The Return of E-Verify

State governments embrace a dangerous employment verification database.

When the Florida legislature failed to pass a bill last month requiring businesses to electronically verify the immigration status of job applicants and employees, one immigration opponent said that lawmakers were endorsing "economic slavery." 

"We used to own them, now we just rent them," George Fuller told Kenric Ward of the conservative Sunshine News, claiming he’d heard the line from a Florida grower.

Ward ran with the metaphor, writing that “while businesses ‘rent’ undocumented workers for ‘slave’ wages, Floridians foot the bill for educating, medicating and incarcerating illegal aliens.”

If lawmakers in Tallahassee had succeeded in mandating that businesses use E-Verify, a federal database that confirms employment eligibility, Florida growers would likely be facing a very different problem. In Georgia, where lawmakers passed an immigration bill that requires employers to use just such a system, undocumented workers have stopped working. As a result, Georgia growers “have been forced to leave millions of dollars’ worth of blueberries, onions, melons, and other crops unharvested and rotting in the fields” according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

All told, Georgia now has lost nearly 11,000 agricultural jobs that pay between $8 and $11 per hour. Those jobs once belonged to undocumented workers—or “slaves,” as Fuller and Kenric would call them. Now they belong to no one.  

Despite Georgia’s looming agricultural catastrophe, neighboring states are pushing ahead with their own legislation mandating the use of E-Verify. The South Carolina legislature has sent an Arizona-style immigration bill to Gov. Nikki Haley for approval, and Louisiana lawmakers have sent one bill specifically dealing with government contractors to Gov. Bobby Jindal. Earlier this month, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley signed a bill that requires all businesses in his state, public and private, to use E-Verify effective April 1, 2012. Failure to comply will result in loss of state licensing and certification, and payroll tax penalties. 

Three years ago, E-Verify appeared to be on its last legs. By 2008, the system had existed as a voluntary program for over a decade, but not a single state had mandated it. Former Reason Senior Editor Kerry Howley reported that “the Social Security Administration estimates 17.8 million of its records contain discrepancies that could lead to delays and false negatives,” and that the rosy failure rate cited by E-Verify advocates—a measly 4 percent—still meant that the system would make 6 million documented workers nationwide ineligible for employment.

But around that same time, Arizona decided to make the system mandatory, which prompted Howley to visit the state and speak to workers:

In Phoenix, I was hearing stories of legal Latino workers who were fired as soon as e-verify registered an initial problem. One study has found that a third of employers who use e-verify illegally "pre-screen" employees, meaning that they simply won't hire anyone who isn't immediately approved. Not everyone walking away is undocumented. They're just workers with suspicious last names who happen not to be high-powered immigration lawyers working on the Hill.

But even if the E-Verify system was “99.5 percent” error-free, as Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) claimed in a recent Los Angeles Times op-ed, there’s still the problem of who would do all those dirty deeds for dirt cheap. As Georgia has learned, people who can do so legally don’t want to pick fruit for $11 an hour.

The threat of unfilled low-wage jobs led the Chamber of Commerce to file suit against Arizona’s E-Verify program. The Chamber dubbed the Legal Arizona Workers Act a “business death penalty,” yet the Supreme Court ruled in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting that Arizona’s law was permissible.

Business groups in Florida succeeded in blocking E-Verify legislation, citing the impact on the economy. In Washington state, the same concerns have Republican Rep. Doc Hastings on the fence about supporting a national E-Verify mandate without “special consideration for the agricultural industry.”

But even though agribusiness would be especially hurt by a nationwide mandatory E-Verify program, the biggest losers would be hard-working undocumented workers.

As Robert Gittelson, co-founder of Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, wrote in The Hill this week, “Let us not forget for even a minute the horrific human toll on the undocumented families...Where is the compassion for these people? Most of them have been here living, working, and contributing to society for over a decade. This mandatory bill, without an accompanying legalization program, would decimate these good families.”

It has already decimated Georgia’s melon crop.

Mike Riggs is an associate editor at Reason magazine.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • David E. Gallaher/Ruthless||

    Was the image supposed to be of a Georgia peach spoiling on the tree? Well it's of a persimmon just reaching its height of succulentness. Makes my mouth water.

  • MWG||

    Are you sure? To me it doesn't look like a persimmon or a peach.

    http://www.google.com/search?u.....l396l3-1l1

    http://www.google.com/search?u.....23l0.3.2l5

  • ||

    It's a persimmon. But it is past the height of succulentness, as it has become moldy. A ripe persimmon is soft and mushy, but not moldy.

  • MWG||

    It was a good catch by David, but I think you're right. It doesn't look even remotely appealing.

  • ||

    It looks like a shaven diseased scrotum.

    Don't ask me how I know what a shaven diseased scrotum looks like.

  • ||

    Not a soul on here would question your knowledge on such matters, cap l.

    Not.
    A.
    Soul.

  • ||

    I say downthread that I have worked many menial jobs...

  • ||

    I know what they look like!

  • ||

    No, no, shrike. That's just your reflection in the mirror.

  • GregorySmith3||

    So if a business wanted to hire slaves would that be ok?

    Get real, people. This is AMERICA, this is not the United States of the World.

    Legal immigrants spend way too much money following the letter of the law. So it's insulting that some crooked businessman wants to hire a bunch of illegals to save a buck.

    Besides, there are plenty of liberals bitching that there aren't enough jobs for the homeless. Well, now we have some new jobs for them! They can work in Agriculture. Problem solved.

  • Sinic||

    Have you ever even met anyone who would work 10+ hour days in Georgia heat for $8-$10/hr? And how are the homeless supposed to get from the downtown shelters to the rural farms and back? Now everybody loses, and because of pure racism.

  • Kroneborge||

    "Have you ever even met anyone who would work 10+ hour days in Georgia heat for $8-$10/hr?"

    That was about my wage when I was in the army in GA.

  • MWG||

    How long ago?

    I have a cousin who is enlisted in the Army in N. Carolina and he definitely makes more than $10/hr... but maybe the wages are higher in NC.

  • ||

    Plus money for college, plus free healthcare, plus extra combat play, plus pension after 20 years, plus free food, plus discounted goods at the army supermarket, plus the honor of being a soldier.

  • some guy||

    Plus 10% off damn near everything else if you show your military ID.

  • GregorySmith3||

    Exactly, so when people complain about military salaries being low, they are being disingenuous.

    On the other hand, I would like to lower the salaries of senators and state representatives. Those peopel are making more than generals!

  • SIV||

    Plenty of people. Most of them were Mexican though.Some of the ag jobs pay a lot better than that if you are fast.

  • Pip||

    The AJC had an article about this. A good immigrant picker can earn $20.00/hr. A lazy parolee picker? Not even half that. It said thei hung around the water tank, took cell phone calls and quit after 4-6 hours.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    No wonder the establishment types want to kick these people out of their jobs.

    Actually being paid for one's performance/productivity terrifies a company man.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Yes, Peg, you're an establishment company woman.

    You hate the idea of free markets and you hate the idea of free movement of labour. You just want to keep all the goodies for yourself.

  • ||

    A wage is nothing more than a price. There is one great, true, invariant law of economics, the Law of Prices.

    The Law of Prices holds that the winning bids of demand in the face of supply set the price.

    If fruits go unpicked, farmers need to pay higher wages until enough workers enter the field of fruit picking.

    If some farmers can't operate with labor expenses at higher wages, they need to get put to ruin and sell off their groves to competent farmers who can operate at higher wage expenses.

    That's how free markets work. Free markets continuously adjust to allocate the right amount of resources to produce the right amount of products according to the desires of those in the marketplace of buying products.

  • MWG||

    "That's how free markets work. Free markets continuously adjust to allocate the right amount of resources to produce the right amount of products according to the desires of those in the marketplace of buying products."

    So you're arguing for a free market in labor? Great! So we agree.

  • some guy||

    If Farmer A is in a state that looks the other way in regards to illegal labor, how is Farmer B (from Georgia) supposed to compete with him? Just being in Georgia has doubled Farmer B's labor costs. Farmer B didn't fail through incompetence. He failed because his government shot him in the foot.

    And who else is going to come in and run Farmer B's fields at a profit when they still have to compete against Farmer A's lower labor costs?

    As MWG alluded, the problem is the lack of a free market for labor in Georgia.

  • ||

    Saying


    Just being in Georgia has doubled Farmer B's labor costs.

    does not make it so.

    No one is right or has the right to be shielded from competitors, who might enjoy and comparative advantage or an absolute advantage.

    Yet, many seek privileges from polticians through the mechanism of government for such protection.

    Given the rules, it's a misuse of resources to engage in fruit farming in Georgia if farmers cannot operate farms at breakeven; and the people have decided the rules.

    You seem to be against, economics, some guy. Your argument is a mercantilist, protectionist one.

    Rightly, the rules have been the rules, always, except in the past there was a lacked enforcement.

    Because of the lack of enforcement, a proliferation of farms in Georgia have arisen that should never have happened because based on the rules, such farms are not profitable.

    The proliferation has happened only happened because otherwise unprofitable farmers broke the rules and had the rest of society subsidize their existence by the hiring and use of criminals.

  • ||

    My apologies over the lack of edit.

    *politicians

    * except in the past when there was a lack of enforcement.

  • ||

    Problem is Farmer A isn't competing with Farmer B in another state. They are both competing with Farmer Jose in Mexico who can legal use Mexican labor. If you wish to even the score abandon your free market ideas and set protectionist tariffs on the whole world, because they all have cheaper labor than us! It's either that or you loose all US production, or you all immigration as a free market of labor services. Not too mention that I like strawberries and would prefer them not cost the 12 a pound that liberal yuppie health nuts are willing to pay. And if I continue to eat them with my cereal I'd like to have some money left over to pay for Chevy lemon.

  • Mike||

    Wages are artificially depressed by the easy access to illegal labor. Pay the worker what it takes to attract them and pass the cost to thw consumer. This solves everything.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    How is access to a free, unregulated labour market "artificially depressed"?

    If anything, "legal" wages are artificially inflated.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    It's more likely that the consumer will simply buy fruit for the same price from Florida or Mexico.

  • some guy||

    Exactly. The Georgia farmers aren't just competing against other Georgia farmers. They are competing against farmers with much lower labor costs... and their own state government.

  • ||

    You write,


    ...and pass the cost to thw [sic] consumer.

    Economics doesn't work that way. There is one, true, great, invariant law in economics -- the Law of Prices.

    The Law of Prices holds that the winning bids of demand in the face of supply set the price.

    Customers set the price based on what is wanted from what is available for sale.

    Inefficient producers get put to ruin. Supply falls and prices rise to reward the efficient winners.

    But no one can "pass the cost" onto customers, except in cases of government licensed monopoly.

  • Mike||

    Wages are artificially depressed by the easy access to illegal labor. Pay the worker what it takes to attract them and pass the cost to thw consumer. This solves everything.

  • ||

    lets also add that in the past they would higher teenagers to do this kind of work since they would work cheaper but now if anything has any kind of mechanical equipment, like a knife, then you can't hire them. This left an opening that was filled by Illegals. Once again it was the unintended consequences of more laws that caused this. Let the kids work again.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    It's depressing to think about how African-American male teenagers are experiencing 40% unemployment when 50 years ago it was in the single digits.

    I can thank the progressives for regulating the teens out of a job.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    That would also have been back when a lot more teenagers lived in rural areas.

  • ||

    Honesty. Georgia has the highest unemployment in the south. If I lived in Georgia, I would do it for half of the 10 dollars an hour rather than accept a hand out from Uncle Sam. I am certain that any farmer would provide transportation from any nearby city to keep from loosing his farm. Now if you are expecting him to provide air conditioning to the workers in the field, I believe that is a bit much. This has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the welfare state. I am 50 but 10 years ago I did physical labor in Georgia in the summer for 14 hours/day and seven days a week. We had three days off per month and had to provide our own transportation and it was for not much more than 10/hr. It is only racism if you believe some races want to earn an honest living and some races prefer to get their money dishonestly. Racism.

