Is It the Illegality—or the Immigration?

You only have to scratch the debate to see the degree to which legal technicalities are orthogonal to the main issue.

 “What part of ILLEGAL don’t you understand?” has become the rallying cry—the rallying cliché, even—of immigration hawks across the land. Its point is to underscore what hawks incessantly insist: that they are not opposed to immigration per se. It’s the law-breaking that yanks their chain.

But that veneer is wearing thin. Take a video produced by the nation’s largest immigration advocacy group, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). “With 14 million Americans out of work, attention is finally turning to the millions of illegal workers in the country,” says a man standing amid block letters that spell the world ILLEGAL. “It’s about time. But what about these workers?” he asks, indicating the LEGAL. “Legal foreign workers: more than 1 million legal immigrants and temporary foreign workers our government admits every year. They take good jobs in places like Ohio—no matter how many people are out of work, or how ‘ILL’ our economy gets. We need to slow legal immigration until Ohio is working again.”

You might chalk that up to opportunism in tough economic times. Just one problem: It’s FAIR’s long-standing policy. A 2000 report by the Anti-Defamation League noted then that FAIR’s stated aims were to “end illegal immigration” and “to set legal immigration at the lowest feasible levels.” Twelve years later, FAIR still describes its goals as promoting “immigration levels consistent with the national interest” and educating “the American people on the impacts of sustained high-volume immigration.” Not illegal immigration, you’ll note – any immigration.

Last week, FAIR took out after Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and Republican Sen. Scott Brown for seeking to grant “an additional 10,500 work visas to Irish nationals in time for St. Patrick's Day.” This is bad, FAIR claims, because it would “increase immigration—and competition for scarce jobs.” Besides, “the bill lacks a requirement that employers seek legal U.S. workers before they can hire an E-3 visa holder.”

True, FAIR doesn’t speak for every person who feels strongly about immigration, legal or otherwise—any more than the Brady Campaign speaks for everyone who supports gun control. But it would hardly swing much weight if it spoke for just three unemployed slackers sipping beer in a garage in Perth Amboy.

Besides, you only have to scratch the debate over illegal immigration a little to see the degree to which legal technicalities are orthogonal to the main issue. Take the bill this year in Virginia’s General Assembly requiring a citizenship check of everyone taken into custody. Why citizenship? Plenty of resident aliens are present in the country lawfully. See also the widespread campaign to have English declared the official language—a proposal that has nothing to do with legal entry and everything to do with feeling there are too many Latinos around, and people shouldn’t need to press 1 for English because...well, just because.

The notion that immigrants, legal or otherwise, are taking “our” jobs relies on the assumption that one person has more claim on an open position than another. This isn’t so. The only person with a claim on the job is the one cutting the paycheck, and he should be able to hire whomever he wants.

On the other hand, if FAIR is right that the job situation for Ohioans could be improved by keeping immigrants out, then why draw the line at foreign nationals? Why not require employers to hire only people who have lived in Ohio for at least five years? Or who were born there? For that matter, imagine all the work Ohioans would have if only the state would put up an electric fence along the border.

If the aim simply is to maximize employment, then Ohio could do even more. It could outlaw technological innovation. Even President Obama thinks ATMs are a job-killing “structural issue.” Imagine how many more jobs could be “created or saved” if we did away with backhoes and sewing machines.

The hypotheticals highlight the foolishness of protectionism, which is what motivates anti-immigrant fervor when that fervor is not motivated by ethnic hostility. Many conservatives, who know better than to fall prey to the protectionist fallacy regarding manufactured goods, for some reason embrace it regarding labor. If they were right, then the state with the lowest immigrant population, a mere 1.3 percent of all residents, should be an economic powerhouse. That state – West Virginia – is certainly not.

Conservatives’ support for labor protectionism leads them to support other big-government horribles as well—such as requiring every U.S. resident to carry papers proving legal presence, should the police happen to pull you over. There is even a proposal to make all U.S. residents carry biometric ID cards.

This stands in sharp contrast to America’s earlier days. The U.S. had essentially open borders until 1882. Consider it proof that liberals are wrong if they think change is identical with progress.

