Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

The Misconception that Undocumented Immigrants are to Blame

This post has been updated to reflect the fact that the UW bill would not allow cities to pass a per-stall parking tax in lieu of a commercial parking tax on gross receipts.

1. Yesterday afternoon, the state house transportation committee voted to pass Rep. Marko Liias’ (D-21, Edmonds) temporary transit funding bill allowing local governments to impose a temporary $30 “congestion fee” on cars.

A bipartisan duo of King County Council members, Democrat Joe McDermott and Republican Jane Hague, had come down to Olympia a day earlier to testify in favor. However, the vote itself split along party lines with 15 Democrats voting yes and 13 Republicans voting no.

The ranking Republican on the committee, Rep. Mike Armstrong (R-12, Wenatchee), had originally co-sponsored the bill, but voted no yesterday. The bill did not include Armstrong’s proposal to stipulate that the fee must be approved by voters.

Liias is also pushing a permanent transit funding solution—including an option for a motor vehicle excise tax—that would require voter approval.

2. The view from the top of Sound Transit’s Capitol Hill station construction crane yesterday:

Nice.

3. While state Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles’ (D-36, Ballard, Queen Anne) medical marijuana bill did pass out of committee earlier this week (with bipartisan support), the Cannabis Defense Coalition says changes proposed by committee chair Sen. Karen Keiser (D-33, Kent) weakened the bill.

The CDC highlights a few unkindly provisions: “unlicensed collective grows would be limited to 3 participating patients, down from 25,” patients would be required “to pay retail sales tax on medical cannabis, in addition to the B&O taxes dispensers and producers would pay,” and the amendment would “remove civil penalties for law enforcement” who access or release information on registered medical cannabis patients.

The new amendments would also require that physicians thoroughly examine patients and try other forms of medication before prescribing cannabis. A new provision would also allow the Department of Health to determine whether or not a doctor was authorizing an “inappropriate” level of cannabis prescriptions and would give the DOH the power to take action against such a physician.

Finally, the CDC also points out an amendment by Sen. Randi Becker (R-2, Eatonville) that “gutted the arrest protection” provision in the bill—a provision cheered by the ACLU that ensured medical marijuana patients wouldn’t be inadvertently busted. The new version only provides protection for only those who have previously “voluntarily registered with the state.”

4. State senate majority leader Sen. Lisa Brown (D-3, Spokane) says state employees and undocumented immigrants, the go-to scapegoats in the current budget crisis, are not the problem. Read her entire statement, posted on the senate Democrats’ blog, here.

Here’s what she says about the “misconception” that undocumented immigrants are to blame for the $4.6 billion shortfall:

There are services within state government that may be accessed by undocumented immigrants, but not many.

Here’s a chart of some major cash and medical assistance programs administered by the state – of the 14 listed here, undocumented immigrants are eligible for only four. Chief among them is the Children’s Health Program, the intent of which is to make sure that children who are undocumented through no fault of their own can still receive medical care when they get sick or injured.

As with nearly all programs for which undocumented immigrants are currently eligible, this program was eliminated in the Governor’s budget proposal. Lawmakers will look for a way to maintain this humane and cost-effective service. But even if we are unable to do so, eliminating it will only solve one percent of our problem.

Yet – even still – the Legislature must limit the availability of public services to narrower segments of the population if we are to maintain services at all. As an example, the budget plan passed last week by the Senate requires a valid social security number for eligibility into the Basic Health Plan.

5. Andrew Lewis at the Associated Students of UW called Fizz yesterday to give us more details about the legislation we covered briefly yesterday morning that would give the university a break on the city’s commercial parking tax. (Earlier this year, the UW unsuccessfully sought an exemption from a recent increase in the parking tax from the city, arguing that because the U.W. funds bus passes with parking revenues, the tax, a disincentive for parking, would reduce funding for the bus-subsidy program.)

The bill would exempt public universities from the commercial parking tax “in an amount equal to or more than the amount invested by such institution in the commute trip reduction program.”

Lewis says the ASUW is talking with the city about raising the commercial parking tax further to fund a grant program that would allow the UW to pay for its bus-pass subsidy.


  • Blue Light

    I’ve never heard anyone claim illegal immigrants are to blame for our state’s budget deficit. That belongs, squarely, to Christine Gregoire and the Democrat party who increased spending by $4 Billion in 2006.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003486428_budget20m0.html

    Nevertheless, encouraging illegality is something a majority of citizens, likely, disagree with and solving “one percent of our problem” is, certainly, better than not. No tax money to illegal immigrants. In fact, cut any state funds to jurisdictions with “sanctuary” or other red-carpet policies.