  • MWG||

    "So if a business wanted to hire slaves would that be ok?"

    No b/c slaves are being forced to work against their will.

    Illegal immigrants, OTOH, are here by choice.

    See the difference?

  • Mike||

    Why do you expect people to work for a wage that is below what it costs to survive? Comsumers need to bear the cost until their wages fall in line too (raise in their wages) until proper equillibrium is attained. Those who deny this are the top 10% of income makers. Don't support a system where people's income leaves them in poverty. THAT IS SLAVERY. It's not fair to legals or illegals

  • Appalachian Australian||

    You can pay your own employees as much as you want. Nobody's stopping you.

    I, for one, do not think I have the right to tell someone they should lose their job because I think someone else doesn't pay them enough money.

    I could offer them a job making more money though! Are you hiring?

  • ||

    "Why do you expect people to work for a wage that is below what it costs to survive?"

    Why do you not expect employees to negotiate their own wages?

  • KPres||

    "Why do you expect people to work for a wage that is below what it costs to survive?"

    Um, if wages were below what it costs to survive nobody would work. You're going to die anyway. Please see "The Iron Law of Wages."

  • ||

    So if a business wanted to hire slaves would that be ok?

    Legal freed slaves spend way too much money following the letter of the law. So it's insulting that some crooked businessman wants to hire a bunch of fugitive slaves to save a buck.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Legal immigrants spend way too much money following the letter of the law. So it's insulting that some crooked businessman wants to hire a bunch of illegals to save a buck.

    So the solution is to raise the barriers to immigrant work even higher?

    GREEEEEEEGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

  • Patooey||

    Machines anyone ??

    http://www.technologyreview.com/business/12616/

    Fuck Georgia and their melons.

  • Patooey||

    Blueberries

    http://www.mlive.com/news/kala....._blue.html

    Onions

    http://www.asa-lift.com/asaen/onion_harvester.html

    Just to be fair.

    As opposed to the writer of this article.

    Why does Reason always flip out when the subject becomes illegals ? There a money trail to follow ? Or did Welch knock up his illegal maid ?

  • Hugh Akston||

    How do you define 'flip out'? It reads to me like he is advocating for freer movement and fewer barriers to employment. Both positions are fully compatible with an open society.

  • ||

    Reason is wrong on the illegal immigration debate.

    Supporting anything that increases the size and scope of government is wrong.

    Reasoners need to support the end of the welfare state FIRST before demanding open borders.

  • Hugh Akston||

    You've got a point there. Those people hoping for a chance at a better life can wait until the welfare state is dismantled.

    I'm sure it'll be any day now.

  • ||

    Exactly how does "hoping for a better life" justify an unarmed invasion of another country?

    By your logic, those who were hoping for a Big Screen LCD TV after Hurricane Katrina swept through New Orleans weren't looters, but merely those helping themselves to a better life because they hoped for one.

  • Jim||

    By your logic, those who were hoping for a Big Screen LCD TV after Hurricane Katrina swept through New Orleans weren't looters, but merely those helping themselves to a better life because they hoped for one.

    Analogy fail. Unless the stores were giving those TVs away for free, or you believe that Americans have a right to certain jobs, there is no comparison between stealing and someone offering a service at a price someone else is willing to pay.

  • ||

    The analogical comparison succeeds, Jim. It's your enfeebled mind that fails.

    Unless you believe that illegals have the right to invade the U.S.A. unarmed, stealing existence here ...

    ... why do I bother? This is beyond the capacity of your meager intellect.

  • Anon||

    Jim: offers reasoned rebuttal.

    Al Wayswright: retorts with "your enfeebled mind" and "your meager intellect", after comparing working for a wage to "stealing a living" somehow.

  • ||

    Anon. Check out craigslist.org. Hire someone to teach you reading comprehension skills.

    Illegals are neither right nor have the right to steal their existence within the borders of the U.S.A. anymore than a looter would be right or has the right to steal a big-screen LCD TV after a hurricane.

    Seriously, you are going to need to do better than you have.

    Here's a tip. Quit while you're oh-so far behind.

  • Jim||

    Advise how working for an agreed upon wage is "stealing an existence".

  • Hugh Akston||

    stealing existence

    This is your immigration koan for the day. Contemplate its meaning and attain Enlightenment in nothingness.

  • ||

    Nobody is entitled to a better life at my expense.

    Personally, when I visit a foreign country, I make every effort to obey the laws of that country, because I understand that I am a guest. When people come to my country, I expect them to obey the law. Not just the laws that they like, or that are convenient for them. I really do not give a soft shit about whether they're "hoping for a better life" or not.

    There are plenty of people on this rock, and if a few million of them don't make it here and there, we're not going to run out.

    End the welfare state. Make all education and healthcare pay-for-play. Then feel free to usher on in whatever lawbreaking cockroaches you'd like to work your farms.

    I can afford the locally-grown organic $10 strawberries, because I worked hard in school, got a good job, and make a lot of money. I literally could not care less about the overbreeding, mouth-breathing, religiously-paralyzed, stupid-ass mofos who can't.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Maybe, but specifically targeting the immigrants who come here to work (i.e., who quantifiably benefit us) seems backassward from what we should do.

  • ||

    That's like saying anti-theft laws specifically target people who can't afford to feed themselves.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Theft =/= work. Work produces value.

  • ||

    Immaculate Trouser says wrongly:

    Work produces value.

    Never does work produce value. Value arises solely from exchange.

    Only dummies who believe in the false Theory of Labor Value (wrongly said by Marxists as Labor Theory of Value) accept the false belief that work yields value.

    Value arises when one thing exchanges for another. When one of those two things in exchange is money, we give value another name. We call it 'price'.

    A woman could dive into the sea and find a pearl. Buying money and selling the pearl yields value to the diver without work.

    A man could walk into a steam and find a nugget of gold ... oh never mind.

    Many Reasoners suffer from a woefully inadequate understanding and know how about economics.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Fine, then, more formally: when labor is exchanged for goods (what is known colloquially as "work"), both sides clearly benefit: otherwise the trade would not have been made.

  • ||

    When work (effort) gets exchanged for wages (money) or other goods-delivering products (barter) the value arises only between the worker and the employer.

    Yet, the effort of the worker as embodied in a product produced for potential sale has no value.

    The entrepreneur who buys effort and sells money (wages) hopes that he or she can sell the product and buy money.

    Only if that exchange happens does value arise.

    Again, your claim:


    Work produces value.

    is false and amounts to foolery.

    For a man could find a nugget of gold while on a leisurely stroll creekside and earn himself $1,500 for no work.

    Only exchange produces value.

    That's authentic economics. What you believe is hocus pocus.

  • some guy||

    A woman could dive into the sea and find a pearl. Buying money and selling the pearl yields value to the diver without work.

    So the effort and risk involved in diving into the sea doesn't count as "work?"

    Let's say I farm a field to feed myself. By your logic, that food has no value because I didn't exchange it with anyone?

  • some guy||

    Maybe the food has value because I exchanged it with my stomach for energy...

  • ||

    That right Food has exactly zero value in economics, unless it gets exchanged.

    Food is useful to you who has grown it, but it lacks value until you exchange it.

    Yet, that is not by my logic, but by the work of many smart men through time, including Aristotle.

    A woman is on vacation at Cabo San Lucas. While diving of the coast, she finds a pearl. Upon return to Cabo, she walks into a jeweler and sells the pearl by buying pesos.

    The exchange was one pearl for a sum of pesos. Say she sold the one pearl for MXN$59,463.37, that is, she bought MXN$59,463.37 for one pearl.

    The value of the exchange is one pearl for MXN$59,463.37.

    Value arises from the ratio of one thing expressed in terms of another. When one of two things in the ratio is money, we give value another name. We call it price.

    Work has precise meaning in physics -- the amount of energy acting through a distance transferred by a force in the direction of that force.

    That is what you are thinking about when the pearl diver retrieved the pearl. That is not work in economics.

    In economics, work is effort that commands a market price established by contract.

  • ||

    Also, before demanding drug legalization. But that's never going to happen. It's much cooler to point out the "victimless" nature of drug use or illegal immigration than to complain about the increased burden to taxpayers.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I'd rather open the borders, which will have the pleasant side effect of destroying the welfare state.

    And, for the last darn time, illegal aliens are not eligible for welfare benefits.

  • ||

    They are in California.*

    *I'm for open borders and demolition of the welfare state as well, but your statement is factually inaccurate in my state.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I deal with eligibility for various services in California all the time in my doings with the state and county social systems, and most stuff is only available to permanent residents.

    The fact people get benefits who aren't eligible for them has nothing to do with discussion of immigration.

  • ||

    I guess it depends on your definition of "welfare benefits."

    I live in the central valley, and I know friends of my kids in elementary and middle school who are illegals and they are eligible for school lunch programs, WIC, EIB, CalFresh, Section 8 and other programs.

  • SIV||

    And, for the last darn time, illegal aliens are not eligible for welfare benefits.

    There anchor babies are.You don't see the children handing over the EBT card. Illegal aliens are eligible for WIC.

    Obama's illegal alien aunt was living in public housing and presumably enjoying the bounty of other freebies.

    "ineligible"=/= "does not receive"

    Legal refugees are signed up for the panoply of welfare benefits upon arrival.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Please stop calling U.S. citizens anchor babies.

    Do you support the repeal of the 14th amendment?

  • SIV||

    Blow me.

    No I don't support the repeal of the 14th Amendment but I'm not surprised you would imply that I am. You can't fairly argue what should be an easy case.

  • Expat to Be||

    SIV, what would I need to do to not become an "anchor baby", if my only claim to citizenship is that I was born in the United States?
    What test would you devise to determine my Authentic American-ness?

  • Patooey||

    Any kids they have are eligible in NJ.

    Same difference.

  • MWG||

    "Why does Reason always flip out when the subject becomes illegals?"

    Reason flips out when the subject becomes illegals?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    What's this whole concept of "illegal labour", anyway? How can working be a crime?

    Who, exactly, is harmed when a brown person works?

  • Patooey||

    "Who, exactly, is harmed when a brown person works?"

    How long can a country last when they are out-sourcing the top jobs and in-sourcing the bottom ones ?

    Perfect storm children. Perfect storm.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    The country will last no longer than it will if it clings to 20th century labour protectionism.

    The idea that Americans should make 10 or 100 times as much for the exact same amount of productivity as someone in China or Mexico is absurd.

  • Patooey||

    So. let's just have a going away party.

    The US of A.

    This to will pass.

  • ||

    Perfect storm for what? Americans actually having to improve proficiency in the workplace? If you're worried that an illegal might TUUKKYYYERRRJERRRBB, then you better give your employer a damn good reason to keep paying you those higher wages.

  • Patooey||

    "Americans actually having to improve proficiency in the workplace?"

    See above about all the marvelous machines that can pick most crops.

    "TUUKKYYYERRRJERRRBB"

    What the fuck is that ?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    In the global marketplace, these machines are not competitive with the global market clearing price of agricultural labour.

    When they are, agricultural work will become obsolete sort of like buggy whip manufacture.

  • some guy||

    "TUUKKYYYERRRJERRRBB"

    What the fuck is that ?

    It's an acronym. Google it.

  • SIV||

    Ask the government. They make, and selectively enforce, laws relating to employment.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Nobody forces legal immigrants to spend a bunch of money to try to comply with the law.

    It may not be profitable for businesses to try to employ the homeless (lack of any agricultural skills, substance abuse/mental health issues, etc.).

    Why do you hate people who want to work hard? More accurately, why does everyone hate Mexicans?

  • Patooey||

    Every dumb ass article always, always, always whines on and on about farms needing pickers.

    But that is what ? 1-2% of what illegals do ?

    I'm a cook. I haven't worked in a kitchen in 15 years that wasn't stacked to the gills with illegals.

    I'm looking to get out cause not speaking English is now a liability.