A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, where this column originally appeared.

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.

  • whatever it takes 2 bust union||

  • Lord Obama||

    Hi Rectal!

  • KOCHsuckers gotta please their||

    ...sugar daddy who pays the bills.

    This bullshit doesn't sell on the free market all by itself.

  • Let's not talk about WI's...||

    ...stolen land he hasn't given back yet.

  • hk||

    Stfu protectionist, immigration represents free trade and other policies that make our life easier.

  • Loki||

    “an additional 10,500 work visas to Irish nationals in time for St. Patrick's Day.”

    "All right. We'll give some land to the niggers and the chinks. But we don't want the Irish!"

  • Slim||

    Hoo, that was lucky! Damn near lost a hundred dollar handcart.

  • ||

    Aww that uppidy nigger went and hit me in the head with a shovel. Sir I’d appreciate it if you could find it in your heart to hang him up his neck until he was dead.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Naked Raygun has a tune that is all Slim Pickens quotes. Classic, rare vinyl. God I love that band.

  • ||

    'Scuse me while I whip this out...

  • skr||

    Where all the white women at?

  • o3||

    bourdain says no kitchen in nyc could operate w/o teh brown peoples.

  • Lord Obama||

    You're not doing anything Triple Anus. Go bus a table!

  • o3||

    been there, done that

    better than roofing

    or laying sod

  • Pip||

    "or laying sod"

    I can picture you shit-faceed drunk, but not fucking.

  • ||

    sod roofing. EOM.

  • Apatheist ಠ_ರೃ||

    The notion that immigrants, legal or otherwise, are taking “our” jobs relies on the assumption that one person has more claim on an open position than another. This isn’t so. The only person with a claim on the job is the one cutting the paycheck, and he should be able to hire whomever he wants.

    Ding!

  • EMp||

    Plenty of Americans will do the 'jobs that Americans won't do..."(TM) IF they were paid a decent wage. Businesses are paying illegal aliens roughly between 50%-75% what a native worker would be paid. This nowhere more evident than in the construction industry.

  • ||

    Being exposed to competition is a bitch, ain't it!

  • ||

    But it is not fair competition. If you hire an illegal, there is no danger they can sue you. No worries of paying a workman's comp or unemployment insurance claim. And there is also that whole 7.5% of SS and Medicare taxes you don't have to pay.

    If we made all the illegals legal, they would be less attractive.

  • ||

    Anything you can do to technicality/illegal your way out of immoral, unjustifiable governmental regulatory horseshit is good. Ergo, fair competition.

  • ||

    Really John, hiring illegals is unfair because you aren't forced to pay into government ponzi schemes?

  • Pip||

    A restaurant in my city was mostly staffed by Latinos (I love 'em). They got busted for not having proof of citizenship. Now, it is mostly staffed by black folk.

    True story.

  • ||

    It puts you at a severe competitive disadvantage if you're in an industry that doesn't have the same luxury. The solution, of course, would be less government and no price controls on labor (min wage).

  • hk||

    Legal immigrants make the price of my goods cheaper, so I don't give a shit.

  • ||

    A legal immigrant working for minimum wage is still more desirable than a citizen who won't.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Plenty of Americans will do the 'jobs that Americans won't do..."(TM) IF they were paid a decent wage. Businesses are paying illegal aliens roughly between 50%-75% what a native worker would be paid. This nowhere more evident than in the construction industry.

    So what?

  • EMp||

    Methinks if the show ere on the other foot, ya wouldn't be so cavalier about it. You pro open borders business types do not calculate the future political implications of the quick-buck business model. It ain't gonna bode well for 'Libertarianism' as you idealize it.

  • EMp||

    *shoe were*....

  • ||

    Clarify.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Personally, when I had a problem finding a job, about 10 years ago, I outsourced myself and took a position as a lecturer at a university in another country. After five years over there, I came back and found a job here.

    Why can't the American construction worker do the same?

  • Pip||

    I have friends that do. One has worked on every continent.

  • On every continent?||

    Including Antarctica? That's impressive.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    And I bet he makes major money. I've heard that those who've worked in Iraq were pulling six-digits easily.