  • Blue Light

    I’ve never heard anyone claim illegal immigrants are to blame for our state’s budget deficit. That belongs, squarely, to Christine Gregoire and the Democrat party who increased spending by $4 Billion in 2006.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003486428_budget20m0.html

    Nevertheless, encouraging illegality is something a majority of citizens, likely, disagree with and solving “one percent of our problem” is, certainly, better than not. No tax money to illegal immigrants. In fact, cut any state funds to jurisdictions with “sanctuary” or other red-carpet policies.

  • Blue Light

    I’ve never heard anyone claim illegal immigrants are to blame for our state’s budget deficit. That belongs, squarely, to Christine Gregoire and the Democrat party who increased spending by $4 Billion in 2006.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003486428_budget20m0.html

    Nevertheless, encouraging illegality is something a majority of citizens, likely, disagree with and solving “one percent of our problem” is, certainly, better than not. No tax money to illegal immigrants. In fact, cut any state funds to jurisdictions with “sanctuary” or other red-carpet policies.

  • fount

    yeah, and fuck their little kids, too! No food for children that don’t have the right papers!

  • Jakers

    We can solve illegal immigrants’ status by simply saying, your legal. It would be very similar to when we raised the speed limit from 55mph to 60mphs; all of a sudden a bunch of illegal drivers were legal again and it took a burden off of law enforcement so that they could focus on more important issues.

  • Blue Light

    To everything there is a season, to every wave a limit, to every range an optimum capacity. The United States has been fully settled, and more than full, for at least a century. We have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by allowing the old boat to be swamped. How many of us, truthfully, would prefer to be submerged in the Caribbean-Latin version of civilization? (Howls of “Racism! Elitism! Xenophobia!” from the Marx brothers and the documented liberals.) Harsh words: but somebody has to say them. We cannot play “let’s pretend” much longer, not in the present world.

    Therefore-let us close our national borders to any further mass immigration, legal or illegal, from any source, as does every other nation on earth. The means are available, it’s a simple technical-military problem. Even our Pentagon should be able to handle it. We’ve got an army somewhere on this planet, let’s bring our soldiers home and station them where they can be of some actual and immediate benefit to the taxpayers who support them. That done, we can begin to concentrate attention on badly neglected internal affairs. Our internal affairs. Everyone would benefit, including the neighbors. Especially the neighbors. Ah yes. But what about those hungry hundreds of millions, those anxious billions, yearning toward the United States from every dark and desperate corner of the world? Shall we simply ignore them? Reject them? Is such a course possible?

    “Poverty,” said Samuel Johnson, “is the great enemy of human happiness. It certainly destroys liberty, makes some virtues impracticable, and all virtues extremely difficult.”

    You can say that again, Sam.

    Poverty, injustice, over breeding, overpopulation, suffering, oppression, military rule, squalor, torture, terror, massacre: these ancient evils feed and breed on one another in synergistic symbiosis. To break the cycles of pain at least two new forces are required: social equity – and birth control. Population control. Our Hispanic neighbors are groping toward this discovery. If we truly wish to help them we must stop meddling in their domestic troubles and permit them to carry out the social, political, and moral revolution which is both necessary and inevitable.
    Or if we must meddle, as we have always done, let us meddle for a change in a constructive way. Stop every campesino at our southern border, give him a handgun, a good rifle, and a case of ammunition, and send him home. He will know what to do with our gifts and good wishes. The people know who their enemies are.

    Edward Abbey

  • Jakers

    #1: If we had a more progressive tax system (e.g. an income tax) in this state, this could be a problem, but since we use a sales and property taxes, illegal immigrants pay both the same as anyone else. An individual’s national status doesn’t effect what they give and get on the state level.

    and on a national level, most have income tax deductions that they do not file returns to receive back and they also pay into social security and medicare which they are not able to receive the benefits from. So in reality, illegal immigrants are subsidizing our medicare and social security.

  • http://www.twitter.com/joeszi Joe Szilagyi

    Re #3 the legislature is just going to bring a world of headache down on the state when an even more progressive legalization measure gets onto the ballot via initiatives, and based on past history in most other states and constant polling, passes handily. Let’s see when McKenna because of his position as AG is compelled to defended marijuana versus a Federal lawsuit.

  • http://www.twitter.com/joeszi Joe Szilagyi

    Re #3 the legislature is just going to bring a world of headache down on the state when an even more progressive legalization measure gets onto the ballot via initiatives, and based on past history in most other states and constant polling, passes handily. Let’s see when McKenna because of his position as AG is compelled to defended marijuana versus a Federal lawsuit.

  • Blue Light

    We can “solve” the problems of drunk driving, pedophilia and domestic violence the same way.

  • ortografista

    are you uneducated? The term is Democratic Party.

    BTW if you want to discourage illegality, why didn’t you say it was illegal for the USA to take half of Mexico? Our troops didn’t have permission to enter Tejas amigo.