    Talk about that Reason.

    Fuck farming.

    Elitist Morons.

  • MWG||

    Fucking bitterness, how does it work?

  • Patooey||

    Bitterness ?

    Millions of illegals enter the country and take over and drive down wages in normal jobs(beyond the BS farming shit you people always talk about) and you don't expect bitterness ?

    Get out much ?

  • MWG||

    "Millions of illegals enter the country and take over and drive down wages in normal jobs."

    Citation?

    "Get out much?"

    Um... I live in Arizona.

  • Jim||

    So the answer is...to artificially prop up those wages by preventing people from competing with you?

    I think you're looking for the "Unions for Democrats" blog, and stumbled here by mistake.

  • MWG||

    Illegal immigration; where the statist left meets the statist right.

    As a former conservative I find it interesting that a group, which claims to be all about markets and free trade in terms of goods and services, can go so apeshit whenever those ideas are extended to labor.

  • SIV||

    I can understand their resentment when immigration and licensure/credential laws are strictly enforced in other classes of labor.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Have you considered that your difficulty in finding a job that you like might be because you have a shitty attitude about your co-workers for basically no real reason?

  • ||

    I myself have worked in kitchens (dishwasher up to kitchen manager) since 1996, and right now in my area (pittsburgh) illegals are making the same or more than citizens.

    The dirty little secret that no one wants to talk about is that mexicans aren't making less money, and therefore must be providing a better value to their employers that overrides the risk of breaking the law. Most americans don't want to work menial jobs, or if they do they want to provide substandard work in exchange for gold plated bennies (think unions).

    I have worked many jobs and my experience is that there is no lazier species than the middle class white american youth. A 19 year old kid with 18 inch biceps will bitch and moan rather than work on a landscaping job while a 5'2" mexican runs circles around him.

    Standard anecdote /=/ data disclaimers apply...get the fuck off my lawn.

  • ||

    I have worked many jobs and my experience is that there is no lazier species than the middle class white american youth. A 19 year old kid with 18 inch biceps will bitch and moan rather than work on a landscaping job while a 5'2" mexican runs circles around him

    By Jove, I think you're on to something.

    I left San Diego in mid-late 2008, and even during that period of time, it seemed like every corner store and food joint had 'now hiring' signs posted. Then, I would walk inside to find the most disgruntled, useless, piece of shit post-highschool suburban white kid fucking up my order.
    I can't count how many times I've over heard some spoiled brat telling his manager 'I'm not doing it'.

    Being out-competed in labor is just the byproduct of a coddled, spoiled youth.

  • ||

    I have worked many jobs and my experience is that there is no lazier species than the middle class white american youth. A 19 year old kid with 18 inch biceps will bitch and moan rather than work on a landscaping job while a 5'2" mexican runs circles around him

    By Jove, I think you're on to something.

    I left San Diego in mid-late 2008, and even during that period of time, it seemed like every corner store and food joint had 'now hiring' signs posted. Then, I would walk inside to find the most disgruntled, useless, piece of shit post-highschool suburban white kid fucking up my order.
    I can't count how many times I've over heard some spoiled brat telling his manager 'I'm not doing it'.

    Being out-competed in labor is just the byproduct of a coddled, spoiled youth.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Aw, is the poor baby having a hard time doing a job that Mexican illiterates are outpacing him at? Suck it up, Lucy.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Being a native English speaker is not some birthright that guarantees you a job.

    Learn Spanish and work on improving your accent.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    You would say that, you damned foreigner!

    /sarc

  • Appalachian Australian||

    It really irks me how a bunch of reprobate rebels claim to have a monopoly on speaking English, and then whine about how they can't understand customer service reps in a country that was ruled by the Queen of England much more recently than they were and whose dialect of English is the most common in the world.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    "a bunch of reprobate rebels"

    Make your points, but don't think that your attempts at flattery are about to win me over to your cause.

  • Max Stirner||

    Adaptation is important in markets. just because you don't speak Spanish doesn't mean the world has to wait for you. Companies that don't improve their products or adapt to market changes tend to go out of business. Now apply that analogy to individuals.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    A large number of Americans think that their race (white or black) and their native tongue entitles them to a job.

  • ||

    A large number of Americans think that their race (white or black) and their native tongue entitles them to a job.

    Sorry, but their biggest problem is that "txt" is not considered a native tongue, because AFAICT, that's the only form of communication the youth in America are proficient in.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It doesn't. Still, it's grade-A concern trolling to say that you're really against illegal immigration on account of the hardship of the legal immigration process, when you have no intention of supporting a liberalization and reform of our broken immigration system.

  • MWG||

    This.

    I've said many times: Show me a conservative politician who is advocating for crackdowns on illegals, while at the same time, calling for liberalizing current laws.

    They don't exist.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Excellent points, both of you.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    There's Ron Paul, Mike Pence and a handful of others. Still, you're mostly right that very few on the right care about legal immigrants except as a throwaway line to defend themselves from charges of racism or whathaveyou.

  • SIV||

    The shortage of labor created by the crackdown will lead to calls for reforming the immigration process soon enough.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Well, when the law is specifically crafted to keep Mexicans out of the country, it's a hard conclusion to avoid.

  • SIV||

    The law crafted to keep educated Indians out of the country is much more effective than the one keeping Mexicans out. The law needs to change to permit freer immigration.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    The end result of the policies you propose is that mostly Mexicans (but a handful of other Hispanic people as well) will be out of a job.

    Why do you think someone should only have a job if they manage to file lots of government paperwork correctly?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I've always thought that the kind of person who says "fuck government paperwork; I'm going to 'Murika to get a job" is exactly the sort of person who should be here.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Speaking as someone who's supervised people who complied with evey iota of government paperwork, I can definitely attest that is not the mindset that I want to be here.

    If you want to talk about legalised slavery, please stop talking about Mexicans and start talking about H1-B. Green card priority dates anyone? Please start talking about L-1, which I'm seeing pop up more and more now and which aren't even portable like H1-B.

  • SIV||

    Ask the government.H1b visas make it hell to work legally.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    The H-2A visa (nonimmigrant seasonal agricultural worker) also makes it hell to work legally.

    My experience with H1-B is that it is rife with fraudulent resumes, fraudulent educational certifications, and is exploitative of the worker. Illegal immigration is preferrable to it.

    L-1s are even worse.

  • 16th amendment||

    > Besides, there are plenty of
    > liberals bitching that there aren't
    > enough jobs for the homeless. Well,
    > now we have some new jobs for them!
    > They can work in Agriculture.
    > Problem solved.

    You got to be kidding. (1) You think homeless will actually do this back breaking work, (2) You can't force people to work in a particular field.

  • SIV||

    No work No food is a hell of a good motivator.

  • some guy||

    We gave up on that decades ago.

  • GroundTruth||

    e-Verify: One more fine surveillance scheme brought to you by Big Brother.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    The government has a right to know who is working for you. It's not enough that they can audit your I-9 files anytime they want, or that they'll receive the Social Security wage information at the end of the year -- no, they need to know on hiring day that you have a new employee.

    I feel much safer knowing the government is protecting me from the threat of employees who want to work.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Have you actually verified employees with E-verify or implemented it for a medium sized employer?

    Do you realise how much more intrusive it is on employers and employees than existing mechanisms, which have proven sufficient for enforcing immigration law?

    E-verify provides no guarantee the federal government will actually enforce immigration law, either.

  • Jim||

    I suspect that you are an employer who wants cheap labor to raise profits

    Fucking capitalism, how does that work?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Oh my God, fuck you "working class" assholes who insist on pretending that illegal immigrants looking for jobs are slaves, and that businesses offering them the opportunity at a better life are the equivalent of slave-owners. I'm for border enforcement for reasons of sovereignty, but there's not a single economic or moral case for restricting the free movement of labor, if that's all that's at stake.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I'm for enforcement of the sovereignty of my own property's borders, but this whole "sovereignty" argument for national borders is just plain silly, unless you really think suspending the Constitution at the border is a good idea.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I'm in favor of the nation-state (albeit one that is significantly smaller than the one that we currently have). I would be in favor of the federal government purchasing any land 10-15 miles from the border outside of incorporated municipalities to use them in accordance with defending the border from invasion, while at the same time having a liberalized immigration policy. Tall gates, wide fences -- that sort of thing.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    If you want to look at history, the U.S. is the one with a problem with invading the borders of other nations.

    Iraq, Vietnam, the Spanish-American war, etc. all come to mind.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Peg, I think you've mistaken Reason for Huffington Post.

  • Chupacabra||

    I have to hand it you, Peg. You have the making of a high quality troll.

    The way you've constructed strawmen to argue against, and completely ignored all responses to your idiotic rants is brilliant.

    Bravo!

  • tarran||

    No Peggy, illegal immigration is OK, because in a free country, anybody is free to rent a an apartment from a willing land-owner, buy a house from a willing seller, sell their labor to a willing buyer etc.

    The laws forbidding immigration are about as morally correct as the laws against interracial marriage, and coincidentally, were voted into place by the same Progressives you decry who were worried about weakening the nation's moral fiber in the late 19th century.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Though it's a non-sequitur, I wouldn't mind fixing that problem, as well. Nevertheless, I do think that a state is obliged to protect its citizenry from foreign non-state actors who would do us harm, and an invading force alike. We probably disagree on this point.

  • Hugh Akston||

    If you're sick of paying for government services for illegals, then either

    a) Advocate for fewer government services or

    b) Advocate for open legal immigration/migrant labor policies.

    Making it more difficult for people to work is not compatible with a free society.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    It's a myth that illegal aliens consume government services anyway. If anything, they consume a lot less and contribute a lot more.

    For example, they contribute to the payroll tax but are not eligible for SSDI.

    Anyone who has filled out forms for various government services, etc. knows how much documentation is required in triplicate, and most services are only available to permanent residents.

    Some services (like community clinics) are provided to anyone that walks in, but mostly with a stated goal of something like improving public health. Denying tuberculosis screening at a "free" clinic to someone because of their immigration status would be foolish.

  • MWG||

    CA's problems have a hell of a lot more to do with the teacher's union (High pay, pensions, etc) and very little to do with teh immigrants.

  • Mo||

    Schools are paid for with property taxes. Unless those kids are sleeping on park benches, their parents are paying for property taxes through their rent.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Chances are the kids were born in America and are U.S. citizens.

    I'm sure you'll want to dismantle the 14th amendment now, too.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    I too am against socialized education. Don't see what the Mexicans have to do with that problem though.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I live in Southern California in a primarily Mexican neighbourhood. Unlike you, I don't hate my neighbours.

    I suggest you move to Idaho and go post at Stormfront instead of Reason. You'll find lots of other (unemployed) people who think like you there.

  • ||

    [citation needed]

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Are the kids themselves illegal? I don't generally judge someone because of who their parents or or what their parents' immigration status is.

  • ||

    "Back to reality--more than half of LAUSD kids are kids of illegals."

    If those kids were born here, you might want to start referring to them as 'legal citizens', or god forbid: Americans.

  • ||

    Dude, you're barking from your ass.

    Taxpayers fund thousands of births to illegals at $30,000 a kid from prenatal care to delivery and follow up post-delivery medicine.

  • MWG||

    "Taxpayers fund thousands of births to illegals at $30,000 a kid from prenatal care to delivery and follow up post-delivery medicine."

    Fantastic! Now if you could provide some actual data and compare it to how much 'teh illegals' contribute to the overall economy we could actually begin a discussion on what should be done.

  • ||

    Those babies contribute exactly $0 and fail at least to contribute anything for 16 years.

    MNG, alas, you suffer from a mediocre IQ.

    Quit while you're oh-so far behind.

  • MWG||

    "MNG, alas, you suffer from a mediocre IQ."

    Ironic you should say that. I'm NOT MNG

    Still no data and comparisons?

    Here's a hint: you won't find any.

    Which means those who claim teh illegals are stealing our welfare and robbing us blind are simply talking out their asses.

