Now here are some numbers for Arizona. Uncompensated medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population is now estimated at about $400 million a year (additionally 820 million for education, 80 million for incarceration of illegal immigrants). These numbers also have already subtracted out the estimated tax contributions of illegal immigrant workers.

For Texas, the health care cost is 850 million per year.

Posted by: Susan at April 28, 2005 02:19 PM

So Susan, is it your position that these illegal immigrants should be deported, or denied health and education services, or what?

Do you feel the numbers you quote substantiate the idea that illegal immigrants are more troublesome drivers of rising healthcare costs, or no? I'm confused that the numbers you quote for various outlays for immigrants are not given alongside comparisions that show what percent these outlays are of total outlays. For example 7.7 billion for CA ill Imm education sounds like a lot of money, but what's the overall budget, and how do we know that this figure was arrived at accurately in the first place? Did someone just use a high-end estimate of percent of illegals and multiply the state ed budget number by that percent?

Posted by: bk at April 28, 2005 03:43 PM

Sure, I am in favor of enforcing our existing immigration laws -- preventing illegal immigrants from entering, and deporting those already here. They may then apply to enter legally through American embassies abroad, with everyone else. This is not an anti-immigrant position, I am in favor of generous quotas for legal immigrants.

Legal immigration should be increased or decreased according to the changing needs of the state -- our economic need, types of workers needed, and our ability to assimilate and accomodate. By reducing illegal immigration and increasing legal immigration, we can get a more diverse set of peoples entering from all over the world, including those escaping extremely oppressive regimes, instead of an overwhelming blob from nearby countries.

Immigration laws should be changed to better facilitate seasonal workers. In deciding who should be granted permanent residence or citizenship, those who have entered the country illegally should not be given preference over those who did not break our immigration laws and apply from outside of the country. Illegal entrants shouldn't "jump the queue", as would be the case in the granting of blanket amnesties.

Yes I think the earlier cited figures show that illegal immigration is a significant part of the uninsured populace, and a much larger portion still of uncompensated hospital care. One study in 2000 found that illegal immigrants accounted for 25% of southwestern state's hospital uncompensated costs, I'm sure that figure would be substantially higher today.

Notice the scope of my argument is about the proportion of illegals among the uninsured, and their costs to hospitals, government programs, and the taxpayer. I'm not making a case about the rising cost of health care in general, though perhaps one could be made, when one considers that hospitals have to make up for uncompensated costs by charging more to everyone else.

The US immigration and naturalization service estimates there are 2,209,000 aliens residing illegally in the state of California. Some argue the real figure today is closer to 2.8 million.

Posted by: Susan at April 28, 2005 04:52 PM

Susan, FAIR is a rabid anti-immigration group (an offshoot of the old Zero Population Gorwth movement that morphed into something else) and frankly I don't trust their numbers at all. Their methodology is invalid, their assumptions questionable, and their primary research work non-existent. They are infamous for exaggerating economic costs and minimizing or totally ignoring economic benefits. They take older studies and extrapolate them selectively using whatever assumptions fit their agenda and strike their fancy, and their data is thoroughly unreliable. Madeline Pelner Cosman (note the correct spelling of her middle name) is a Randite attorney who has been a far-right activist on medical issues for quite some time. And is a member of FAIR, among other things.

Her article sounds impressive, doesn't it? Published in the prestigious "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons"? whihc in turn is published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, even! How wonderfully official-sounding. Unless you happen to know that the journal is NOT a peer-reviewed medical journal, but the advocacy publication of a conservative/libertarian physician's lobbying group that bills itself as a free-market activist alternative to the American Medical Association.

Cosman's favorite footnote citations in her article seem to be Michelle Malkin and FAIR, by the way, though Phyllis Shlafly also gets a few.

In short, while the problems associated with illegal immigration are very real, you're simply not going to get accurate, peer-reviewed, unbiased info from FAIR and Ms. Cosman. They are not unbiased and verifiable data sources, they are certainly not accurate data sources, and citing them is less than impressive.