  • http://undeadolympia.com Undead Olympia

    Undead Olympia was on top of the immigrant scapegoat story more than a week ago. Lisa Brown is just stealing our material. Next she’ll be proposing a Coal for Kids compromise like we did a few days ago: http://www.undeadolympia.com/2011/02/08/a-modest-proposal-from-the-ghost-of-christmas-future/

  • si muy racista

    so you feel like the average Mexican coming to the USA to put food on the table is on a par with a pedophile.

    Racist much?

  • pregunta

    vamos a dejar entrar los profesionales y matriculados, pero no a los campesinos. Parece que Vd. apoya el Dream Act, no?

  • Blue Light

    Not much. Just to those with no better card to play.

  • Blue Light

    Because I think we can only craft public policy that moves FORWARD not BACKWARDS in time.

  • fount

    something tells me he or she actually doesn’t support the Dream Act.

  • Anonymous

    This is one benefit of a sales tax-heavy system that advocates of heavier reliance on an income tax-based system often fail to notice.

  • Anonymous

    I’m certainly not going to claim that illegal immigrants are a huge part of the state budget problem, but I think a fair accounting of the costs of illegal immigration would have to consider the court and prison costs of dealing with illegal immigrants, not merely benefits provided. It would probably also requiring factoring in both the costs and benefits of at least the American citizen-children of illegal immigrants (costs for schools, prisons, government assistance, medicaid balanced against additional sales tax revenue, property taxes, economic growth etc.) since they would not be there but for their parents’ actions. Of course this calculation has to be cut off at some point, but the immediate American children of illegal immigrants seem a reasonable factor to consider.

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    In 2000 to 2010 population in WA went up 13 percent.

    The state budget went up 50 percent.

    Who is to blame?

    Look in the mirror.

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    Sales and income taxes penalize the productive worker unfairly.

    WA state should normalize property and asset taxes like the more populous Eastern states.

  • fount

    when you do a cost benefit analysis, you actually have to consider benefits as well as costs.

    to be fair, let’s throw in undocumented workers’ contribution to social security, which they’ll never see.

    let’s throw in the low cost of food — were it not for a whole group willing to break their backs picking our apples and harvesting our strawberries, cooking and washing in our restaurants, etc., food would cost twice as much.

  • Anonymous

    Why do sales taxes penalize productive workers? It would appear to me that they penalize consumptive workers.

  • Blue Light

    We should probably, then, count the Billions we are spending on salmon recovery. Researchers at Oregon State University have reported that the NUMBER ONE THREAT to PNW salmon and their habitats is increased immigration into the region, the vast majority of which comes from outside the U.S. and Canada (their words, not mine; now borne out by the census). OSU says that if we do not control immigration NOTHING ELSE WE DO (ever tighter wastewater rules, stormwaters costs, ad nauseum) will save salmon and their habitats.

    So add that to the ledger.

    Here’s a link to the OSU study: http://oregonstate.edu/dept/fw/lackey/Salmon2100.htm

  • Jakers

    Learn two terms in Latin and you understand the difference dumb ass.

    Malum in se
    Malum prohibitum

  • Barleywine

    “In the last decades of the 19th century, anti-Asian backlash fueled by high unemployment which increased resentment against Asian settlers, anti-Asian legislation, and growing nativism, erupted into violent riots in Washington State.”

    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/S01%20-%20Wash%20State%20riots.htm

  • Jakers

    You could say that, or you could say that some people get more benefit out of being a member of our society so they should put more into it. Otherwise you could just go to a flat annual membership fee to live in the US.

  • Jakers

    So your for interpreting the constitution according to today’s societal norms and values as opposed those in 1776?

  • Anonymous

    Agreed about cost-benefit analysis. That’s why I wrote: “It would probably also requiring factoring in both the costs and benefits…” Granted I only explicitly mentioned the benefits of sales tax income with respect to the children of illegal immigrants in this post, but I did so for their parents in a post above on this thread.

    I would not include SS benefits, since here we’re looking at the CBA with respect to the state, not federal gov’t. Including lower costs/higher profits for restaurant food is certainly reasonable, as it would be for agricultural benefits. One would also have to take into account the effect of illegal immigration on unemployment levels among low-skilled American workers as well. It would be a complicated analysis, which is probably why no researchers have attempted it, to my knowledge. It’s also likely politically fraught and I suspect depending on who commissioned the survey the variables included might be examined based on outcomes before inclusion as a variable to reach the “proper” conclusion.

  • Anonymous

    And the implication of your quotation is that one should not study the effects of complex phenomena? I would love to see a study of the impact of Asian Americans on America, warts and all.

  • Jakers

    Also from that study it says, “He noted that it is more important that we
    stop making linear presumptions (as this core policy driver does) that are often incorrect in a nonlinear world. In his view such thinking leads to the assumption that our own actions do not directly affect the status of salmon or are so small as to be inconsequential.”