  • ||

    GOOGLE. Find your own. Or, if you'd like to put $160 x 3 = for 3 hrs minimum fee, I'll offer a report to you.

  • Anon||

    Um, you made the claim, so you have to back it up. You don't get to state something, then declare that you have no responsbility whatsoever to produce evidence and demand that the person you're debating look it up themselves.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    By your logic, all babies contribute $0 and therefore are worthless and should be aborted before they are born.

    Maybe you just don't like brown babies. Is there something inherently better about U.S. citizens born to white users of welfare?

    P.S. Please don't confuse MNG with MWG again.

  • ||

    And why again, exactly, should taxpayers get forced to pay for criminals and their medical treatment to birth babies?

    The same holds true for an illegal drunken micks from Ireland as it does a greasy wops from Italy.

    What part about it's illegal to enter the United States without state-sanctioned permission do you not get, or is that concept a tad to big for you to grasp?

    You might have legs to stand on if you argued that borders ought to be open to anyone who doesn't seek taxpayer-funded, state-allocated resources like free-to-them medicine.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I do not think that taxpayers should be forced to pay for medical treatment for any babies.

    Hospitals typically subsidise ERs with payments from other paying customers, or else run a charity service.

    As a former recipient of such charity service, please don't speak out of turn about how evil it is to provide medical services to the needy. The expenditure is miniscule compared to the ticking time bomb of Medicare, the consumers of which are almost entirely U.S. citizens.

  • ||

    That's a non-sequitur. It's irrelevant what problems Medicare has.

    We're talking about illegal aliens stealing their way into the U.S.A. and then gaining free medicine services such as $30,000 a baby births paid by taxpayers through Medicaid.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    FICA, Medicare and Medicaid are theft, regardless of who the recipient is.

    If you don't like $30,000 baby births, support repealing Medicaid.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    $30,000 isn't even remotely close; it's more like $5,000. Pregnancy and delivery are the cheapest parts of raising a kid.

  • some guy||

    $30,000 isn't even remotely close; it's more like $5,000. Pregnancy and delivery are the cheapest parts of raising a kid.

    Not in dollars per hour...

  • Appalachian Australian||

    You mean taxpayers fund $30,000 a kid when a U.S. citizen is born on U.S. soil.

    Why do you hate babies who are U.S. citizens?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Do you think we should have free public education provided by the government? (I don't.)

  • ||

    The unborn is not a U.S. citizen.

    Thus, your argument about paying for the birth of the unborn falls flat on its face.

    Until born, the unborn is citizen of whatever country from which the illegal mommy hails, if the people of that country respects the sanctity of unborn life.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Explain to me how restricting the ability to move about or work makes anyone more free.

    And there are more than a few anarchists hereabout that would be fine doing away with coercive taxation.

  • Jim||

    It is unfree when you choose to use the gov't to tell me whom I may or may not contract with for work.

    You said earlier that you're fine paying more for produce...well fuck you for using gov't to make that decision for me, also. Maybe I'm NOT fine with paying more for produce.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Lots of us here would like to be free of state and federal theft, er, taxes.

  • ||

    Peg, like most red/blue morons, is lost and thinks that she is on the other team's website.

    Yes, Peggy you should want to be free of taxes, unless you like being a slave that is.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    It's kind of fun to get accused of being a liberal over and over. Geez, I used to be a volunteer for the US Taxpayers Party (now Constitution Party).

  • some guy||

    Yeah, it's tiring to always be confused for a Republican...

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I see. So your relevant criterion for who is morally worthy of stealing ~@ of my paycheck is contingent not on whether they are willing to improve themselves or not, or whether they are truly in need (both of which typically apply to the Mexicans who work here), but on whether they have an American sticker on their passports.

    As a libertarian, I oppose coercive redistributionary measures, but your criterion for redistribution are even worse than the standard.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Peg and Al even hate U.S. citizens if they happen to have Mexican parents.

    In their world, any child born to Mexicans is a worthless leech who will grow up, at worst, to be a criminal, and at best, to be someone stealing a job from one of their lily-white babies worthy of a highly paid, easy union job.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    To be fair, I doubt it's about racism -- there was pretty similar rancor when white Irishmen and Germans, swarthy southern Italians, yellow Chinamen and Japs, and recently-freed blacks have proven themselves to be more valuable employees than people who have lived in community X for Y number of generations.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    You're right, it's about more than just race. It's about "I don't want people who don't look like me or speak with my accent to have a job".

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Is it evil to be concerned for those who are truly in need?

    (I didn't say be concerned with getting someone else to pay for those truly in need -- I said for myself or Mr. Trousers to be personally concerned.)

  • Hugh Akston||

    I'm sure there are more than that. An open immigration policy would apply to anyone who wanted to live in the US. Why wouldn't it?

  • ||

    You're right Peg. Unfortunately, for mostly smart people, many Reasoners get wrong the illegal immigration debate.

  • Shorter Al||

    Fucking basic economics, how does it work?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Yes, many Reasoners believe free markets include the labour market. How dare they!

    Labour should be regulated and constrained to ensure that only white people can get access to easy jobs that pay them more than they are worth.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    We could, of course, have a system wherein immigrants migrate temporarily to work, and can return to their home countries on the off-season as was common before the Kennedy immigration bill. In large part, problems stemming from immigration relate to the fact that most immigrants who want to simply work and take money home to Mexico are forced to either stay in the US as illegals, or go through a complicated, tedious and usually fruitless process to get legal residency. Current law if the government attempted to enforce, it, would exacerbate, rather than resolve, the problems that you have will illegal immigration.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Libraries are a tiny part of government outlays.

    Schools are paid for by property tax, which illegal alien parents pay for via rent.

    Hospitals in America are not free and are not paid for by taxpayers, other than Medicare. Illegal aliens aren't eligible for Medicare.

    The "race card" is not tedious, as the policies you want fall almost entirely on brown people. Libertarians like freedom and justice for all, not just whites. That includes free trade of labour.

    The biggies in terms of government spending are Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, other entitlements, and defence.

    Illegal aliens are eligible for none of the things; in fact, they pay into these programs which then benefit primarily white U.S. citizens.

  • SIV||

    Keep up the race baiting dipshit. Can't argue your position without it?

  • Anon||

    I'll think about whether I'd support allowing admission

    Fuck...you. Get off of your high horse. You claim to care about liberty, then state that you'll THINK about ALLOWING people freedom of movement.

  • tarran||

    It's cute the way Peg accuses proponents of free migration of being "progressives" while regurgitating the arguments made by the 19th and 20th century progressives who were the driving force behind immigration restrictions.

  • ||

    Reasoners hardly get economics as this thread reveals this truth all too well.

    I provided the correct economics above, and to quote myself:


    A wage is nothing more than a price. There is one great, true, invariant law of economics, the Law of Prices.

    The Law of Prices holds that the winning bids of demand in the face of supply set the price.

    If fruits go unpicked, farmers need to pay higher wages until enough workers enter the field of fruit picking.

    If some farmers can't operate with labor expenses at higher wages, they need to get put to ruin and sell off their groves to competent farmers who can operate at higher wage expenses.

    That's how free markets work. Free markets continuously adjust to allocate the right amount of resources to produce the right amount of products according to the desires of those in the marketplace of buying products.

    Mike Riggs and Reasoners get it wrong by blaming E-verify. E-verify is not causing fruit to rot on vines. Farmers denying reality of job markets are causing fruit to rot on vines.

    Under E-verify, illegals do not exist. Illegals have been removed from labor markets.

    Thus, farmers need to pay more for their fruits to get picked to attract entrants into the profession of fruit picking.

    If they can't turn a profit at higher wages, they need to get put to ruin. Eventually prices of fruits shall rise until those left standing can earn profits.

    That's how economics works boys and girls.

  • Jim||

    No one is arguing any of that. The question at hand is, why should farmers not be allowed to contract with whomever they choose to perform the labor?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    We pay more for food (or starve, if we can't afford the higher prices). Meanwhile, immigrants go without jobs and also starve.

    This is a great situation we've created for ourselves.

  • ||

    Go read UCC. Contracts are invalid when entered into with criminals.

    You need to wrap your head around truth: illegal aliens are criminals and incapable of contracting.

    So your beef, whether you realize it or not, is about immigration law.

    Scrapping immigration law messes up the actuarials over Medicare and Social Security as well as Medicaid.

    Advocating for open borders without dismantling the welfare state makes you a liberal seeking privilege from Officialdom and not a libertarian seeking to enforce, protect, defend one's natural right of Freedom.

  • Jim||

    I break the law constantly. So do you, even if you don't realize it. So are all the contracts we enter into invalid?

  • ||

    It's irrelevant to this debate whether or not other contracts get entered into illegally.

    What counts only in this debate is the unenforceable nature of invalid contracts.

    Any contract entered into with a criminal party automatically gets rendered invalid according to U.S. law.

    If you have a beef with that, fight that law. That's your first step.

  • Jim||

    And, BTW, someone relying on the state's definition of 1) who is a criminal, and 2) that criminals cannot enter into contracts, telling other people that they're not libertarian, is hilarious. Maybe I want to enter into contracts with criminals. You seek to prevent me from doing so by force. You are a statist.

  • ||

    I'm sympathetic to illegals. I like Mexicans. I could retire to Baja California Sur one day. I speak Spanish willingly, albeit poorly.

    The crux of the debate is Officialdom and how, because of design changes, e.g., the 16th Amendment (legalized income theft), the 17th Amendment (destruction of States' legislators control over U.S. senators), Officaldom confers whatever privileges necessary to maintain power.

    All other discourse about the U.S. government and all the petty issues amounts to expression conjured in a childish mind of insufficient intellect.

    If you're against all forms of governance, fine, you're an anarchist. Yet, your argument should be how do we destroy government and ensure another one does not rise to take its place.

    Merely arguing "but government is interfering in my right (privilege) to contract" amounts to childish foolery.

    For if you acknowledge that the people have established the U.S. government and continue to want to live within its framework, then you get forced to accept truth:

    You cannot establish valid contract with a criminal and all illegal aliens have been deemed criminals.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    You cannot establish valid contract with a criminal and all illegal aliens have been deemed criminals.

    Immigration violations aren't crimes, not even misdemeanors.

  • ||

    And if you have yet to learn this, all crime is political.

    The question becomes is the state a reasonable facsimile that expresses the will of the people most of the time because the inherent design of the state gives rise to this or has the design enabled some to capture power and thus use the state as a vehicle for their personal interests.

    In so far as the U.S. goes, it would seem the later is true and no longer the former.

    Yet, you're exactly wrong when you say:


    No one is arguing any of that [the economics of how production and profit works]. The question at hand is, why should farmers not be allowed to contract with whomever they choose to perform the labor?

    because that is what Reason.com has argued exactly:


    As a result, Georgia growers “have been forced to leave millions of dollars’ worth of blueberries, onions, melons, and other crops unharvested and rotting in the fields” ...

    Again, under e-Verify, illegals get removed from the applicant pool.

    No produce need rot on vines. Farmers need only offer higher wages to entice entrance into pool of workers.

    When offered wages rise high enough, enough workers materialize to do work.

    There is but one, true, great, invariant law in economics, the Law of Prices, which holds that the winning bids of demand in the face of supply set the price.

    All government action can do is affect supply. Those firms designed at the right scale can earn enough under the rules to live another day. Those designed wrong get put to ruin.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    ...or perhaps wages that would be market-clearing are too high to allow for enough workers to harvest crops that would have been harvested had illegals been part of the labor pool, as they formerly were. The libertarian solution is to allow two people to contract freely, insofar as the contract does not violate the rights of others.

  • ||

    The libertarian answer to is allow legal citizens to contract with each other.

    What gets advocated here is the leftist liberalposition of the state granting privileges to criminals -- the illegal aliens.

    Reasoners who support illegal aliens fall for the same flawed logic as when they support queer marriage -- licensure from the state for what amounts to a sexual fetish and hence mind disorder, albeit a harmless one.