Posted by: Tully at April 28, 2005 05:00 PM

And having posted that, I add that I agree in substance with your latest post re: immigration reform--it's the use of FAIR as an authoritative data source that annoys me.

Posted by: Tully at April 28, 2005 05:03 PM

Your opinions are interesting, but they revolve around your claim that the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not a peer reviewed medical journal, which is factually incorrect.

Posted by: Susan at April 28, 2005 05:28 PM

Tully, you criticise the parent organization of the publication for being a "conservative/libertarian lobbying group".

Did you not realize that the American Medical Association is a lobbying group as well? Here is a quote from their own web page, which also details their policy positions:

The AMA is aggressively involved in advocacy efforts related to the most vital issues in medicine today, including medical liability reform, Medicare physician payment reform, expanding coverage for the uninsured and increasing access to care, improving the public health, managed care reform, and others.

Would you also dismiss the AMA's medical journal, because their parent organization is "aggressively involved in advocacy efforts"?

Posted by: Susan at April 28, 2005 05:41 PM

Nope, Susan, because it's not a partisan one. It represents physicians, not partisan agendas. All professional organizations lobby for their contituents, but the AMA is non-partisan. The AAPS is explicitly ideological. It's in their mission statement.

In academic parlance, "peer review" means review by the accepted standards of the profession and conforming to the accepted standards of scientific methodology. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons meets these criteria only in relation to primary clinical research--but MOST of the magazine is devoted to polemic politics, and publishes very little primary clinical research at all. It is thus a "peer-reviewed" journal in the same sense that any mostly ideological publication is, namely, it is mostly peer-reviewed for ideological correctness. The scientific/clinical content of the journal is minimal.

The claim that it's a peer-reviewed journal in this case is only relevant if the article cited falls within the realm of the clinical peer-review process, and the article by Ms. Cosman is not clinical research submitted by a physician--it's political polemic submitted by an attorney, and thus not subject to the clinical peer review process.

Anyone interested can visit the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)and the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPANDS) and judge for themselves. Ms. Cosman's is the feature JPANDS article, and the peer-reviewed clinical research content of the issue is zero.

Posted by: Tully at April 28, 2005 06:11 PM

Susan;

Your opinions are interesting, but they revolve around your claim that the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not a peer reviewed medical journal, which is factually incorrect

I know the group and journal well. They started in AZ. They are a VERY conservative physicians group and much of their publications are plitically oriented. Hell, they think the AMA is too liberal. Hospitals, even if they wanted to, can't turn away an undocumented alien due to EMTALA rules. Beyond that I suspect most physicians would feel very uncomfortable turning away a seriously ill patient presenting to the ER. It is a big problem in AZ. AND I agree with Tully that its not the major source of the uninsured. Medicaid is under a financial crunch for a variety of reasons but a big one is the dollars they pay for nursing home care for the elderly. The increase in the uninsured is due to the increased cost of healthcare which leads to fewer employers offering health care.

Posted by: c3 at April 28, 2005 08:09 PM

cengel,
I think it's worth noting that VA is a vertically integrated setup with it's own hospitals and clinics. Medicare relies on external care providers - hospitals, physicians etc. so I think the cost savings may be ephemeral. Having said that, one cannot sneeze at the potential in billions in savings and is definitely something worth looking into deeply. One idea might be to provide these items to local hospitals in the bulk and discounted quantities you mentioned. I do think one snag might be that hospitals love to charge lots of money and the profit potential is lessened by such a supply line.
So maybe give them a percentage of teh savings...hmmmm.

Posted by: Marcus at April 28, 2005 08:14 PM

But that wouldn't really change the cost basis on the hospital end at all. It'd just lower their revenues--so they'd have to jack up prices elsewhere to cover. As they've been doing. Medicare is already being subsidized in other ways through private-pay patient charges. Medicaid is even worse.