    In other words, while you are on a bent about protecting salmon by stopping immigration, maybe you need to start looking at yourself and your own behaviors that are killing salmon off first.

  • Blue Light

    As should you. Dumb ass.

  • fount

    very witty. you’re on a role of intelligent responses today.

  • fount

    very witty. you’re on a role of intelligent responses today.

  • Barleywine

    I’m not following what you say is my implication.

    What I thought it was is that these things happen whenever we have rough ecomomic times. Happened to be the Chinese that time; happens to be the Latinos this time. They’re filling the same niche right now.

    From Wikipedia on Sinophobia:
    “Even Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan, who was the sole dissenting voice against the segregation of Black Americans in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), wrote: “In view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. (…) [But] there is a race so different from our own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of the United States. Persons belonging to it are, with few exceptions, absolutely excluded from our country. I allude to the Chinese race.””

    “In the 1870s and 1880s various legal discriminatory measures were taken against the Chinese. These laws, in particular the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, were aimed at restricting further immigration from China.”

    And so it goes. Same reaction, different people, new century.

  • Vencimos mucho

    very ignorant. those kids grow up join the work force and enhance GPD, they get educated and start businesses, they pay taxes sales property and income tax and FICA and you didn’t mention any of that.

    Also let’s count the “benefit” to the usa of having “California” and “Texas” and “New Mexico” etc. if we’re going to count benefits of illegal immigration wasn’t it the illegal immigration of the US army into Mexico whereby we took that stuff?

  • Jakers

    @fount, I think that he was responding in kind from my comment above. I was just quoting from the study he linked to to justify his hatred of immigrants.

  • sarah

    Actually, the United States was pretty much settled by Native American tribes for at least a thousand years before your ancesters came here, Blue Light.

  • Anonymous

    Very ignorant? You apparently didn’t read my post.

    I’ll quote: “[A cost benefit analysis] would probably also requiring factoring in both the costs and benefits of at least the American citizen-children of illegal immigrants (costs for schools, prisons, government assistance, medicaid balanced against ADDITIONAL SALES TAX REVENUE, PROPERTY TAXES, ECONOMIC GROWTH etc.)”

    You’ll notice I specifically mentioned those very things YOU CLAIMED I DIDN’T MENTION. Now, THAT is IGNORANT. The truth is, neither of us knows what the total cost and benefit ratio would be, because there has never been such a study. I didn’t assume the truth of one outcome, and you shouldn’t either.

    The US legal claim to California, Texas, or any other part of territory is an interesting historical and academic inquiry, but it has no relation to a cost benefit analysis of illegal immigration. And anyway, if you want to include the “benefits” of having Texas as part of the US, you’d have to include the massive damage created by the Dubya presidency!

  • Anonymous

    I’ll agree that rough economic times cause humans to look inward and restrict immigration, trade etc. There’s a tendency to cling to what you have and see change as a threat to it.

    I disagree about the legal analogies. There have been no laws or Supreme Court decisions recently with respect to immigration that propose limiting immigration based on race. There also have been no calls to restrict any further immigration from particular countries only. The current unease over immigration tends to center on values and religion (Muslims in Europe) and culture and language (Mexicans/Hispanics in the US).

  • Barleywine

    Blue Light has always been an ass, but I’d never heard of Edward Abbey and now want to read, read, read.
    I think BL is taking most of his stuff out of context, but what a character he was. Me likey.

  • Anc

    Yes they did.

    See:
    Treaties of Velasco
    Joint Resolutions on the Annexation of the Republic of Texas

  • Anonymous

    @T_Chen. You make the only sensible comment of any here. “The truth is, neither of us knows what the total cost and benefit ratio would be, because there has never been such a study. I didn’t assume the truth of one outcome, and you shouldn’t either.” The rest show that on the internet, you only need a connection to be an “expert”.

  • sarah

    I doubt if any study would show any warts.

  • Perfect Voter

    Yawn. And pick two different years, that are also 10 years apart, and you get a different percentage. It’s called “how to lie with statistics.” Let’s look at the whole chart over, say 50 years.

  • Barleywine

    T:

    Forgive me. I haven’t been able to post something over ten words for awhile.
    Thanks Disqus.

    “There have been no laws or Supreme Court decisions recently with respect to immigration that propose limiting immigration based on race.”

    There have been some laws in Arizona that caused a Seattle boycott.
    And some proposed laws in Seattle that we’re talking about right now.

    I understand this because I dated a Filipina for a few years.
    She loved Thai food. Vietnamese food. Chinese food if it didn’t suck.
    One of her sayings was: “Mahal! I don’t like Mexican food next to Italian food!

    So we didn’t frequent Mexican restaurants. We did Thai, or ate adobo or pancit at home. Beans. Beaners. So little difference to some.

  • Barleywine

    ““Mahal! I don’t like Mexican food next to Italian food!