    Such Reasoners are liberals and not libertarians.

    And if as you suggest,


    ... or perhaps wages that would be market-clearing are too high to allow for enough workers to harvest crops...

    that's fine. That means marketplace participants have deemed such crop growing to be inefficient use of resources.

    Those who would no longer get to buy such crops no longer grown in the USA might get lucky and source those same crops grown elsewhere on Earth.

    That's how free markets work.

    Liberals believe that any product they can think about should be made by someone, even if under force, others get forced to subsidize the manufacture and distribution of such products.

    Never do authentic libertarians believe that living
    should be that way.

    Perhaps you should be hanging at the Daily Kos, Huffpo, The Nation.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    For someone who accuses others of not understanding economics, you really don't get the basics of voluntary economic exchange.

  • Shorter Al||

    Homosexuals are mentally ill and Mexican labourers are an invading army.

  • ||

    You know what fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Go back to fox or whatever homophobic, xenophobic cesspool you crawled out of. You want to argue shit on merits, do it but don't you dare fucking talk about people like that. Fucking cunt.

  • fyngyrz||

    Oh, no. Let's not go saying "don't you dare speak" because what is being said is odious; let him speak freely. This both reenforces our freedom to speak, and keeps us well informed as to which individuals are homophobic, xenophobic cognitive cripples (and so forth.) Free speech should be protected no matter what.

  • MWG||

    "You need to wrap your head around truth: illegal aliens are criminals and incapable of contracting."

    Illegal aliens are NOT criminals any more than those who speed or commit other misdemeanors are criminals.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDo-ZVK4dc0

  • some guy||

    And everyone speeds or commis other misdemeanors.

  • Attila the Huh||

    When the Florida legislature failed to pass a bill last month requiring businesses to electronically verify the immigration status ... lawmakers were endorsing "economic slavery." "We used to own them, now we just rent them,"

    Huh?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    E-verify transfers ownership of your slaves from you to the government. You can then rent them back in some sort of leaseback deal.

    Or at least I'm guessing that's what that's saying.

    Isn't enforcing existing labour law enough? If you hire illegal immigrants and don't pay payroll tax, minimum wage, etc. you legally owe them back pay plus penalties.

  • 4chan||

    The issue here is our current immigration laws, not e-Verify. Lets be honest, and allow these people to work wherever they want.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    E-verify is most certainly an issue. Employers will be required to immediately notify the federal government as soon as they hire any employee, and include plenty of identifying information.

  • ||

    What planet is this guy from?as a black male I am offended at the idea that illegals are considered slaves.when did any black slave earn any amount of money to work?(none)they where forced into bondage and labor.So we have obviously lost the true definition of the that word.Also,I am insulted by the belief that an american will not pick fruit for 11$ an hour.I know plenty of hardworking americans,that would die for that opportunity and love this nation. So,please respect the hardworking americans and (LEGAL) latino immigrants that come here the right way.Say,HELL NO TO AMNESTY...YES to E-VERIFY.

  • Kroneborge||

    +1

  • 4chan||

    Slaves did earn money on the side, doing things that made money. Some of them (relatively little) were able to buy themselves out of slavery.

    We think of slaves as untrained labor, but they had skills that rivaled free men.

  • 4chan||

    Slaves did earn money on the side, doing things that made money. Some of them (relatively little) were able to buy themselves out of slavery.

    We think of slaves as untrained labor, but they had skills that rivaled free men.

  • ||

    what in the world are you talking about?you really missed the boat..also,illegals climbed a fence and overstayed visa"s..they are not forced to be here..not to meantion they are free to roam the country at will and have lives..are you people really this delusional?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    At issue here is the ability to quickly find replacement labours for thousands who have suddenly been effectively kicked out of their job. Immigrant farmworkers generally have to be able to put up with crummy housing conditions in rural areas, be willing to work long days, only work during the harvest season, and be physically capable and skilled enough to perform the actual work.

    A (US-born and US citizen) friend of mine used to pick strawberries with her daughter. It's backbreaking work. Her arms would be full of scratches from the vines. It was also expensive for her to commute to the jobsite since farms are, necessarily, distant from population centers.

    The slavery comment was used by pro-E-verify supporters, and I think it was completely wrong.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    You seem to prefer to subject them to unemployment, which means no house and no wages.

    Nobody's stopping you from offering them a better job and providing nice, employer-paid housing.

  • ||

    as a black male I am offended at the idea that illegals are considered slaves.

    No offense meant, but hardly think black people have a monopoly on being enslaved.

    lrn2history

  • ||

    Monopoly on slavery?what in the world does that mean?we are speaking in terms of american history,one in which my ancesters,were and are still apart of for ,many generations..For some reason,something tells me that is not your story, by that silly commentyou made.you must be one of those new guys....lol

  • ||

    Monopoly on slavery?what in the world does that mean?we are speaking in terms of american history,one in which my ancesters,were and are still apart of for ,many generations..For some reason,something tells me that is not your story, by that silly commentyou made.you must be one of those new guys....lol

    What I was getting at was your "outrage" is rooted to your race. And since human history goes back a lot further than America, you do not have a monopoly on slavery-comment-based outrage just because you happen to be black.

    What planet is this guy from?as a black male I am offended at the idea that illegals are considered slaves.when did any black slave earn any amount of money to work?(none)they where forced into bondage and labor.So we have obviously lost the true definition of the that word.

    Using your own words, your indignation is based more on someone diluting your ability to use history as a means to establish identity-based arguments as opposed to substantive ones.

    The Greeks, Hebrews, Maltese, Roman, Indian, Chinese and a million other identity groups could lay claim to the same race-based arguments you just made based on the numbers of their "races" that have been enslaved.

    As far as me being a "new guy" (whatever the fuck that means), one side of my family has been here for a little over 100 years and the other side has been here for about 320. I don't know when your ancestors came (or got brought) over, and frankly I don't give a flying monkey fuck. It has no bearing on the discussion.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    You're just being a smartass, sloopy. I think that most readers would recognize his comment as being in the context of American history.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Yes, Peg, you discovered me. I am paid by a vast left wing conspiracy to do nothing but post libertarian talking points to a libertarian blog.

    I live in the same part of the country as you do and I am tired of how you spout garbage that is not true. I am generally tired of immigrants and minority ethnic groups being blamed for every problem we face. Conservatives blame it on the Mexicans. In my profession, people complain about Indians and how they are taking all the good jobs. In the country where I grew up, a campaign slogan was "Stop the Asian Invasion", where Chinese people were being blamed for taking all the good jobs.

    It's anti free market racist tripe and I'm sick of it.

  • ||

    In my profession, people complain about Indians and how they are taking all the good jobs.

    Next time you are in an office meeting, could you let everyone know, for the eight millionth time, that I am not interested in returning to school?

  • SIV||

    There aren't huge numbers of skilled Asian illegal immigrants working in their profession in the US.Not many legal ones either thanks to our restrictive policies. I don't hear you calling for reform there.Why not open legal immigration?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Elsewhere on this post I solicited discussion of the situation with H1-B and L-1 visas.

    If I had my druthers, we'd allow open immigration instead of giving visas to someone who proves they got some institution somewhere to give them a piece of paper that they may or may not have earned.

  • SIV||

    But you'd rather race-bait, impugn other's motives and set up straw men?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Peg, I'll assume that you're not racist -- partly for the sake of advancing discussion, partly because I know many people who hold similar views to yours who genuinely aren't racist. You are still blaming an "other" for your problems: maybe instead of "Mexicans", this other is "migrants", but you're still blaming them. Even if every immigrant were removed from Cali, most of its problems would still be extant: same with the other border states. Migrants don't have as much power as many assume that they do, and are generally looking for work, or for reprieve from their country's illiberal policies.

    BTW, your complaints would hold a lot more weight if you weren't accusing pro-immigration folks of wanting to force immigrants into serfdom.

  • ||

    .I know plenty of hardworking americans,that would die for that opportunity and love this nation

    Bullshit. If so, have them migrate to Fla and pick lettuce in ninety degree weather. Go work in some menial jobs for a couple years, buck-o, and tell me about so-called 'hard working americans'. They're a fucking myth. (actually real but exceedingly rare)

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I, for one, have chosen being unemployed instead of working for what would work out to $10/hr or so (this stuff is typically paid piecemeal) to pick strawberries.

    The nice thing about a free society is that you get to pick where and how you are willing to work. Of course, I had to spend/consume less since I was choosing not to have that agricultural job.

  • ||

    Does any ody have a link to the results of that thing the food growers did last year? You know where they said that if there were people willing to do what they did, they were free to come try.

  • ||

    I've noticed in recent years that the word 'slavery' gets bandied about much more frequently.

    Not sure why.

  • MWG||

  • MWG||

    You mean like something from the Center for Immigration Studies?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    We'll get back to you once the story is on Fox News.

  • Jim||

    "Citation".

    "Here you go."

    "No, from a source which agrees with my opinion, which I will then determine to be "credible".

  • Appalachian Australian||

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution was cited.

  • SIV||

    Trust nothing you read in the AJC.

  • SIV||

    Vidalias aren't fetching shit this year as the crop was good and the price collapsed. Some will be left in the fields no matter the supply of labor.

  • ||

    You know, I'm thinking road trip.

  • SIV||

    I was working down there during two harvest seasons. Onions littered the roads. If people weren't gifting me large free bags I would've picked them up.

  • ||

    Peaches, pecans, vidalia onions--all good.

  • JLT||

    Will this ID be used to validate voters also?

  • TPTB||

    What is this voter "validation" of which you speak?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    The Republican senate in Ohio, for example, was busy trying to mandate state-issued ID at the polls.

    I've been a poll worker, so I know a fair bit about the verification of voters that already goes on. State-issued photo ID is simply not needed.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Do you actually know any thing about how local electoral boards are run?

    Have you ever dealt with a voter who was unable to produce sufficient ID or who tried to vote and who wasn't registered?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    In the state where I worked the polls, you had to show ID to vote and you had to also be registered (before election day).

    Considering how easy it is to get a fake photo ID, showing photo ID is pointless. I'm not a qualified bar bouncer and the rest of the poll workers were less savvy than I would be at detecting a fake ID.

  • SIV||

    No ID to vote? You are a liberal troll.What's wrong with requiring an ID to vote?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Free people don't need state-sanctioned pieces of plastic to engage in their rights as free citizens.

    Maybe you'd prefer the TSA run checkpoints in front of the polls? They'd be safe that way!

  • SIV||

    Free people don't need state-sanctioned pieces of plastic to engage in their rights as free citizens.

    Unfortunately they do. As voting is arguably not even a right why would you devote your selective outrage to ID requirements.If anything should require ID it should be voting.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I'm generally opposed to your-papers-please government, although I think freedom of papers-please to vote is a lot less important than in other areas like freedom to travel.

  • ||

    There must be plenty of former mortgage brokers who, with lots of careful training and supervision, might successfully transition into the vastly more more complex trade of fruit-picking.

  • Kroneborge||

    Hmm, kick out the illegals, then cut off the welfare. I bet you would get plenty of legal people out in the fields.

    Plus you would have less welfare rolls

    less illegal immigrants consuming services

    and lower unemployment

    sounds like a win/win/win

  • FSA Footsoldier||

    F. T. S.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Illegal immigrants neither qualify for welfare, nor do they generally try to obtain benefits.

    I am sick and tired of people who work being blamed for society's ills. I'm really tired of the general hatred towards Mexicans.

  • ||

    How can you hate a people who've given us such yummy food? And tequila?

    Back to Georgia, sure do love peaches when they are in season.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    The children only qualify for welfare if they are U.S. citizens.

    Please try again.

  • ||

    ANCHORBABIEZZZHATE'EMKILL'EM!!!!!FUCKING JEEEEZUUUUUUS?

  • SIV||

    Babies don't use EBT cards dipshit.
    Take your race-baiting eleswhere if you can't debate the issue without it. I am for open immigration but you're no ally if all you do is scream RACIST! and pretend there aren't costs involved in importing poverty into a welfare state.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I'd argue that you should get rid of EBT cards, then.