Posted by: Tully at April 28, 2005 11:22 PM

Susan is correct as well as her information.
A few do not wish to face facts.
You're fools if you don't. Mexico's wealthy types confiscated the wealth and run the country. They're dumping all their third world low levels on you! The rest service them. (who live behind gates and body guards)

You fools, there are horror stories about our longtime citizens not having health care, etc. etc.etc. You don't know the billions handed over by the socialists in this country.

This has been in invasion and overload of all our facilities and systems. Besides, letting people come into your country without the right to be here! Let alone the insanity of not having secured and closed our borders. The United States of America not doing so?!!

Must get illegals and non-fifteen year citizens
off govt. benefits usage.

Those jobs are needed. Appears it's time to bus in U.S. citizens who lost their jobs from all over the country to take over all those construction jobs and janitorial spots of which there are plenty. We could let our longtime citizens have Medicaid and work.

You don't have the cash in hand in Mex. you don't get treated! So, don't go visit unless thousands to access. Oh, yes, and it doesn't matter how much you're bleeding, etc. People from our country have died due to their procedure.

Know Mexico has armed guards on its s. borders to keep out immigration?! Their police and army help funnel illegals and help drug runners into this country too! True.

Posted by: Alex at April 28, 2005 11:56 PM

Welcome back Alex, renowned protectionist and America-firster! I see you haven't spent the time between visits polishing your writing proficiency, as your post is, as usual, borderline incomprehensible. I'm going to copy and paste it into my personal collection of your posts. And that's not a joke, I have done this. Here's my favorite:

I don't care to waste my brain to discuss things with zero life experience, etc. who know zero about financial,trade, etc. etc. etc. etc

But still, you are such fun, since you simply declare that "Susan is correct" because her views coincide with yours. And you entirely fail to refute Tully's point-by-point recitation of the reasons why the data Susan relies upon can't be trusted. Most of us here trust Tully moreso than anyone else when it comes to assessing quality of data. If you can't dig into it and cite chapter and verse on the things Tully brings up, you lose, folks. He understands research methods, and he does his homework on examining data, as he has shown again up above.

That said, let me echo Tully in agreeing with many of the points Susan made regarding immigration reform. I wholeheartedly agree that we should make the system work better for LEGAL immigration based on our nation's needs, and not continue policies that encourage illegal immigration.

But this thread is, as near as I can tell, about medicaid costs. I'm not seeing any reason why we should think that the ruinously inflationary cost increases in healthcare driven by medicaid should be primarily or even substantially attributed to immigration. [note that when pressed, even Susan made a sidelong admission about this: Notice the scope of my argument is about the proportion of illegals among the uninsured, and their costs to hospitals, government programs, and the taxpayer. I'm not making a case about the rising cost of health care in general.]

IMO, illegal immigration may be related to some extent, since it contributes to costs without comparable contributions to financing these costs. Pretty simple equation there. The scope of this is questionable because Susan's data are, in Tully's opinion, unreliable. I trust Tully. (BTW, the word "data" IS plural, even though many or most people say "Susan's data is..." )

I still think that over the long term this problem will endure as we continue to try to find ways to address population graying and the pace of expensive medical advancements.

Posted by: bk at April 29, 2005 08:51 AM

Fool and fools! Wrong again and as usual!
Visited only for a few mins. to defend Susan and her smart synopsis. You're clueless educated idiots re this topic ... and far too inexperienced.

You're all part of the too numerous paper professionals, yuppies and guppies offspring, funny money boys, and all the hot air professional grads put out by the archaic outdated univs overeducated idiots indoctrinations ( who have beengutting this country for years and are now basically econ traitors [but, oh, they confiscated other people's moneys to be living the good life off other people's moneys]. There is no economy...it's been gutted. GDP is like some vapor.

Let's see builders, developers, and all involved in construction have made how much and are making how much over the past decade? Jobs our guys could be making a living off...and being paid Medicaid!

