Sunday, March 30, 2008

The other illegal immigration

The mythology about illegal immigration is that people sneak across the border. The reality is that
we need to control our airports as well. The B-2 visa for a six month visit is way too long. The visa should be reduced to three months. There should be one three month extension and none should be granted beyond that.

We also need to reduce the system of appeals and motions that go on for decades. One appeal is more than enough. Right now there are cases that have gone on for decades.

We also need fee structures that reflect the work done. For example it takes far more work to process a foreign adoption. The fee for a foreign adoption should reflect the extra work and people who file fake adoption claims should be prosecuted. We should also require blood tests for countries with bad documentation.


Beamish said...

Just make sure everybody has their shots.

Pete Murphy said...

Beak, I'll give you another reason for opposing not only illegal immigration, but legal immigration as well. Rampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. Immigration, both legal and illegal, are fueling this growth.

I'm not talking just about the obvious problems that we see in the news - growing dependence on foreign oil, carbon emissions, etc. I'm talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty in America.

I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled "Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America." To make a long story short, this theory proposes that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption begins to decline. This occurs because when people are forced to crowd together and conserve space, it becomes ever more impractical to own many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.

This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management, especially immigration policy. Our policies of encouraging high rates of immigration are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.

But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.

It's absolutely imperative that our population be stabilized, and that's impossible without dramatically reining in immigration, both legal and illegal.

To learn more about this new theory, please visit my web site at where you can read the preface for free, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It's also available at

Please forgive the somewhat "spammish" nature of this reply. I just don't know how else to inject this new perspective into the immigration debate without drawing attention to the book.

Keep up the good work on raising concern about the immigration issue!

Pete Murphy
Author, Five Short Blasts

Z said...

Mr. Murphy, this stunned me because, after reading Beak's ideas, I was about to post "What do you think of a five year moratorium...NO LEGAL IMMIGRATION until we get caught up with the mess we have..paperwork, figuring out better laws, etc." and I then read your post!

I'd like to see this. As beamish (above) posted, there are health concerns, too. I hear TB is up and I think I heard polio's rising again...whooping cough, etc. No shots means disease. I know that's only controlled (somewhat) through legal immigration, but we have to get a handle on what's happening in America.

Five years...minimum. NO MORE PEOPLE. I believe we have to do it and am eager for dissent and a good reason for the dissent. It's a subject that interests me a lot.

good luck with your book...sounds interesting.

Beak; what do you think about the five yr moratorium?

Ducky's here said...

Hey Beak, happy opening day.

The Spankees look like they'll blow goats again this year.

The Merry Widow said...

Z-Leprosy is also on the rise, Mexican doctors are telling their poor patients to get into the US for free medicine and treatment!
Then there is; dengue fever and a nasty that doctors are having trouble with, called morgellons(google it!) A family in Florida were infected with it after illegals camped out across a lake from them...


Anonymous said... interesting theory Pete, but there ARE more conventional explanations for the decline in "material" consumption that seem more plausible to me than "space limitting". In fact, I would argue that the growth of the "service economy" helps explain that decline much more completely.

Whereas "wealth" can best be understood in terms of the amount of 3-D space one controls and the "rent" one can derive from it (the greater its' scarcity, the higher the rent), labor will always be divided into the categories of "productive" and "unproductive" (Smith, WoN, Book II Ch 3). And so once one's essential material needs have been met, a proportion of even the most productive person's time begins to turn to more "leisurely" and typically "unproductive" pursuits.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And "happiness" is seldom found in simply having "more stuff".

Z said...

TMW: I wonder how the pandering Left feels about leprosy in their family.