    (Babies do actually end up with things like EBT cards if they're a U.S. citizen and make their mother qualify for something like WIC or SNAP.)

    Generally when faced with a choice like this, I opt for the choice of more liberty (letting immigrants in) vs. the choice of more free goodies (keeping welfare).

  • SIV||

    Baby US citizens force their illegal alien parents to draw welfare?

  • ||

    Did your mommy and daddy not teach you about the birds and the bees?

    Until a baby squeezes through a vagina (birth canal, if you don't know big words), that unborn is not a U.S. citizen.

    The illegal alien mommy getting prenatal care and baby delivery to the tune of $30,000 in California and paid for by taxpayers held hostage by statists through their Medicaid sham is getting welfare.

    What part of that don't you get. It's not a hard concept.

  • ||

    Yet you won't provide any citations to back up your claims. You're a cocky son of a bitch for not having any data.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I believe EMTALA should be repealed. Emergency rooms should not be forced to provide free services to those who don't want to pay for it.

    I do not believe access to an emergency room should be based upon citizenship or immigration status.

    By the way, if that "illegal alien mommy" cannot access an ER, she can still squat and give birth in between picking persimmons, and that baby will be a U.S. citizen.

  • ||

    ...and it has come full circle back to persimmons.

  • ||

    Let her squat. Until she does, that unborn is not a U.S. citizen as you have oh-so wrongly claimed.

  • Kroneborge||

    "Illegal immigrants neither qualify for welfare, nor do they generally try to obtain benefits."

    Note, I didn't say illegals on welfare, I said decrease in welfare,
    AND
    decrease in illagls using serivces (healthcare, schools etc)

    Also side note, my nephew is half Mexican, and I've dated more than a couple latian's !

    Not liking illegal immigration does NOT equal not liking Mexians not matter how many times you guys try and play the race card.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I am all for a decrease in welfare. As far as services like schools go, I fail to see how more education is a bad thing. If it's a bad thing, the education system in question should be dismantled in the first place.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Oh, and illegal immigrants do not "consume" services. They earn their money through a productive trade of labour, and then exchange that money to freely purchase goods.

    What would you like to see illegal aliens consuming less of? Are you angry at their contribution to our GDP which keeps U.S. citizens employed?

  • ||

    I can't help but wonder if you were as all-embracing of the illegal Haitians that inundated south Florida a few decades ago, overwhelmed the local health care grid, destroyed entire neighborhood property values and caused chaos in local school systems.

    On the other hand, they didn't pick tomatoes worth a shit but they kick started AIDS research a bunch.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I am not generally in favour of large unemployed classes of people with a cultural propensity toward crime.

    This is why I am completely mystified why there is so much hatred of Mexicans and other Spanish-speaking immigrants who work.

  • SIV||

    So you're OK with "hating" Spanish-speaking people who don't work?Does that apply to citizens? Legal residents? Or just illegal aliens?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I am not in favour of policies that create a permanent underclass, which our current selective immigration policy and selective enforcement of those policies seem designed to do.

  • SIV||

    You just said what we agree on. Now hold off the race-baiting when you try to convince others.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Water is not free and auto exhaust is regulated. God help you if you are an illegal alien and get pulled over for an expired registration because your car didn't smog. Your car will get impounded and you will be lucky to avoid a night in jail.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    You keep complaining about all the free services you have to pay for which illegal immigrants consume, yet you can't actually prove any.

    Children born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens, so please don't start whining about "anchor babies".

  • ||

    I'm certainly not in agreement with Peg, AppyAussie, but illegal immigrants do use a lot of public assistance.

    Now, let's look at the reasons why. Every one I can think of is a direct result from barriers to entry imposed by the state. If those barriers were gone, the best of us would get paid more and have better work while the useless, whether citizens or immigrants, would be pushed to the side...where they would deserve to be.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Agreed 100%.

    I still assert that U.S. citizens consume more from the public trough than illegal aliens.

    I guess my pro-liberty bias is that I'd want to end welfare instead of building a giant wall to keep Mexicans out so that we can keep our stupid welfare benefits.

  • ||

    Yet, you fail to grasp truth, again.

    Under the current legal framework, U.S. citizens get granted the privilege to suck up at the public trough.

    Illegal aliens do not get granted those privileges, although administrators of the various states cannot ask for immigration status by those seeking Medicare welfare.

    Always, the correct argument goes in this order (1)end the welfare state (2) end laws with respect to immigration.

    The incorrect argument is the one, sadly, put forth by Reason.com: (1) end laws with respect to immigration (2) bitch and moan about the welfare state.

    Championing anything that increases the size and scope of government is wrong.

    That's why many Reasoners and Reason.com's editorial staff get it oh-so wrong about illegal immigration and gay marriage. Both positions increase government.

    Increasing government is not libertarian at all.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Is (3) end the police state?

    You can't maintain our immigration control apparatus without serious compromises for liberty in the areas of employment law.

    The genesis of this discussion was the federal government's right to monitor private employers hiring employees. ICE's raids without warning of "illegal" employees also concern me, from a police-state perspective.

    It's pretty hard to get rid of a police state once it's established. Certainly harder than a welfare state.

  • ||

    +1

  • jasno||

    This is one of those issues, like abortion, where I have a hard time giving a shit. I'm all for open borders and smaller government.. I also know a few underemployed construction workers and a few more unemployed general laborers who are currently drawing unemployment checks(or were) because they can't get a job thanks to cheap, undocumented labor.

    Also, while I do live in a border town, we've had enough crime(drunk driving and sexual assaults in particular) committed by illegal immigrants. Illegals use services all the time - do you think it's free to detain and transport them back across the border? What about the free medical care? Yes, they pay SS/payroll without getting anything back, but does that really outweigh what they use?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    When I lived in Appalachia, I'd had it up to here with crime by Appalachians.

    Since I moved to a Mexican-dominated neighbourhood, my life has been quieter and crime-free.

  • Sidd Finch||

    West Virginia and Kentucky are low crime states. I call bullshit.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I'm just trotting out anecdotes.

    Crimes I had to deal with:
    - Fraud/elder abuse to the tune of $200k that afflicted my family in the area
    - Vehicle stolen, never recovered
    - Petty vandalism of abandoned building across from my house
    - Trespassers riding dirtbikes through my lawn

    Not quite crimes:
    - Vehicle stolen, recovered by police, and then police grilling me for an hour as a suspect
    - Crooked village government running speed traps and me being the first citizen to not plead guilty, and finding out village doesn't even have any legal system of traffic court (case dismissed, but $500 in attorneys' fees for me)

    Crimes I dealt with in a white neighbourhood in California in an apartment dominated by white well-to-do graduate students:
    - Theft of an iPod

    Crimes I've dealt with in Mexican-American neigbourhoods:
    - None

  • Sidd Finch||

    I've been robbed at gunpoint, had my truck broken into, and my truck robbed by Mexicans. But since I'm not retarded, I don't judge entire groups of people based on my likely-not-representative personal experiences.

  • Sidd Finch||

    BTW, Mexicans commit crimes at about the same rate as whites after adjusting for SES, age, and sex.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Which is why I'm tired of hearing the "we've had enough crime from illegals" talk.

  • Sidd Finch||

    But illegals do commit a lot a crimes per capita.

  • SIV||

    So you're fucking RACIST towards Appalachians...great.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I'm fairly self-loathing in this regard, yes.

  • Kroneborge||

    "Yes, they pay SS/payroll without getting anything back, but does that really outweigh what they use?"

    Of course many of them are paid under the table so they don't pay either of those taxes (another benefit to the Fair Tax)

    Of course if they are paid under the table e-verify is a moot point.

  • ||


    Yes, they pay SS/payroll without getting anything back, but does that really outweigh what they use?

    Many argue that illegal aliens pay FICA taxes under false identities and in doing so, make the false claim that they're "paying into" the system.

    Yet, FICA is a dedicated tax levied to fund the specific age-tested welfare programs of Social Security and Medicare. No one is "paying into" anything. It's not a savings plan.

    The "paying into" mantra gets parroted by every dumb, greedy American who believes he or she is owed welfare merely for turning the age of 65, as if that is a magical feat worthy of reward by forcing faceless taxpayers under the threat of imprisonment to reward them for their feat.

    It is right to see that when an illegal pays FICA, he or she is paying an entrance fee to the job market called America. It's as if the illegal is paying for an admission ticket.

  • ||

    this is a slap in the face to legal immigrants,that pay thousands of dollars in legal fees?the ones that spent many years applying the right way to come to this nation?what about them?what do we say to them?all that sacrifice was for nothing?wow some of you guys scare me...

  • ||

    Of course, one way to fix the illegal immigration problem is to let the free flow of workers happen in the North American FTA area (U.S.A, México and Canada).

    Let Méxicans or Canadians come to the U.S.A. and work in any field, including picking fruit.

    Take out their respective social(ist) taxes ("contributions") and remit such to their respective countries, less an admin fee.

    Likewise, Méxicans need to fix their constitution to let Americans own waterfront land.

  • ||

    The E-verify system is bad not only for it's effect on agribusiness. It also greatly encumbers other businesses.

    For instance, small businesses that have subsidiaries/multiple LLC's (think small scale contractors), and a tangled web of business interests (the result of the complexities of our tax code), will be severely penalized (financially) for paperwork errors with regard to documentation of workers.

    Make no mistake, E-verify, while a stump many rural state politicians find popular today, is the mother of all bureaucracies. Georgia's produce crisis is just the tip of the iceberg.

    I would also note, TN passed similar legislation this year (http://tn.instatrac.com/downloads/2011_2012/pcs/pc0436.pdf). While it contains an "opt out" clause that purportedly allows businesses to avoid the E-verify by keeping certain docs on file, it also creates a whole host of issues that will give small businesses fits when dealing with 1099's and independent contractors.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    We pay someone to handle all the requisite paperwork, but it drives up the cost of doing business.

    In the end, we can hire fewer (legal) employees and have to pass on the higher costs to our customers.

    In our case, it's easiest just not to have employees at all.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    When hiring an employee you have to get an I-9 and look at documentation then.

    E-verify just means employers are forced to transmit that information to the government immediately. Why are you fan of the police state?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Mandatory reporting to the federal government the moment an new employee arrives to work is a police state.

  • tarran||

    Peg, I grew up in . Every body were issued papers that they had to present to authorities on demand. The government dictated many things, including having a veto over hiring decisions.

    You have no idea what a disaster you are flirting with. Consider the following scenario, which hapenned to someone my family knew:

    1) A man was building a building. he paid a bribe to a building inspector in order to get the project approved.

    2) The bribe took the form of hiring a concrete supplier recommended by the building inspector, who happened to be the father in law of the inspector's daughter.

    3) Another supplier had thought he was going to get the job. He called his friend in a bureau that oversaw labor regulations.

    4) The builder suddenly found himself getting audited and fined for violations of reporting rules. He struggled getting the building built.

    5) Eventually he bailed out. Of course he had to sell at a loss, to a buyer essentially picked by the government.

    In essence, you are allowing your emotional love of people obeying the law to blind you to the fact that you are in effect giving people who may be your enemies a veto over your ability to earn a livelihood.

    It's a shame that you have so little respect for the freedom that made the United States such a prosperous and pleasant place to be that you throw it away to satisfy your desire for order.

  • ||

    "Where is the compassion for these people? Most of them have been here living, working, and contributing to society for over a decade."

    Well, they haven't been contributing taxes, have they? And for well over a decade, legal citizens have been paying for their education, healthcare, food stamps and other social services, while not even requiring them to learn english. Legal workers pay taxes and are therefore entitled to services and benefits reserved for citizens. THAT's contributing to society.
    So growers might need to pay a little more for legal laborers - I'll gladly pay a little more for peaches and berries if it will stop millions of illegals from draining tax dollars intended for legal residents and citizens. We do remember what illegal means, don't we?
    Now, I'm not without compassion. I understand the desire to provide for one's family. But there is a right way to do it. Or are we also throwing out the concepts of right and wrong, along with lawfulness?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Many legal workers don't pay taxes; if you have 3 kids and earn $20k, the earned income tax credit means you pay NEGATIVE taxes.