Jobs? Thousands of constr. and janiorial jobs alone are needed to be filled by our citizens. You tell the guys going to food banks in Ohio, etc. for the past several years!
You tell that to guys who can't support their families and don't have a roof over their head!!! Meanwhile CA for one state only is giving free new housing, etc. etc. etc. medical benefits to illegals and non-fifteen year citizens!
You look people in the eyes and tell them they go without while ......

Posted by: Alex at April 29, 2005 02:10 PM

Now THAT is collection-worthy. My favorite is definitely

Fool and fools! Wrong again and as usual!

That's downright Shakespearian.

Alex, we confess. At archaic university for yuppies (and guppies too, let's not forget them, as they rhyme), we paper professionals all learned how to make helmets from reynolds wrap so we could join the conspiracy to steal moneys from the construction and janiorial (sic) workers. If you'll be nice to us, we'll teach you the secret handshake. This allows you to join the econ traitors club. After 15 years of membership, you are given a double secret license to confiscate other people's moneys to be living the good life off other people's moneys.

Yes Alex, it's all true. We're out to get you. We have your phone tapped, and your computer wormed, and in fact, I'm standing right behind you at this very instant.

Posted by: bk at April 29, 2005 02:39 PM

Playing devils advocate for a moment (my favorite occupation) it is basic logic that large scale immigration (legal or illegal) increases competition for jobs in the unskilled/semi-skilled (and to some degree even skilled) labor markets. This has the effect of allowing employers in those markets to reduce average wages and benefits and working conditions.... in some cases well beyond minimum legal standards (which illegal worker will report them?).

It would be absolutely myopic to pretend that this doesn't have a negative impact on lower income scale workers in this country. While it might be convenient for some of the more privilaged among us to pretend that these are jobs that "only illegals would want to do".... it's hard not to see through those arguements every time you see an American citizen holding up a "Will work for Food!" sign.... and I HAVE seen such signs.

Furthermore, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that when benefits (such as education & emeregency medical services, Fire & Police services, etc) are provided for individuals who don't report thier income.... this creates a drain on those resources which must be taken up by people who work legaly (and thus pay taxes).
Heck, even if they did report thier income, it has been amply demonstrated elsewhere that people at the lower income scale have insufficient resources to pay for the services they take up in taxes.... and this burden must be met by people in the middle and higher income brackets.

Finally, it goes without doubt that no nation can sustain unlimited ecomomic immigration without DRASTICLY reducing the standard of living for people already in that nation. Nations DO have certain finite resources (space, wildlife habitat, arable land, potable water, ability to naturaly process/breakdown pollutants, etc) and growth in population DOES put increasing pressure on such resources. Any guess as to the #1 source of population growth in the U.S. today.

I don't mean to make this sound like an anti-immigrant screed (heck I'm the child of immigrants, myself).... BUT these are hard facts...and we shouldn't deny the real costs of immigrantion....no matter how politicaly incorrect it may make us sound.

Bottom line, though Alex's rhetoric may be a little out there..... there is a kernal of truth to what he is saying.

Posted by: cengel at April 29, 2005 03:23 PM

Oh, sure, a kernel.

The problem I have with protectionism is not that it misidentifies the negative effects of foreign competition. My problem is that it doesn't seem to be sustainable policy. If I thought we could just seal off our borders and stop buying cheap foreign goods and there'd be nothing but awesome results, I'd be right behind Alex with the ranting and raving.

But that's not realistic, is it? Alex thinks economists are conspiring witch doctors, but I think they have a relatively good handle on things much of the time. I have no use for rantings that identify and focus upon the negatives, dismiss the positives, ignore the inevitabilities, and are unrealistic in their prescriptions.

Posted by: bk at April 29, 2005 03:41 PM

It also helps when they're coherent.

Posted by: Tully at April 29, 2005 03:58 PM

Where exactly did "not buying cheap foreign goods" enter into the equation?

Most of the jobs "Alex" was talking about are not related to the production of "goods" that can be readly exported.