  • skr||

    Oh you must be arguing the ridiculous position that because the illegals risked death and exploitation to leave a socialist welfare state, explicitly rejecting that economic form, they are then going to try to turn America into another socialist shithole. Bahahahaha. Did Ayn Rand not teach us that some of the most vocal critics of command economies are those that have lived in them? People dont risk death in the desert just to trade one government dole for another.

  • Anna||

    On what evidence do you think they won't?

    Virtually all immigrants to the United States replicate aspects of their home country's society and culture. You may have an occasional Ayn Rand or Ayaan Hirsi Ali who is a vocal critic of their society of origin, but they are the exception, not the rule.

  • Anna||

    P.S. Virtually all of the immigrants I know have a lot of fond memories of their home country, and visit when possible. German, Iranian, Chinese, Taiwanese, Lebanese, Mexican, Irish, whatever. The German guy explicitly mentioned that he made a point of maintaining German citizenship even after taking the U.S. oath of naturalization.

    The notion that immigrants make a complete break with their origins when they come here is generally false.

  • hk||

    I don't give a shit, not all immigrants are the same and you're not entitled to any job.

  • hk||

    The businessman hires, you don't get any say. Also this country was founded by ILLEGAL immigrants.

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • ||

    It's called liberty. Employers should be able to hire whoever the fuck they want, for whatever reasons they want, under any conditions agreed upon with the prospective employee. If native-born American Robbie McClintock VII demands more for his duties than Julio Pedro Juan Gonzales Ramirez Viva La Jobless Mexican Guy, the employer has every right to hire Mexican Guy. And why the fuck not?

    Maybe if we had a true free market, eh?

  • "free market" =/= liberty||

    All agricultural city-Statists political schemes put the food under lock and key and annihilate anybody hunting and gathering a free lunch.

    Once the food is under lock and key, people are starved into working in the elites offices, factories, or armed forces to feed themselves and their families.

    And then people dare call the exchanges that go on as "free market."

    SLAVERY IS FREEDOM!

  • ||

    So you're opposed to all private property?

  • ||

    No, just other people having property.

  • QUESTION FOR PRIMITARD||

    When will you give back the stolen land you live on?

  • hk||

    Lol nice comeback for the socialist freak.

  • ||

    Native-born Robbie McClintock VII will go to Labor and Industries if he is hurt on the job, isn't paid, is paid less than minimum wage, is worked 60 hours a week without overtime, isn't provided safety equipment, etc etc etc. Julio Pedro Mexican Guy can't go do the same without risking deportation or loss of his job, AND he can be paid in cash under the table for less than the minimum wage. Robbie McClintock VII and Julio Pedro Mexican Guy are not exactly competing in the same market, are they? IF we had a free market, then yeah, that would be great. If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a wonderful Christmas.

  • EMp ||

    ^^ This...^^

  • hk||

    It doesn't matter because the price of my goods will still be cheaper. And Mr All-American will also have access to cheaper goods.

    The solution is slowly gaining MORE freedom, not less.

  • ||

    Plenty of Americans will do the 'jobs that Americans won't do..."(TM) IF they were paid a decent wage.

    You're looking at it all backwards.

    Plenty of people will hire other Americans to do the jobs that "Americans won't do" IF they would accept a decent wage.

    Otherwise they'll just go without hiring anybody. If your average unemployed "homemaker" won't agree to watch someone's kids cheap, then why shouldn't single mothers (who have to work for a living) be free to hire whomever they can afford to watch their kids?

    Ditto for elderly people on fixed incomes, who need to hire people to do yard work, etc. People who only understand one side of the equation, I question their integrity and their intelligence.

  • skr||

    Nice

  • aaskavind||

    Let them eat cake, eh?

  • BigT||

    The only person with a claim on the job is the one cutting the paycheck, and he should be able to hire whomever he wants provided he has enough diversity to satisfy the libs.

    THAT's the problem. Employers have too many restrictions, and do not want to be forced to hire X% immigrants.

    The country is like a club - the members (voters) set the rules.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    The fuck? What business is forced to hire a certain amount of immigrants?

  • ||

    It's one of the mandates from the Federal Hiring Oversight Agency I invented the other day.