    Really, she said Mexican pood. And Italian pood.
    What does she know.

  • Surfing By

    The Lisa Brown chart only considers a short list of assistance programs that benefit illegal immigrants. She considers one small slice of the budget and draws a conclusion about the total costs. Definitely sleight of hand stuff. She doesn’t consider other illegal immigrant costs like arrest/court/incarceration costs, education costs, ESL, printing of documents in multiple languages, depressed wages, and emergency room medical billing costs (In recent years, 18 hospitals in CA have closed due to being overwhelmed by indigent care coupled with the federal mandate to treat everyone. A good illustration of where unrestrained, illegal immigration takes us over time.). Even worse the state doesn’t keep statistics on illegal immigration, doesn’t want to know about the problem. So these illegal immigrant stats have to be teased out of the data and guesstimated. One-half of the WA State Patrol most wanted are Hispanic. 18 of 26 have no identified birth place, a good clue that they are here illegally. 30-40% of WA’s 50,000 felony warrants are thought to be for illegal immigrants, i.e. since they have no place of residence in WA. If Sen Brown wants to make the “1% argument,” then she should be more comprehensive in her statistical analysis. I think most folks support legal immigration and guest worker programs. However, illegal immigration is corrosive and corrupting of the social contract, as well as a burdensome, often uncontrollable public expense. Race is not the issue. I would not support unregulated illegal immigration from China, Russia, or Mexico. All illegal immigration creates a complex of social, legal, and budget problems.

    And by the way, EVERYONE acknowledges that the WA state employee unfunded pension liability and medical benefits are a HUGE CONTRIBUTOR to the state budget problems. This remark is either misquoted, disingenuous, or just a plain lie.

  • Anonymous

    I am afraid that somehow it cannot penetrate the thinking of someone like Lisa Browne that providing rewards for coming here encourages ever-more to do so, and that continuing to do so is clearly unsustainable as there is a limited time in which we can sustainably absorb up to 100,000 illegals per year, or even close to that. And she apparently does not want to research how this affects our educational process, our crowded freeways, our already polluted waterways, our diminishing ecology, etc.

  • Barleywine

    Maybe we could absorb them if some of us left.

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    I agree (with the first statement); hence asset and property taxes.

  • amistad amigo

    please, stop the deliberate lying. You’re implying that Mexico consented to give up california nm colo nv ariz and tx?

    what a lie.

    you cite some treaty of velasco two mintues on google you get this:
    The Treaties of Velasco were two documents signed at Velasco, Texas, (which is now Freeport, Texas) on May 14, 1836, between Antonio López de Santa Anna of Mexico and the Republic of Texas, in the aftermath of the Battle of San Jacinto (April 21, 1836). The signatories were Interim President David G. Burnet for Texas and General Santa Anna for Mexico. The Treaties were intended, on the part of the Texans, to provide a conclusion of hostilities between the two belligerents and offer the first steps toward the official recognition of the breakaway Republic’s independence. However, there was a public treaty and a secret treaty, and the treaty was never ratified by the Mexican government. Moreover, the documents were not even called “treaties” until so characterized by U.S. President James K. Polk in his justifications for war some ten years later, as was pointed out by Congressman Abraham Lincoln in 1848. [1]

    did you read that part about how “the treaty was never ratified by the Mexican government.”

    Bottom line, the USA invasion of and seizure of half of Mexico wasn’t legal brudda so all of the USAns who bitch and moan about illegal border crossing have a lot of historical opportunism to own up to, were they men about it.

  • noticer

    no, it’s not that we fail to notice it thank you very much for the unwarranted ad hominem; it’s that after noticing tons of nations around the world clearly those with higher income taxes and the states with higher incomes taxes are:
    1. better off economically
    2. seem to be more just, too, nicer to live in.
    and

    3. more humane.

  • Anc

    Consented? Mexico lost the war for Texas Independence, and it’s General/President/Caudillo Santa Anna signed a treaty saying so. Now, just b/c his country overthrew him afterwords and refused to ratify it, doesn’t invalidate the document.

    Mexico lost, Texas won. Isn’t the first time that’s happened in history, wasn’t the last.

  • no CBA for anglos..

    1. you talked about the benefits of the american born, ie citizens.
    2. no, you dind’t mention the sales taxes and other taxes paid by the undocs only their kids born here.
    3. the very notion one needs to do a CBA reflets deep seated hostility and bias. Of course they add to our nation, they’re here to work!

    Seriously, some comments are liberal some are benighted like blue whatever, but there is zero possibility there would be ANY immigration debate if we had 12 million white people from england here, or canada.

    No one would be weighing cost benefit then.

  • sarah

    Surfing by: You say “Even worse the state doesn’t keep statistics on illegal immigration, doesn’t want to know about the problem. So these illegal immigrant stats have to be teased out of the data and guesstimated. ”

    Then you can’t really base any complaints on those non-statistics, can you.