    I don't have a single Mexican friend who doesn't speak English, and most of my friends' kids barely have any grasp of Spanish. Go ahead and continue your nationalistic nonsense against anyone who doesn't speak your particular dialect of English, though.

    Illegal immigrants, on the other hand, don't file and miss out on all these benefits.

    You can buy food that is certified to only be grown with "fair trade"/fair labour, by the way.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Legal workers pay taxes and are therefore entitled to services and benefits reserved for citizens. THAT's contributing to society.

    So paying taxes is the same thing as contributing to society? Meaning that there are no aspects of society outside of government-provided services. News to me.

  • tarran||

    Kind of interesting how many of the arguments against immigration seem to come from the speeches of Mussolini.

    All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state
  • ||

    Of course illegals never miss out on a state-run medicaid as states' laws prohibit doctors from asking about immigration status.

  • ||

    [citation please]

    Last time I looked into this, I understood that approx 2% of the people using medicaid were illegal immigrants, while they represented approx 8% of the population. That said, citizens and legal immigrants are 400% more likely to use medicaid than illegal immigrants.

  • ||

    If they were forbidden from asking, how did they identify the 2%? ESP?

  • ||

    It's irrelevant if the percentage is 2% or 99%.

    The correct percentage of illegals getting Medicaid is 0%.

    They're not citizens qualified to get such privileges from Officialdom. They're criminals.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    The correct percentage of anyone getting Medicaid is 0%.

  • ||

    You won't get argument from me about that.

    Yet, increasing government by adding more to the welfare rolls (illegals on paths to citizenships) is not the libertarian position. That is the liberal position.

    Thus, before one can have open borders, one needs to end the welfare state.

    Otherwise, the actuarials never work.

  • tarran||

    Yes, let us violate the rights of innocent people in order to allow the welfare state to survive longer. You've convinced me, saving the welfare state from collapse is the libertarian position.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Doctors are not prohibited from asking for your Medicaid card or some other way to pay for your visit, though, and you certainly have to prove residency before you can apply for Medicaid.

    Lots of children of illegal aliens are U.S. citizens and qualify for Medicaid, but that's an entirely different topic. I generally do not get worked up into a frenzy at the idea of brown Mexican-American toddlers seeing a doctor on the government's dime. I get a lot more worried about the millions of new Medicare consumers we're about to get slammed with.

  • SIV||

    Selective outrage again. You don't mind anchor babies drawing welfare but you're seriously concerned about others doing so. Why not both?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I'm concerned about any welfare.

    My concern is proportional to the drain on the state treasury. If "anchor babies" are drawing 1% of the treasury, they get 1% of my outrage.

  • ||

    This story get linked to StormFront by accident or something?

    Jesus titty-fucking Christ. There's some serious "DEY TERRRK UR JERRRRRBS" going on in here.

  • SIV||

    There is also some serious race-baiting, hair-splitting and selective outrage about immigration restrictions. Par for the course in these threads.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    The history of immigration control in the U.S. is tied to race. The history of labour protectionism is also tied to race, both in terms of immigration restrictions and in terms of unionisation.

    Anti-free-immigration policies should be exposed for the social engineering tools that they are, whether it be to engineer a permanent underclass of a specific ethnic group, or to keep a particular ethnic group out.

  • ||

    I wish you could autocorrect your spelling to American. I hate the limey's what with their -u's dropped in after -o's all over the place and their -re's on the end of words where -re would suffice.

    I'm not even going to say what I'd do if you wrote your bastardization of orthopedic or encyclopedia.

  • ||

    I got three words for anyone who thinks that they have the moral authority to tell me who I can and cannot associate with: Fuck off slaver.

  • Jim||

    +10000000

    It has nothing to do with race to me; it's all about freedom of contract, and those who feel that they have a right to tell me whom I may or may not engage with for economic purposes.

  • Jamie Kelly||

    "Reticent," which means hesitant to speak, is not the correct word.
    Try "reluctant."
    You are "reticent" to say something. You are "reluctant" to DO something.
    Learn that shit.

  • Jamie Kelly||

    And while I'm fucking at it, quit slaughtering "convince" and "persuade," you fuckers.
    You are "convinced" of an idea. You are "persuaded" to take action.
    Learn that shit, too.

  • ||

    Pedants make me nauseous.

  • Jamie Kelly||

    "Nauseous" is not the correct word.
    You are "nauseated" by a "nauseous" thing, person or idea.
    Fucking illiterate fuck.

  • ||

    I used that because it always gets a pedant fuck's panties in a ruffle. According to most modern dictionaries nauseous can be used in the manner above.

    Of course, I'm discussing modern meaning and usage, you tit-fuck.

  • ||

    Men can attest the word 'persuade' into English to the 1510s, from the Latin persuadere meaning "to bring over by talking."

    Likewise, men can attest the word 'convince' to the 1520s, from the Latin 'convincere', which means "to overcome decisively," with the prefix 'com' meaning with and 'vincere' meaning conquer.

    The meaning "to firmly persuade" in English arose about the year 1600.

    Your beliefs are false, Jamie, as you should now see.

  • Jamie Kelly||

    I'm discussing modern meaning and usage, you tit-fuck. Now get your slippery dome out of Queen Elizabeth's cunt and join the century we live in.

  • ||

    Oh Jamie, you of such mediocre IQ. Always, the word persuade has meant to bring one over by talking while convince first meant to conquer and then only later to persuade.

    I'd enjoy meeting your mommy and daddy to see what pieces of work they must be. The apple falls near to the tree if you have not heard.

  • Edgar99||

    I would like to think of myself as a libertarian but just can't make myself pass the unlimited, unregulated immigration litmus test. I wish someone would make a compelling case for open borders. It just does not seem pragmatic. Why would anyone feel any loyalty to a nation of transients? What common bonds would citizens have? Sure, you can make all the technically accurate economic arguments you want about some abstract perfectly competitive labor market, but it seems to me that those arguments only move libertarianism from a "government that governs best, governs least" philosophy to Chomsky-ite anarcho-syndicalism. Is there any country in the world with open borders?

  • ||

    I also cannot side with libertarians on their open borders policy. IMO It's one of the reasons why they'll never become truly relevant on the political stage. 60% of the population backed the AZ law - are they all conservatives?

    The benefits of illegal labor is hard to dispute (they're like independent contractors, but even cheaper), but it's still illegal. Reason magazine aruges against crony capitalism, but they're excusing private businesses from hiring undocumented workers?

    There is simple solution - guest worker progams. We get to choose who comes here, perform background checks, reward them with green card upon good behvaior, etc. But that's opposed by unions and republicans. That's an unbeatable tag team.

  • True Man||

    Declare the region within 5 mi of the border a free fire zone and shoot the claim-jumping bastards.

  • Jamie Kelly||

    To oppose immigration -- massive, unregulated immigration -- is to assume that basic, God-given rights are not inherent in human existence but granted by the political institutions within the borders of a country.
    No idea is more anti-American and more repugnant than that.
    You make me sick.

  • MWG||

    "Reason magazine aruges against crony capitalism, but they're excusing private businesses from hiring undocumented workers?"

    Huh? How is letting companies hire who they wish without 'permission' from the government crony capitalism?

    Crony capitalism is precisely what you're advocating for.

  • ||

    I thought crony capitalism occurs when businesses gain unfair advantage by doing illegal / unethical things. Like some green companies sucking up to the Obama admin to get tax credits and stimulus money. Or farming industry hiring illegal immigrants to save money. Or something.

    Immigrants (legal or not), unbelievably, are merely human beings who move from one country to another. The wicked ones do commit fraud and other crimes, often against other immigrants. Or drink all day, beat their wives, and run back to their motherland if they have to face justice in this country.

    Some of the worst racists and xenophobes in this country are immigrants. I can say that because I am an immigrant, and I live among them. If decent undocumented folk need work, fine. But it's really in our best interest to have a system to weed out the bad ones.

  • MWG||

    Crony capitalism is when companies get in bed with the government.

    "doing illegal / unethical things"

    illegal =/= unethical. Unless you think turning escaped slaves over to their masters was the correct thing to do under the fugitive slave act.

  • tarran||

    So, you think that people can only be free if they are loyal to a particular nation state?

    Interesting.

  • ||

    It's tough Edgar99, but libertarians never make the case.

    Only liberals masquerading as libertarians make the case.

    It comes down to this:

    Did persons declare themselves a people, throw off the governance of another, conquer everyone else on the land or buy them out and declare a bordered country such that themselves and their progeny could enjoy the fruits of that effort, including qualifying for privileges like welfare while excluding others from getting the same.

    A country cannot have open borders and a welfare system for the simple reason that ObamaCare fails without a mandate.

    For without a mandate, smarter persons would avoid paying for medical insurance until the point that they would need medical care.

    It's the same with open borders and a welfare system. As soon as someone would need age-based welfare, they could walk into the USA and apply for Social Security.

    Always, the correct libertarian position is first to push for less government. Never does an authentic libertarian agitate for bigger government by increasing the welfare rolls such as Social Security, an age-based welfare program, through conferring to illegal aliens, legal immigration status or to marriage status, to homosexists.

    Of course, there are practical answers to the problem.

    One way would be to open the borders to any citizen of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Anyone who is a citizen of the U.S., Canada and Mexico should be free to work in any of the aforementioned countries.

    We're in the 21st century. It should be a simple computer matter to withhold taxes for payment to any citizen's respective social(ist) welfare system.

    Likewise, it should be easy for payment to medical practitioners for rendered services to say Canadians in the U.S.A. from the Canadian government medical system.

    Granted, the ideal state would be no state and every arrangement a private one enforceable by private third parties, but we're a long way from reaching that state.

    Yet, it is sad to see the many liberals on this board masquerading as libertarians.

  • tarran||

    Wow, Walter Block will be quite surprised to find out that he isn't a libertarian.

    Out of curiosity, since the problems caused by additional people demanding welfare systems applies equally to immigrants and to babies born to natives, why don't you argue for restrictions on births until the welfare state is abolished?

  • ||

    Who cares about a talking shop academician such as Block?

    Only liberals push for expanding Officialdom -- the realm where men gain power by conferring privilege upon some based on arbitrary factors like group membership.

    That's why liberals push for a path to citizenship for criminals as illegals and granting marriage status to gays.

    Never do authentic libertarians push for such.

    Libertarians push for reducing the scope of Officialdom and restoring Freedom -- the virtual realm where a man is self-sovereign.

    Libertarians work to end the welfare state, for the repeal of 14th Amendment clause 1, for the repeal the 16th and for the repeal of the 17th.

  • tarran||

    Only liberals push for expanding Officialdom -- the realm where men gain power by conferring privilege upon some based on arbitrary factors like group membership.

    Like passing laws that say that if a person isn't part of a set of groups called 'citizen' or 'employment eligible alien' they are not allowed to sell their labor for money?

    Wow, so not only is Walter Block a liberal, so are you!

    BTW, last time I checked, the defining characteristic of libertarianism, the broad application of the zero-aggression principle doesn't actually contain anything about which amendments of the Constitution are to be repealed first.

    In fact, while one could argue that some libertarians are plotting inefficient paths to freedom, to say that anyone who isn't agreeing with you on the particular path you like isn't a libertarian is kind of silly, since all it does is give you a reputation as a boorish, unserious thinker.

  • ||

    You amuse tarran. Clearly, you do not get all all what libertarianism is.

    Yet, before we get to that, you must get school on a minor matter.

    Rightly, one would say "not to be taken seriously" thinker and not "unserious thinker" as you have have stated.

    In English, we have a word for unserious thinker -- comedian.

    Yet, all you've done is attempt ad hominem in a sloppy manner.