Kind of tough to get having your lawn mowed or your house shingled exported to India eh? Not to mention figuring out how workers in Taiwan would be able to pick Florida oranges (They must have mighty long arms).

Here we are complaining about the discrepency in wealth between the Rich and the Poor in our society (which is significant). Meanwhile we are doing everything we can to keep the cost of producing goods AND SERVICES to a minimum by flooding the domestic labour market with foreign workers. Guess who most benefits by making the means of production cheap? Guess who is most harmed by making the means of production (i.e. thier primary source of income) cheap?

As far as protecting our borders.... I think the minutemen have demonstrated how little effort we actualy expend on controling our borders....and how little effort it would take to make a serious dent. I'm willing to bet that if we spent half as much effort securing our southern border as Mexico did on thiers, illegal immigration would slow to a crawl. Heck, god forbid we even do something like build a security wall!

I agree that absolute protectionism is an entirely unsustainable and unrealistic option. That does NOT however make the opposite the most sustainable or realistic option either.

(IMO) If you want to maintain a sustainably high standard of living for your populace, you need to institute as much protectionism as you realisticaly can get away with while still being competitive on the global market. That certainly isn't absolute protectionism ....but that isn't throwing the doors wide open either.

Posted by: cengel at April 29, 2005 05:25 PM

I hate the Heath Care issue. It is to much for my tiny little brain to handle. Thanks, now our heath care cost just went up because my brain is fried!!! LOL.

Posted by: norgeman at April 29, 2005 05:49 PM

bk;
LOL is an overused term but I literally laughed out loud with this one

We're out to get you. We have your phone tapped, and your computer wormed, and in fact, I'm standing right behind you at this very instant.

Boy, how did my healthcare post become an immigration rant and my immigration post got none of this? Curiouser and curiouser.

Oh Did some "figurin'" regarding how the Minutemen "protected" 23 of Arizona's ~375 miles of border with Sonora. They were stationed around the clock two folks every 2-300 yards. Now lets do some math, to patrol all of Arizona's border with that intensity would take well over 4000 watchers. Now THAT'S a federal bureacracy. (And we thought it was a big deal when the Border Patrol recently added 500 more agents for AZ)

Posted by: c3 at April 30, 2005 11:58 AM

And the AZ border is a lot shorter than the TX border. Not to mention the Canadian border!

Posted by: Tully at April 30, 2005 01:24 PM

I don't trust them folks from Canadia. They have shifty eyes and their taking all of our hockey jobs away.

Posted by: c3 at April 30, 2005 05:39 PM

They talk funny, too, eh?

Posted by: Tully at May 1, 2005 12:35 PM

Well, it's time that the Federal Goverment take charge over the health insurance disaster. I think it's a disgrace that a honest, hard -working person who goes out there and puts in 40 hours a week can't take himself/herself or their children to the doctor. The federal Goverment should start a program such as the Federal Employees Health benefits Program. The Feds would collect the premiums, but the care would be provided in the private sector. Small business owners would be able to offer health insurance which would be at a more affordable rate due to the fact they would be a group rates

Posted by: Paul at May 2, 2005 02:07 AM

C3,

There is no reason that kind of manpower is neccesary. Barbed wire and mines (yes I'm serious) along with GSR is just as effective.

Heck, if you really want the manpower we've got that too.... it's called the U.S. Army (yes I'm serious here too)..... and it would actualy be pretty good training for the kind of security/peace keeping missions that the millitary has been getting assigned to more and more in recent years.

Posted by: cengel at May 2, 2005 11:35 AM

Need some legal changes or Congressional/Presidential authorixation to do that. Posse Comitatus. They'd likely just throw it back at the governors and tell 'em to do their own Guard call-ups.

Posted by: Tully at May 2, 2005 11:45 AM

Tully,

Yup and I'm fairly certain that it would never happen.... this isn't the kingdom of Cengel after-all either. Just pointing out that it could be done. Most countries seem to regard border security as at least, partialy, a millitary endevour. I find it rather ironic that despite the size of our borders we regard it as a law enforcement endevour....and a rather lax one at that. Disregarding the whole immigration angle for a moment.... that strikes me as more then a little scary given the nature of our current enemies.

Posted by: cengel at May 2, 2005 12:30 PM

I saw a comedian the other night who promised to solve the illegal immigration problem. His solution? A flaming river of gas, which he claimed would be a tourist attraction as well. I'm sure that will get many a pair of panties in a twist, but it cracked me up.

Seriously though, I think the questions of expense and logistics give the lie to the idea that all that is missing to solve the problem is will. There may be some lack of real political will, but I think that's driven by the vastness of the problem and the expected number of resources we'd require.

I always think back to a radio show I was listening to where they were talking about plane crashes, and everyone was getting all bent out of shape, and an engineer called in, and said well, we could design and build a plane that could crash and no one would die, but then it would cost $20,000 for a one-way trip to Cleveland, and was that what we really wanted. That sorta quieted the room.

So the question is, if we should decide to enact policies that could truly enforce zero-tolerance for illegal immigration, are we willing to shoulder all the costs? And I mean, ALL the costs, no free-lunch style. Not just the costs of building a double barbed wire fence around the whole country, complete with motion sensors and remote controlled guns you can use to shoot at foreign invaders over the internet so we can serve as cyber minutemen on nights and weekends. Not just the costs of quadrupling the coast guard, outlawing submarines, instituting ironclad, ultra-high security IDs for all citizens. Not just the costs for all the extra labor-monitoring agents we'd need in order to track the giant legal transient worker population. But the costs to the economy and the change in our culture.

Are you all so very sure that we'd end up better off? Are you so very sure that illegal immigrants get such a free ride at the expense of native Americans who deserve to be entitled to all the janitoral and fruit-picking jobs?

People have been thronging to America both legally and illegally for over 150 years because of the comparative opportunity it has represented. I'm much more interested in controlling immigration by exporting democracy and the freedom and opportunity that comes with it.

Posted by: bk at May 2, 2005 03:06 PM

Nailed it, Brian. We could do it, but at what costs, social AND fiscal?

RE: crash-proof airplanes. Check it out.

Posted by: Tully at May 2, 2005 03:55 PM

BK,

I love the fallacy of the all or nothing choice. Kinda like the crash-proof airplane analogy..... either do nothing or build a crash-proof airplane at absurd expense. Given those as the only options... the choice seems obvious.... until you realize that those are NOT the only options..... and you talk to another engineer who says, I won't guarantee that it's "crash-proof" but if you are willing to spend 5% more I can build a system that will reduce crashes by 70%.
Very little in life constiutes an all or nothing choice. Right now it seems we are doing next to nothing.... and doing so on purpose.

Posted by: cengel at May 2, 2005 04:33 PM

Brian;

So the question is, if we should decide to enact policies that could truly enforce zero-tolerance for illegal immigration, are we willing to shoulder all the costs?

No.

Posted by: c3 at May 2, 2005 11:37 PM

Cengel,

That's a fair point. It was not my intent to set up a fallacy, but rather to simply illustrate the costs of a very strong policy.

But I'd quarrel with the "doing next to nothing" claim you make. Suppose we are talking about modest to substantial improvements. You start with a base of what current cost and how many current employees. How much more money and how many more trained immigration agents are needed to get the kind of improvement that YOU think is reasonable?

Surely you aren't suggesting a 70% improvement for a 5% increase in costs. Here's the thing...it's very easy for you or I or someone else not especially versed in the details of the curent efforts at monitoring and controlling immigration to bitch and moan about the quality of the service. VERY, very easy.

But we don't really know how much improvement can be bought at what cost, do we?

I admit to being as ignorant or even more ignorant than you on the details. But I can look at a map for gosh's sake. I could probably calculate the cost of putting up and maintaining a 12-ft tall double barbed wire fence with security cameras, lights, and motion sensors at say 200 or 400 yard interval, alog th entire length of our nations walkable land borders. I could probably figure the cost of maintaining and monitoring those fences as well and maybe calculate the cost of doubling or tripling patrol frequency.

We could probably make some estimate of the additional capital and labor requirements to beef up the coast guard in patrolling the thousands of miles of our nations coastlines. Honestly, what is your guess at the kind of beefing up that would be required to provide real deterrent? We could find the number of boats the coast guard has, and guesstimate how many of them are for patrol, and how many are on patrol at a given time, and divide our miles of coastline by this number of boats to figure out a protection rate based on number of miles of coast per boat on patrol. What's your guess? 10? 50? 100? 500? 1000?

What sort of improvement might we buy with a 5% budget increase? Would it really help, or be a spit in the ocean? Would we really need something more like a doubling, tripling, or quadrupling to make a real difference? Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to finance this, or could it be paid for simply by cutting more "fat" from elsewhere in the budget...

Posted by: bk at May 3, 2005 08:52 AM

I'll tell you what, take the cash we throw at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and shift it to border security instead and whatever percentage increase that buys I'll be happy with.

Besides, you ignore one big factor. Just throwing more money at the problem without changing the way we do things won't help. The biggest part of the problem is that there is very little deterence and a very large reward for crossing the border.

What's the worst thing that happens if you get caught crossing the border illegaly by INS. You get sent back home where the Mexican Authorties give you the pamphlet they've prepaired (yes, the really have one) explaining how you can safely cross the border illegaly without getting caught. So you can try again the next night. What's the worst thing that happens if some-one gets caught employing an illegal... ever hear of ANYONE getting prosecuted for that?

What do illegals get if they make it into the country. Not just a better paying job at a good exchange rate that they can send back home....but (in many states) a drivers license, free emergency medical care (far better then they could hope for back home), free education for thier kids (far better then they could hope for back home), eligibility for all kinds of goods and services and programs, heck thier kids can even pay resident tuition rates for state colleges.... and get to become official citizens if they go long enough without the INS picking them up. I'm not surprised that they are coming across in droves.... the only thing I can't figure out is why ANYONE in the lower income strata would want to stay in Mexico.

I'm sorry but that situation is simply ridiculous!
Firstly you can deter the will to illegaly cross the border by making it more dangerous to do so.... make them worry about getting shot or wandering into a mine-field or even a razor-wire fence. Second, you can strong arm Mexico by threatening to withdraw alot of the assistance and juicy treaties we give them if they don't start doing something to deter illegal border corssing on thier side rather then ACTIVELY SUPPORTING IT. Fourth you can actualy start prosecuting our own citizens who violate labor laws by employing illegals. Put a potential price tag on the indentured servant mill. Finaly, you can reduce all those free benefits the Pol's love to hand out to illegals.... in order to pander to the immigrant/bleeding heart liberal vote.

All those are policy changes, they don't need to cost that much. In fact there is a very good chance they would more then pay for themselves with the money saved from refusing benefits and services to illegals. That's without even considering alot of the less easy to measure cost savings.... like increasing average wages (thus payroll tax) for low end legal workers. Putting more low end labor jobs on the books (and thus paying taxes). Reducing strain on police, fire, EMS and other community services. Reducing the need for bi-lingual education and bi-lingual community services. Heck do you have ANY idea how much NYC alone spends on translating official notices and city documents into Spanish?

Posted by: cengel at May 3, 2005 10:23 AM

I think the concept you're looking for is satisficing.

It's one of the prime reasons that the pure free-marketers are so so wrong. But that's another rant on corporate reforms and market failures.

Posted by: Tully at May 3, 2005 10:25 AM

I could conceivably be on board with some of those changes, but I hope I'm not sitting around 30 years from now saying "and then we decided to just start shooting anyone we found crossing the border..."

Posted by: bk at May 3, 2005 11:44 AM