  • Barfly

    ” the USA invasion of and seizure of half of Mexico wasn’t legal ”

    Lucky for Texas it was not part of Mexico….

  • Barfly

    ” the USA invasion of and seizure of half of Mexico wasn’t legal ”

    Lucky for Texas it was not part of Mexico….

  • http://www.twitter.com/joeszi Joe Szilagyi

    Please list the names of every nation that has survived without it’s government, population, or ways of life substantially changing over 200 years, that are still around today, which aren’t a monarchy.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe you could clarify with some examples. Many people believe Western European states are some of the most humane and pleasant places in which to live. They also rely more heavily on the VAT, which is a consumption tax, than we do. For example, France gets only about 20% of government revenue from the income tax, but about 50% from the VAT. This is common in many European states.

    http://www.performance-publique.gouv.fr/le-budget-et-les-comptes-de-letat/approfondir/les-recettes/les-recettes-fiscales.html

  • Anonymous

    Still no explanation of why sales taxes penalize productive workers…

  • Blue Light

    We cannot have our cake and eat it, too. Our state’s Democratic Party has to decide which plank it wants to support: illegal immigration or environmental protection. You can’t have both (irrespective of the outraged rants of party loyalists). So, either stop wasting tax money on doomed environmental restoration efforts or stop rolling out the red carpet for the more mouths that doom it.

  • Blue Light

    We cannot have our cake and eat it, too. Our state’s Democratic Party has to decide which plank it wants to support: illegal immigration or environmental protection. You can’t have both (irrespective of the outraged rants of party loyalists). So, either stop wasting tax money on doomed environmental restoration efforts or stop rolling out the red carpet for the more mouths that doom it.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, I concede that I didn’t produce a COMPLETE accounting of the costs and benefits of illegal immigration. It would be a complex undertaking. I did mention a number of obvious costs and benefits. At least I ATTEMPTED a cost benefit analysis. You, on the other hand, have only named benefits of illegal immigration. How would you factor in the costs? I would climb down off the high horse until you’re able to produce a credible cost-benefit analysis…

    Next up, why does attempting to analyze the costs and benefits of a public policy represent deep hostility? And why would ANY amount of work or economic benefit necessarily be a net benefit? That makes no sense. Would you let me live at your house, eat your food, and you pay for my health care if I agree to mow your lawn twice a month? (Just to clarify, I’m not suggesting that most immigrants are not hardworking, this is just a thought exercise in the benefit of a cost-benefit analysis)

    Third, yes, I’m sure there are a number of non-economic factors at play in anti-immigrant sentiment. Racism, classicism, nativism, and other sorts off factors all play a role. Those play a role to some degree in every sort of policy, in virtually every country, but that doesn’t mean policies with legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for existing should not be promulgated. Virtually every government in the world restricts and regulates immigration. It does so with some combination of a cost-benefit analysis, out of humanitarian concerns, etc. The US policy is much less based on cost-benefit analysis than our neighbor Canada, for example, which has aggressively pursued policies in the last several decades to woo wealthy investors with visas for cash investments, basically. They obviously did a cost benefit analysis before deciding they’d rather have rich Hong Kong residents immigrate than poorer immigrants.

    By the way, you seriously think the main thing is about race? Are you aware of all the hostility to Irish and Italians at one point? Have you heard the comments and grumbling about Russians NOW? Rather than race, the biggest common factors to anti-immigrant sentiments have been wealth/education of the immigrants and culture/language. Look at how attitudes toward the Japanese have taken a 180 since 100 years ago. Why? Because they Japanese became rich and educated. Look at the way Mexicans treat Guatemalans? Why because they’re poorer than Mexicans. Or the way South Africans treat refugees from Zimbabwe. If they came with vaults of money to spend there would be no backlash regardless of their race. Since (white) Canadians and Brits are closest to US middle class culture, I think you’re right that immigration from these groups would produce little resentment compared to most other populations.

  • Barleywine

    T, I think the frustrating thing with you on this issue is the fact that you’re talking cost vs. benefit as if they weren’t people. Like life’s all just some manufacturing process, with waste to trim. That’s just not what we do as a country, and I wouldn’t want to live in one that thought this way.

    If I were driving by and saw you get hit by a car, should I really weigh the costs vs. the benefits to me of stopping to help? I’m sure you of all people would understand if I drove on, right; because it might not come out in your favor. Especially if there were a TV show that I was keen on seeing, and I hadn’t set the DVR.

    Bringing up how poorly some other people treat people doesn’t help your argument, either. We don’t measure ourselves against the worst. One thing that really drives me crazy is when people interpret “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” to mean legal citizens of the United States.

    That’s not what it means. It means ALL people.

  • Anonymous

    Replying to Barleywine’s post:

    “T, I think the frustrating thing with you on this issue is the fact that you’re talking cost vs. benefit as if they weren’t people. Like life’s all just some manufacturing process, with waste to trim. That’s just not what we do as a country, and I wouldn’t want to live in one that thought this way.

    If I were driving by and saw you get hit by a car, should I really weigh the costs vs. the benefits to me of stopping to help? I’m sure you of all people would understand if I drove on, right; because it might not come out in your favor. Especially if there were a TV show that I was keen on seeing, and I hadn’t set the DVR.

    Bringing up how poorly some other people treat people doesn’t help your argument, either. We don’t measure ourselves against the worst. One thing that really drives me crazy is when people interpret “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” to mean legal citizens of the United States.”

    I expressed no beliefs here about what our immigration policy should be. What I object to is unsupported claims about whether illegal immigrants produce more benefits to society and government than costs.

    And FYI, we do in this country make decisions on cost/benefit all the time. Sometimes we decide that the moral costs or benefits are significant enough to overcome a fiscal deficit or surplus, but we certainly consider costs even with people. Every policy about speed limits, safety features, enforcement, inspection standards, mercury limits in food and water etc. has a life and death impact on the lives of people. We may not like to think about it, but setting the speed limit at 35 on some streets instead of 20 will cost lives. We know that. We do it because we decide the increased speed and efficiency is worth the lives lost. Maybe the calculation is wrong, but we set that speed limit despite those lives that will be lost. Let’s not pretend calculations about illegal immigration are any different than calculations about so many other public policy issues.

  • Barleywine

    T,

    “Let’s not pretend”

    It is true economists count costs and benefits.

    It’s their job to count beans (and not only Latinos), but hearing that kind of thing from someone I trust to be on the right side of every other issue… means the “economists” have won.

    The funny thing is that I do read the Economist when I’m not reading your stuff, and they seem to think that immigration is a good thing for the economy; specifically the young, strong, big family kind of immigration. It’s good for the economy overall.
    That’s why I question your motives on this.

    Just from personal experience: Visiting small towns across the state that were dying economically because of old age and emigration of the young as those towns transition to vibrant Latino communities is an uplifting thing. You can’t count that, but it matters.
    I’m guessing it has something to do with the difference between being sad that you only make 20k a year and being thrilled that you make $20,000 a Year! My daughter’s town, Aberdeen, gets livelier every time I visit. And I’m pretty sure it isn’t because I’m passing through.

    Also, I’m going to Mexico next month and I’d love to be able stay just by asking permission from the Mexican government if I so chose. Why not? It should be that easy to get a visa until I decided to stay permanently and renounce my US citizenship, then to switch back ten years later if I changed my mind.

    All either country should need from me is to know where I’m living and who’s flag I’m saluting at the moment.

  • Anonymous

    Replying to Barleywine:

    “The funny thing is that I do read the Economist when I’m not reading your stuff, and they seem to think that immigration is a good thing for the economy; specifically the young, strong, big family kind of immigration. It’s good for the economy overall.
    That’s why I question your motives on this.”

    As is often done, you’re conflating all immigration and illegal immigration. They may both turn out to be beneficial for the US economy, but their effects are not identical. Legal immigrants tend to immigrate with better education and financial resources. The effect on the economy and government budgets of a highly paid tech worker at Amazon or Google is not the same as a poor, illiterate Guatemalan mother of 3 kids. I’m sure the Economist makes the point that immigration tends to increase the number of workers who pay into government pension schemes, extending their viability. Again, this calculation of costs and benefits depends a lot on the type of immigrant. If you want to cite some specific passages from the Economist, I would be interested.

    “Just from personal experience: Visiting small towns across the state that were dying economically because of old age and emigration of the young as those towns transition to vibrant Latino communities is an uplifting thing. You can’t count that, but it matters.”

    Certainly, immigrants tend to contribute many cultural and economic benefits to a community. Our selection or restaurants is much better than it used to be 40 years ago in most parts of the US. Many immigrants, especially ones who came illegally, fill many jobs in restaurants and pick many of the fruit crops in WA that we sell and export. No doubt. But if you ask folks in places like Yakima about the biggest problems they face, one of the first things they’ll tell you is the dramatic increase in gangs and violent crime that relates to mostly the children or grandchildren of those immigrants who came to pick those crops and take other jobs. It’s a mixed picture. It’s a complicated tale of uplift and success stories (go Dream Act!) and gangs and high dropout rates.

    “Also, I’m going to Mexico next month and I’d love to be able stay just by asking permission from the Mexican government if I so chose. Why not? It should be that easy to get a visa until I decided to stay permanently and renounce my US citizenship, then to switch back ten years later if I changed my mind.”

    I’m sure you’d love to be able to switch your allegiance at the drop of a hat and go where you please, but that is not necessarily in the best interests of a country. It’s not all about you. Do you think Canada would be pleased if any unemployed and uninsured person from Detroit could just cross the Fleming Channel to Windsor and sign up for free health care? That would be great for me. I’d love to get free health care paid for by Canada. They probably wouldn’t be keen on it.

    Until benefits, taxes, and living standards are relatively comparable (see, e.g., European Union or movement between the states in the US) your dream of free movement is not likely to come to fruition.

  • Barleywine

    T,

    “Many immigrants, especially ones who came illegally, fill many jobs”

    Are you saying that, given the choice, Yakima wouldn’t want immigrants here?

    They would become a speck on the face of Eastern Washington very quickly and we would get lots more produce from Guatemala than we do now. So for argument’s sake they do want them. But they don’t want their kids and grandkids? Many of them American citizens?

    What’s the difference between them and my kids and grandkid? In almost any city there are gangs, of every possible background. That’s a social issue of a different color, and calls for education and law enforcement and whatever else they’ve come up with to deal with those things. That’s a human problem, not a Latino one.

    Which brings me to what really bothers me: I don’t like having to lump you in with Blue Light and Snoop, but it’s really tough to see it any other way. Their motto seems to be “This is a white country, so everyone else can just go home.” And yours seems to be “This is a white and Asian country, so…” or maybe “This is an educated white and Asian country, so…”

    This is just a country, and one based on the equality of all people, not just those who benefit us economically. If there are social issues we need to deal with, let’s deal with them here.

  • Anonymous

    Barleywine:

    “Are you saying that, given the choice, Yakima wouldn’t want immigrants here?

    They would become a speck on the face of Eastern Washington very quickly and we would get lots more produce from Guatemala than we do now. So for argument’s sake they do want them. But they don’t want their kids and grandkids? Many of them American citizens?”

    I wouldn’t presume to speak for Yakima residents as a whole about immigration. I’m only pointing out there are costs and benefits. I generally favor immigration (I support immigration reform, more temporary visas for seasonal workers, more H1B visas, the Dream Act etc.) but I don’t favor unlimited immigration, particularly from impoverished countries. That is not practical if a country wants to maintain a robust social safety net and societal cohesion.

    Second, Washington would still produce farm products absent illegal immigration. Yes, we might pay more for apples and cherries, but we would still have them. I know you get around Seattle. Have you seen how many idle young men we have in this city? There are a lot of people who could pick crops. It’s like saying that if China didn’t exist, the world wouldn’t have electronics. Yes, they produce them cheaply, but if they didn’t other places and people would produce them, but maybe for a little more money.

    “What’s the difference between them and my kids and grandkid? In almost any city there are gangs, of every possible background. That’s a social issue of a different color, and calls for education and law enforcement and whatever else they’ve come up with to deal with those things. That’s a human problem, not a Latino one.

    Which brings me to what really bothers me: I don’t like having to lump you in with Blue Light and Snoop, but it’s really tough to see it any other way. Their motto seems to be “This is a white country, so everyone else can just go home.” And yours seems to be “This is a white and Asian country, so…” or maybe “This is an educated white and Asian country, so…”

    I don’t give a rip what color somebody is. Asking questions and demanding that people who make claims about the effects of illegal immigrations, or supply-side tax cuts, or whatever, be supported by evidence is not unreasonable.

  • Barleywine

    T,

    “If you want to cite some specific passages from the Economist, I would be interested.”

    This has been a regular stance of theirs, but I don’t have any saved quotes. Just got a new one today, so maybe! They mostly talk about older, established countries like Japan having the most trouble. Close your borders, age your population, and prepare to slowly die. Russia I think is on the list. And America is spared by that nasty Latino immigration that we grumble about, unless it benefits us. And it does more than not.

    We can all make a six figure income in our dreams. Some can live on a four figure income and keep the economy (and even themselves) alive. Thank goodness, otherwise we’d be in trouble, too.

    And if the thing bothering you is just the “illegal” thing we can fix that really quick as Jakers has said, and get rid of the over the River, through the Woods, and across the sea in a Box thing for good.

    “Have you seen how many idle young men we have in this city? There are a lot of people who could pick crops.”
    You and I could pick crops. The idle young men could make up their own minds about what they do.

    I think we’re going to go over our allotted time and incur a surcharge, so let me just say that I wouldn’t spend so much time commenting if I didn’t think we were close to an understanding. You remind me a bit of the brother I’m going to see in Mexico, in that he and I are twins born ten years apart and really want to understand our few differences, so whenever we see each other we’ve got to spend at least one night drinking beer until the wee morning hours and discussing life.

    He and I have had one-subject email talks that spanned months. However, beer is a catalyst and face time the beaker. Takes only hours.
    But hey-Suess!, I’m not sure if I could live for long on Tecate, so I think I’ll be coming back to live off the taxpayers somehow.