    You must do better than you have.

    Didn't your Turkish ivory tower academician daddy teach you better?

    At the core, libertarians stand for individualism and any random individual.

    Liberals stand for collectivism and the identity of the group.

    Liberals seek to gain privilege conferred upon themselves by those holding power of Officialdom because such liberals claim their identities match a group.

    Libertarians seek to assert natural inherent rights about being alive as an individual, rights that no one confers but rather than come built-in for merely being alive.

    Illegal aliens are a group who seek privileges conferred upon themselves because they are a group.

    When you whine about zero-aggression principle, you fail to see that such principle is a method of action.

    It is not the "defining characteristic of libertarianism" as you oh-so wrongly claim.

    The individual who is right to assert natural rights is what defines libertarianism.

    Go back to your ten-rate blog, the Liberty Papers, and your fuddling misunderstanding about all things politics.

  • tarran||

    At the core, libertarians stand for individualism and any random individual.

    Liberals stand for collectivism and the identity of the group.

    Liberals seek to gain privilege conferred upon themselves by those holding power of Officialdom because such liberals claim their identities match a group.

    Libertarians seek to assert natural inherent rights about being alive as an individual, rights that no one confers but rather than come built-in for merely being alive.

    Illegal aliens are a group who seek privileges conferred upon themselves because they are a group.

    LOL, so you are ascribing to illegal aliens a group motivation, when most of them are coming to the U.S. individually looking for a better life?

    And, how do these people get their illegal status? Why 535 government officials collectively decided that the shoulod decide who gets to come and who has to stay out of the U.S.

    And you're the libertarian who opposes elites playing identity politics, and those of us who promote freedom without any concern for its harmful impact on the welfare state are collectivists.

    RIIIIIGGGGGHHHHHT. :)

  • ||

    All can see how you glossed over how oh-so wrong you are about libertarianism.

    You failed to acknowledge that the non-aggression principle is merely a method of action.

    Every authentic libertarian knows that the essence of libertarianism is living by the individual and individualism.

    Yet, you persist in collectivist belief and collectivist thought, which is the essence of the liberal.

    As a liberal, you conflate freedom -- which is the virtual realm where a man is self-sovereign -- with privileges conferred by those holding power in Officialdom. Mistakenly, you equate privileges with rights.

    Through time, in America, Americans have defined for themselves through their representative mechanism, who is right to be within the borders of the United States and what foreigners get granted privileges to come to the U.S.A. to visit or to work.

    Anarchists want to do away with all government; and that is fine. Yet, anarchism is not libertarianism and what you advocate is anarchism.

    Truly, you ought to quit while you are oh-so far behind. Stop posting on message boards, hit up a reputable library of political philosophy books and put yourself to learning.

  • tarran||

    You failed to acknowledge that the non-aggression principle is merely a method of action.

    Dude, the bulk of what you write is ungramatical & incoherent drivel. I'm not going to waste hours trying to undo that.

    Every authentic libertarian knows that the essence of libertarianism is living by the individual and individualism.


    This paragraph is a great example of that. WTF is a method of action?

    Another incoherent statement. To be charitable, I figure you are trying to express something along the lines of Hans Hermann-Hoppe's argumentation ethics, but lack the skills to express yourself clearly. Nothing wrong with that; we can't all be Demosthenes.

    Yet, you persist in collectivist belief and collectivist thought, which is the essence of the liberal.

    I do? Show me where. A direct quote, please.

    As a liberal, you conflate freedom -- which is the virtual realm where a man is self-sovereign -- with privileges conferred by those holding power in Officialdom. Mistakenly, you equate privileges with rights.

    I actually laughed out loud at this assertion, since it demonstrates you haven't read a word of what I have written. Again, I challenge you to quote an example of me conflating privileges with rights. Last I checked, the freedom of association wasn't a privilege, it was a right.

    Are you seriously arguing that A & B don't have a right to do business with each other, that in arguing that they do I'm elevating a state granted privilege to a right?

    Through time, in America, Americans have defined for themselves through their representative mechanism, who is right to be within the borders of the United States and what foreigners get granted privileges to come to the U.S.A. to visit or to work.

    What a beautiful bit of collectivism! Where in that statement is the actions of individuals? Because not all individuals agreed to this. I certainly didn't. The guys running Purdue's chicken factories didn't. My neighbor with relatives in Czechoslovakia didn't. My client who married an Austrialian didn't.

    Anarchists want to do away with all government; and that is fine. Yet, anarchism is not libertarianism and what you advocate is anarchism.

    Wow, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, Walter Block, Lew Rockwell, Robert leFevre, who all played a major role in the development of libertarianism would be quite amused to find out that they aren't libertarians!

    Of course, they must be wrong, right, since the essence of a system where individuals are living by individualism requires an organization with a monopoly on aggressive violence governing a territory.

    Truly, you ought to quit while you are oh-so far behind. Stop posting on message boards, hit up a reputable library of political philosophy books and put yourself to learning.

    OK, I'm game, you got a reading list of good philosophy books on libertarianism? I sure would be interested learning where you got your ideas from.

  • Max Stirner||

    America's always been a nation of "firsts," let's keep the tradition going and become the first "nation of transients." It's not about loyalty, it's about freedom. Only private citizens can keep people out, a public government can't prevent individuals from freedom of movement and labor. Nationalism is the last form of collectivism.

  • Max Stirner||

    America's always been a nation of "firsts," let's keep the tradition going and become the first "nation of transients." It's not about loyalty, it's about freedom. Only private citizens can keep people out, a public government can't prevent individuals from freedom of movement and labor. Nationalism is the last form of collectivism.

  • Crystal Jewelry||

    I admit it's economic slavery!!

  • Chief Sitting Bull||

    Yeah, open borders. That's the number! What could possIbly go wrong?

  • ||

    I guess we have to go back the old way of planting only what we can afford to harvest. These mass plantings require some thinking and perhaps we should get the prison populaton, those who are in for minor things out in the field or the unemployed don't get a check if offered the opportunity to work. Where there is a will there is a way, isn't that what the USA brags about, we are the country of "can do."

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Do property rights include the right to determine who may, and may not, enter your property and on what terms they may do so?

    Are such rights different for individuals, corporations, or nation-states?

  • tarran||

    The state does not own my land, I do.

    Thus, the state (or the collection of people who calls themselves the state) has no right to eject people for trespassing whom I have invited onto the land.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    That's fine. What about when they leave your land and go on public land?

  • ||

    So, let's just throw up our hands and forget the illegals problem! wrong!! Try raising the wages, try correcting Social Security's records, DAH...Growers have fat cat lawyers too, why don't they get off their asses and push for legislation to correct E-Verify's faults, well Dah!... that would be too much to ask, give me a break, stop feeling sorry for the poor laborers and lend a helping hand with the bureaucracy..

  • ||

    The immature who deem themselves to be libertarian whine about what they claim to be wrongs done to illegal aliens. Those immature are liberals and not libertarians for they support the collectivist concept of the group and group identity.

    Such liberals masquerading as libertarians fail to explain exactly where illegals can gain entry into the U.S.A. without trespassing through someone's land.

    No one who has border land has yet to step forth in the public realm and decree that he or she believes it is fine for illegals to ingress onto his or her land.

    Also, it would appear that Americans in the large and through time have decided and codified that anyone who is not born here and who does not formally declare their intent while being here has committed trespass against the persons of Americans.

    As such, such immature fail to see, rightly, that illegal aliens violate the non-aggression principle of libertarianism whenever such illegal aliens trespass against the land or the persons of Americans.

    Anarchists can take a different tack and claim government should not exist. Yet, those anarchists need to do something about it.

    However, no one should conflate anarchism with libertarianism.

  • ||

    This is a very interesting topic. I'm sure we all can remember the 'Cash for Clunkers' fiasco. Remember the outrage of having to sign over all your privacy in order to use the system? Everyone is tauting the great bill here in Alabama, however what most didn't hear about is once again in order to use E-verify you must give up ALL your privacy. Not the individual you are attempting to hire but YOURS.. your Business. so now the Gov has access to ALL your information. How convenient. If your state has passed this same type of bill you may want to investigate.

  • ||

    All should oppose e-Verify in the same way all should oppose the TSA when it comes to private transaction, such as flying on privately-owned airlines operated through privately-owned airports.

    However, government is well right if those of the government want to do so to set up e-Verify for anyone seeking to make contract with the government.

    The issue remains still that in public courts, contracts made with criminals are invalid and hence unenforceable. And all illegal aliens are criminals.

    Also, at issue is that enough Americans have agreed legally that anyone entering the U.S.A. without permission have committed what amounts to criminal trespass.

    The liberal argument is that illegal aliens are a group, which they prefer to name as "undocumented workers" and as such have U.N. "human rights."

    The faux libertarian -- a liberal masquerading as a libertarian -- argues that his or her right to enter into contract with anyone he or she wants has been impinged.

    Of course, this is not the case, as anyone can contract with illegal aliens when they reside within their respective countries according to the laws of those countries.

    Again, Americans have agreed that only people born in America are right to be here and only those whom get permitted have been granted the privilege to be here.

    All open border champions fail to point where the points of ingress would be for if anyone walked through the land of someone who does not want that to happen, trespass would arise.

    It's likely that nearly all land along the borders and shores of the United States is owned by government, either the U.S. or a state.

    The right argument is that Americans ought to end the welfare state and only then open the borders to all comers.

    Short of that, a practical answer to what seems like an intractable problem to many limited thinkers is to expand the NAFTA to include workers, and as long as the 16th Amendment remains in place and the laws associated with it, for each of the respective governments of the NAFTA area to withhold and remit social programs FICA-like taxes.

  • Phlogistan||

    Did the field laborer's just vanish? What are they doing to make money now?
    Have they resorted to a under reported barter economy?

    Is the seemingly growing FDA crack down on under regulated private/charitable raw food distribution related?

    Just trying to make sense of the swirling chaos.

  • ||

    Hopefully the upside is that it will get broadly adopted, few farms can operate (or food prices skyrocket), and the country is pressed into real policy changes regarding legal immigration.

  • ||

    This is actually quite marvellous. Long a sink of ignorance, incivility and limitless trashiness, Georgia and its economy deserve to be demolished by the prehensile, yellow-toothed, cross-licking vermin that fill its legislature. Rising from the muck, those so-called lawmakers wipe the snot from their noses onto their cheap, shiny suits as they listen, mouths agape, to some semi-literate state senator bray about the evils of allowing immigrants to remain in the state. These curs then return to their vulgar and insipid abodes; mopped, dusted and vacuumed by the very dark-skinned people they condemned to leave Georgia only hours before. And not a one of their family members, from the pimple-faced children resembling nothing so much as grubs, to their plain wives sporting size 14 asses, honeycombed with yellowish stretch marks, (having let themselves go after one too many complaints from their lawmaker husbands about having to pick bits of urine-soaked toilet paper from their dicks after intercourse) ever says thank you to one of those people for keeping their kitchen counters clean and their shit-stained underwear white. Believe it or not, I think our borders should be controlled, but whenever I learn of the activities of these parasites and trucklers, I get the same feeling I develop when I turn the shed light on at 2 in the morning, and watch as the brown six-leggers scurry for cover. And to think they are making decisions for us.

  • ||

    So it would be preferable to continue employing illegal aliens? If Georgia farmers cannot conduct business without violating federal law, they ought to fail.

    The real problem here is that so many people have bought into the notion that illegal aliens are just "undocumented workers," and therefore are entitled to jobs, education, welfare checks, etc. Nonsense! They're entitled to be arrested and deported.

  • ||

    leticia olalia morales of 15501 pasadena ave #8 tustin ca 92780 submitted fake documents and paid 5000 dollars to obtain a US tourist visa. she also used fake employment records to obtain a work visa. she is now applying for citizenship. her embassy connection was a man named Sandman.

  • زفات||

    thank you

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • قبلة الوداع||

    ThaNk U

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement