Illegal immigratioon: victim of recession

As I have previously noted, in response to figures from the Mexican government, illegal immigration is down drastically -- mainly since the recession hit. In the old days I used to argue that the only way the government could control illegal immigration would be to plunge the country into recession and tank the economy, thereby eliminating the presence of more jobs than were allowed for in the arbitrary quotas set in Washington. I didn't mean for them to take the advice, though a glancing acquaintance with Austrian economics business cycle theory has suggested for years that a bubble-bursting recession was coming.

Now we have figures released by the U.S. Customs and Border Control reporting that nabbing of illegals, generally an indicator of the larger phenomenon of illegal immigration, was down 17% in 2008, to the lowest level in 36 years. The attribute it to better technology and more people (hmm, wouldn't that lead to more arrests?), but grudgingly acknowledge the recession as a contributory factor. Trust me,. it's the biggest factor. I'm sure the figure for 2009 will be lower yet.

Nice night at the Oscars

I have seen none of the movies nominated so have no basis for an opinion on any of the winners, though everybody I've talked to who has seen "Slumdog Millionaire" was quite taken with it. For reasons I don't quite fathom, however, I usually watch the Oscars, and I thought this show was a cut or three above usual. Hugh Jackman singing and dancing was terrific. I liked that they had several musical numbers, and even the collages were pretty good. Do they have to work on making the Oscars more glamorous during hard economic times. There's evidence that beer sales are down, which may be a sign that the recessions will be harder and deeper than anybody had hoped. So will we have to compensate with the pseudo-glamor of the movies, as so many Americans did in the 1930s?

"A cel;ebrity is one who is known to many persons he is glad he doesn't know." -- H.L. Mencken

Et tu, EBay?

Unemployment is up again, companies one might have thought were solid are announcing layoffs, the LA Times announced layoffs today, and the Philadelphia Inquirer is reported to be flirting with Pa. Gov. Ed Rendell about a $10 million state bailout. (Presumably the only way to have a free and independent press in this country is to make it a ward of government.) But perhaps the most important signal that this recession is real and not likely to go away very soon is that EBay has announced a hefty year-to-year decline, with profit falling 31% from last year, the first decline since 1995 (which means it weathered the dot.com bubble-burst). We in the newspaper business, who have seen our revenues decline in large part because of migration to the Net, not only for news but advertising (Craigslist and Monster.com have hammered us; Register employment ad revenue was down 40% in 2008) had tended to see Net businesses as somehow all-powerful. (Incidentally, one of the best commentaries I've seen on the slow death of newspapers is this from Slate.com's Jack Shafer.) If EBay is seeing profits decline and laying people off, the recession is serious indeed.

Spending our way to . . . well, you know

Here's the Register's editorial on Barack Obama's speech on economics and the need for an ever-increasing "stimulus" to get us out of the recession. Trouble is, not only must the money be borrowed from an increasingly reluctant China and eventually repaid, it will stoke inflation and direct money away from genuinely productive activities and into politically popular propjects or those with an especially effective interest group behind them. The oldest political trick in the book. So much for "change."