  • ||

    National Office of Fairness And Regulated Transaction System ( N.O.F.A.R.T.S. )

  • ||

    Exactly. If there wasn't a demand for immigrant workers, they wouldn't come over. If there is competition, its because American workers fail to meet the demands. Doe it ever occur to anyone that the unemployed recent graduate of philosophy or art history or whatever with zero real skills is NOT competing for the blue-collar jobs that attract immigrants?

  • ||

    *Does

  • Federal Dog||

    "Take the bill this year in Virginia’s General Assembly requiring a citizenship check of everyone taken into custody. Why citizenship? Plenty of resident aliens are present in the country lawfully."

    Likely to escape claims of discrimination. If everyone is subject to the check as a condition of cutody, no one can complain about being targeted by race or alienage.

  • ||

    If you are a resident alien and you get convicted of a crime, you get deported.

  • Ice Nine||

    In theory at least.

  • ||

    More than in theory for most. If you are convicted of a crime, it is pretty hard to keep your green card.

  • ||

    Has to be specific time and nature of crime (crimes of moral turpitude), though most felonies probably fit. And more and more crimes fit, but some don't. DUI won't do it, for example, at least not in the past.

  • ||

    But not that terribly to live in America without your green card...

  • ||

    *terribly hard

  • kilroy||

    Beaners!

  • ||

    I'm essentially an open borders guy, and the English-first-by-law movement really fucking pisses me off.

    Such was my hatred for the fallen soul of my motherland that I forsook Russian and English became, and has since been, my adoptive native language, if you will. Either way, I don't see why governments should (doubtless, they have absolutely no authority whatsoever to) declare official languages at all.

  • ||

    They can't. We have a first amendment that says you can speak any language you want. But i don't see why the government owes you speaking your language. The government has every right to operate in a single language of its choosing just like you have a right to do the same.

    If you want a place where the police and the welfare office speak Spanish, live in a Spanish speaking country.

  • ||

    I never did get the objection to English Only mandates. And I'm definitely an open borders guy.

  • Apatheist ಠ_ರೃ||

    Or in America (Texas)(Houston, etc.). And I don't give a fuck. If we had an official language and people were arguing to get rid of it you would have a point but we don't.

  • ||

    1) If enough people in a certain area speak it primarily, like Spanish in parts of the United States, they owe me exactly that.

    2) The government has absolutely no rights -- it has mandates, it has powers, but it has no rights.

    3) It's easy and totally understandable to try to operate in a single language, or a small group of them at most, but not at the expense of the public.

    So if, say, a county became predominantly Japanese speaking in a parallel universe where Japanese tentacle porn is God, I don't see how it would be permissible for state organs to not issue documents and communicate in Japanese alongside English, for example.

    The objection to English-only-by-law is that it would forbid accommodating the public in this way.

  • Apatheist ಠ_ರೃ||

    Exactly, we aren't an English only speaking country. Houston is a bilingual city and it doesn't matter at all.

  • ||

    That's my point. If a government can streamline everything and use exclusively English, awesome. But if the county it's governing is Spanish-speaking to a significant enough degree that it causes difficulties, it's the duty of the government to adapt, not the public it's serving.

  • Pip||

    But if the county it's governing is Spanish-speaking to a significant enough degree that it causes difficulties, it's the duty of the government person to adapt

  • ||

    ?

  • ||

    Why should I pay 10 dollars in taxes to print the same form in English and Spanish instead of 5 dollars in taxes to print it only in English? Your claim that the government owes you paperwork in your language is a claim against MY money. Your rights end where mine begin.

  • ||

    I don't speak Spanish, and you're missing the key point here -- proportion.

  • hk||

    I don't think anyone is owed anything, just that there shouldn't be mandates. If people want to only speak english that is fine, if not they don't have to.

    Freedom.

  • EMp ||

    Houston = huge southern city which used to be basically a cowboy town ---> rapidly becoming a socialist city-state hotbed of liberalism like L.A.

  • Gojira||

    Da, menye nravitsya eta.

  • ||

    Shto? Yaponskaya pornografya shtoli?

  • Gojira||

    Da, maya dzhenshena khitaiski.

  • ||

    gavareit po angelsiem, harasho

    ... Chas! Suka WI nie paneimaiye po rusku. dobrje!

    gavareit

  • ||

    now i need to learn Russian. I wanna learn any language with words like "shto".

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Several states have official languages; not just English either, for example Hawaiian is an official language in Hawaii.

  • HeroicMulatto||

  • Gojira||

    Goddamn, is there anything that the Hun doesn't ruin?

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Cars?

  • ||

    I think Huns were ethnically German.

  • Matty||

    Deeds in Pennsylvania (at least in the Southeast Counties) were accepted if written in German up until well after the Civil War. Some are still the "Deed of Record" for older family holdings. Never really caused a problem.

  • ||

    Never really caused a problem for the Schrutes.

    ftfy.

  • ||

    1) Morally, I don't think governments should declare official languages at all, although that's a smaller issue than [language]-ONLY policies.

    2) Again, it's the attitude that shit should be in a specific language forcefully is what I'm talking about.

  • ||

    *remove the "it's".

  • ||

    typos in a post about language are irrevocable.

  • hk||

    I agree with RPA. No specific language should be forced on anyone. Whether it is Spanish or English.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Interesting fact: Look at some of our first Presidents (aka 'the Founders'). John Adams could read or speak in 4 languages, Jefferson could do the same in 5, Madison spoke 3, Monroe spoke French (as did most educated people of his time), John Q. Adams spoke 3 languages and could putz around in 2 others, Van Buren spoke Dutch as his native language. (Can you imagine a President today with a foreign accent?)

    I wonder what they would have thought about our modern-day English Only mandates?

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Forgot linkage.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    James A. Garfield knew both Latin and Ancient Greek. As the first ambidextrous president, Garfield entertained his friends by having them ask him questions, and then writing the answer in Latin with one hand while simultaneously answering in Greek with the other.[23]

    And now we have Barack "Umm..." Obama. O tempora, o mores!

  • ||

    Not only that, they read and UNDERSTOOD all the classics up to that time.

  • ||

    It's a wonder, then, why they failed to transcribe the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution into 3 or 4 different languages to distribute among the states for adoption and ratification.

    There's a huge difference between being able to speak 3 or 4 different languages and forcing taxpayers to provide services in 3 or 4 different languages to accommodate you.

  • Metazoan||

    But if, say, 70% of taxpayers in a certain county natively speak Spanish, would it not be an imposition on the Spanish-speakers to force them to print county documents in English?

  • SoCal Refugee||

    Well, considering that English-only mandates wouldn't ban people from knowing more than one language, given that the founding fathers were pretty big on cultural cohesion, and, oh yeah, given that the official language of the US was English in those days, I'll say they probably wouldn't have any problem with "English-only" mandates, other than asking why they weren't already standard policy.

  • A Fan of RC Dean||

    "The only person with a claim on the job is the one cutting the paycheck, and he should be able to hire whomever he wants."

    Shouldn't that be "whomsoever"?

  • ||

    No, I think it's always just "whomever" in the accusative (dative, or ablative).

    I think "whomsoever" is archaic, like "ye" and "thee". ...but I could be wrong.

  • ||

    Genitive too. "Who" is really just for the nominative case.

  • ||

    I think it's a good idea for people to speak more than one language. Precisely because of this the English Only mandates don't bother me. The English Only mandates will increase the number of US citizens and residents speaking more than one tongue.

  • ||

    A private business would never allow an applicant to work there without screening him through human resources or other interview process - even if he is demonstrably qualified. Imagine the lawsuit if the guy was a vagrant with a record somewhere else. Why shouldn't a nation handle immigration in that way?

    Yes, "Immigrants built this nation". They helped create the laws, rights guaranteed by the constitution, and definable borders. Many immigrants undoubtedly participated in the Mexican war, owned slaves, and butchered Indians. They're responsible for the nation's sins as well as its progress.

    There's a grain of truth in rhetoric. I had to battle my way through the INS in LA to get even a green card, as did poor looking Mexicans who stood in line with me. It's arguably not fair to them that someone who ignored the law took jobs they might have been interested in.

  • Apatheist ಠ_ರೃ||

    Ah the "Government=a business," "we're a nation of laws" and "it's totally unfair" arguments, none of which counter that it is my individual liberty to hire/fire whomever I want.

  • ||

    A private business would never allow an applicant to work there without screening him through human resources or other interview process - even if he is demonstrably qualified. Imagine the lawsuit if the guy was a vagrant with a record somewhere else. Why shouldn't a nation handle immigration in that way?

    Fair point. In fact many open borders advocates would concur with you: Prospective immigrants should pass a background check.

    Now what does that have to do with quotas, time-limited work visas, and requirements to be bonded to a particular employer -- the actual constraints that make the current 10+ million illegal immigrants illegal?

  • hk||

    So then almost no immigrants should be considered "illegal".

    Instead you want less legal immigrants.

  • ^_^||

    The only person with a claim on the job is the one cutting the paycheck, and he should be able to hire whomever he wants

    I want to hire Charlie Manson for my chauffeur! Who the hell is the government to keep him unavailable to me?

  • ||

    Seriously? If Charlie Manson weren't in jail, you think you shouldn't be allowed to hire him as your chauffeur?

    In your world, is what Manson did better or worse than an employer hiring an immigrant?

  • skr||

    Could you hire Manson? I mean obviously not as a chauffeur because of place restrictions,but maybe to draw crazy little picture on notecards?

  • skr||

    Could you hire Manson? I mean obviously not as a chauffeur because of place restrictions,but maybe to draw crazy little picture on notecards?

  • ||

    It's arguably not fair to them that someone who ignored the law took jobs they might have been interested in.

    Again, you seem to be projecting your concept of fairness onto some employer's job. That's the employer's job to give--not yours to give away. That isn't the government's job to give away either.

    If the government can't keep track of who's coming across the border--too bad! That isn't my job as an employer either. Employers take the adequate candidate (for most of these jobs) who'll stay motivated for the lowest price.

    Certainly, employers don't owe anybody a job just because they stood in some government queue--but someone else didn't.

    Why am I as an employer required to enforce federal immigration law.

  • ||

    Why am I as an employer required to enforce federal immigration law?

    I oppose Alabama's and Arizona's anti-immigration laws, but it's interesting how the Obama Administration seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth on this.

    On the one hand, they're arguing that states have no right to enforce federal immigration law, but out of the other side of their mouth, they're insisting that employers ARE required to enforce federal immigration law--or they can be charged with a federal crime.

    Isn't that essentially conscription?

  • EMp ||

    Anti**illegal** immigration....

  • ||

    Since the government does contribute to providing an infrastructure conducive to business ,keeping criminals at bay, preventing another foreign government subsidized business from competing with yours etc. wouldn't it be logical to assist in preventing chaos? Would you rather pay a criminal organization in order to do business like they do in countries like Colombia? Totally eliminating government sounds ideal but the result would be disastrous.You wouldn't be enforcing immigration law only assisting the government in doing so. As a citizen of a country that is relatively peaceful and prosperous wouldn't it be in your own best interest to assist in seeing our laws enforced and that your fellow citizens are also protected from those here illegally resulting in a lower standard of living for them and their families?

  • ||

    Since the government does contribute to providing an infrastructure conducive to business ,keeping criminals at bay, preventing another foreign government subsidized business from competing with yours etc. wouldn't it be logical to assist in preventing chaos?

    If I own a business, I'm paying taxes. Actually, I'm probably subject to double taxation.

    Are you looking to set up a charity where business people voluntarily monitor themselves? Because I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the government dumping its own responsibility on the shoulders of business people--and threatening them with criminal prosecution if they don't do a good job.

    You see the difference there, don't you?

  • ||

    As a businessman you might be better off in a place like China where worker rights are basically nonexistent.You enjoy government benefits and protection but see verifying a workers eligibility as a great forceful burden.( Hey, I don't really need a drivers license in order to drive and it's a pain getting one ) We all pay taxes against our will but we also enjoy pretty good highways and police protections etc. I don't think the simple task of e-verify is your problem rather it's that you want cheap labor and illegal workers that can't complain and collect medical benefits etc.

  • skr||

    Should the business owner have to check to make sure that everyone driving to work has a driver's license, or is that the responsibility of the agency regulating driving?

  • ||

    skr, Business shouldn't check an employee's drivers license unless they are driving a company vehicle and the business owner is libel for damages.A smart businessman might want to do a background check though.

  • hk||

    They might want to, but they don't have to do jack shit. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant anyway, the idea sounds preposterous to me.

    Dangerous people should be in jail or prosecuted by the State, if not they are probably legal immigrants and people are Xenophobic.

  • ||

    Totally eliminating government sounds ideal but the result would be disastrous.

    You're the one that seems to be talking about eliminating government!

    I want the government to do its own job. You seem to think it's the responsibility of business people to do the government's job--enforce immigration law.

    Business owners are not the fourth branch of government! You don't want to eliminate the government? Great! Have the government enforce immigration law and leave business owners out of it.

  • ||

    Yeah but are you so self centered that you can't ever assist the government? If we didn't have a civilized society then no-one would have a business worth having.If you see someone being robbed do you run and hide and say that is the governments job to protect even if you could help? My guess is that you are one selfish individual who would let your own mother starve if it meant a dime less profit for your bottom line.

  • ||

    My guess is that you wouldn't know an ad hominem fallacy if you typed it yourself.

    Whether I should be free to choose for myself is the very essence of freedom. I have an easy time telling the difference between what I think I should do and what I think other people should be compelled to do.

    You seem to be having a hard time with that distinction. "Freedom" doesn't mean the freedom to do what the government tells you. Freedom means the right to choose for myself. If you're against that, in terms of employers deciding who to hire, then don't wrap it up in personal attacks.

    Say what you mean! If you're against people making choices for themselves, then say so.

  • ||

    There are always going to be rules and limitations on our freedoms if we choose to live among other human beings.No one is forcing you to do business in the US, that is your decision and not the government deciding for you. DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE? If it bothers you so much then why not go underground and pay off the books which will allow the freedom you are seeking?

  • ||

    I might point out that you are also making personal attacks and that you are the one confused and complaining about the government making decisions for you.I would rather see you happy and free. Be really smart, stop the whining and find a way around the government's heavy hand as so many others have done.

  • ||

    Be really smart, stop the whining and find a way around the government's heavy hand as so many others have done.

    That's some really good advice. Thank you for that. Now here's some advice for you...

    "Yeah but are you so self centered that you can't ever assist the government?...My guess is that you are one selfish individual who would let your own mother starve if it meant a dime less profit for your bottom line."

    Self-centered is when you go crying to the government to try to force everyone else to do what's in your best interest.

    Selfish is believing that other people shouldn't be free to do what they please unless it somehow benefits you.

  • ||

    The world doesn't revolve around you. If you spent more time trying to figure out how to make yourself more attractive to potential employers and less time thinking about how to use the government to stop people from hiring other people? You'd be a whole lot better off in the long run.

    Nobody owes you anything but liberty and justice--nobody owes you a job.

    Think about it.

  • ||

    I agree that nobody owes you a job but expecting everyone one encounters to extend liberty and freedom is a subjective fantasy that doesn't occur in the real world. It would be nice though.

  • ||

    You are a true idealist Ken and it's cute to hear how you think people should think and be.The difference I see between us is that I accept the reality of the situation and find a way to deal with it while you prefer personal attacks and whining about unfairness and perceived hypocrisy.Como dicen los Mejicanos " andale buoy, andale "

  • ||

    Where is the advice?

  • ||

    No one is forcing you to do business in the US, that is your decision and not the government deciding for you.

    You're really confused on this point. You want so badly to sound like you're in favor of freedom, but everything you say contradicts that.

    The government shouldn't decide where or if I do business, but they should make my personnel choices for me?! And if I don't like it, I can move to China?!

    "As a businessman you might be better off in a place like China where worker rights are basically nonexistent."

    LOL

  • ||

    If it bothers you so much then why not go underground and pay off the books which will allow the freedom you are seeking?

    Because freedom isn't the government pushing you so far down that you have to live underground! What kind of sick, imaginary world are you living in? Where business people shouldn't complain about absurd constraints on their freedom to hire whomever they choose, oh no! They should just operate underground and hide?!

    This is absurd.

  • ||

    My opinions are sick if they aren't in agreement with yours right Ken?What kind of sick imaginary world are you living in where government only does what you want and places no restriction on anyone? Why take it so personally because government won't change and it's much easier to adjust ones attitude? Accept the fact that we aren't free and never will be but the alternative to enjoying government protection would be disastrous. E-verify might be a pain in the ass and an immoral imposition but actually going through the process might not be very time consuming. There are also ways around government regulations that smart,creative businessmen are always able to encounter. I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't complain nor express your opinion and if what you are doing is working for you then I encourage you to continue. Thanks for your time and lot's of luck going forward.

  • ||

    Once again you say the government should't do this or that and that I say things that I don't really mean but that is your idealism and the way you think things should be and not the way they really are.

  • hk||

    You are going overboard. The government doesn't even know why "illegals" are even illegal.

    Your protectionist policies are fucking awful.

  • skr||

    He does assist the government, by paying the taxes that fund their operations.

  • ||

    True statement skr

  • ||

    As a citizen of a country that is relatively peaceful and prosperous wouldn't it be in your own best interest to assist in seeing our laws enforced and that your fellow citizens are also protected from those here illegally resulting in a lower standard of living for them and their families?

    If cheap labor causes a lower standard of living, then the standard of living in China must have plummeted over the last 20 years.

    As a citizen of a FREE and prosperous country, I have the right to hire whomever I please--and that right includes not being compelled to enforce federal immigration law on someone else's behalf under threat of criminal prosecution.

    Jesus Christ, is there anything else I'm supposed to do as a conscripted g-man? Or is enforcing federal immigration law the only thing?

  • ||

    Fair or not, moral or immoral, if the massive influx of illegal Mexicans had never occurred my teenage son would be able to get a job mowing lawns or helping out a construction crew in order to earn a few bucks. Isn't it our nature to" look out for our own" before we can help others? Look to nature and protectionism is the norm.With the world containing limited resources the individual comes first then the family ,the community etc. Opening up our community( country ) to outsiders intent on exploiting our resources is self destructive.The government is there to protect the community and keep out alien tribes so that the family can survive.

  • ||

    Yeah, um, when I was straight out of high school, I got a job working construction in San Diego, where almost all of my other coworkers were Mexican.

    I never had any trouble finding a job. I had to work my ass off just like they did, but working hard isn't a problem--so long as you're getting paid. Seriously, even in a place like San Diego, if you can't compete with Mexican nationals, most of whom don't have more than an 8th grade education and can't speak English, then you're probably not trying very hard.

    I know it can be tough out there in the construction industry right now, but that isn't because of the immigration. That's because of the rotten economy.

  • MWG||

    Why do you hate Amerkas youth?

  • ||

    Is it because they blame immigrants for not being able to get a job when the problem's that the economy stinks?

    No.

    I hate them because it said I had to in the form I sent in to get my libertarian decoder ring and my monocle. It's in the fine print, but it's there!

  • ||

    Yeah, yeah, I've also worked with illegal Guatemalans, have lived there and have Guatemalan in-laws but they still take away jobs that Americans can and would do and at a lower wage.

  • hk||

    You are a fucking psycho, "Americans" whatever that is, are not entitled to those jobs in the first place.

    And Americans came here illegally, and Protectionism doesn't work.

    You get higher wages and the price of my goods are more expensive.

    Economists own the shit out of you.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Look to nature and protectionism is the norm.

    You've never heard of symbiosis?

  • ||

    I'm not saying that we shouldn't interact only that it is natural to look out first for those closest to us like our family then our neighbors then our neighborhood etc.Protecting what is in our best interest is simple common sense and that those wanting to protect their communities from lawless illegal aliens is natural and necessary for them and their culture to survive.

  • skr||

    "Naturalism fallacy" much? If you take the natural state of affairs for the vast majority of human history, you end up with a life that is brutish and short and probably ends due to violence or disease. However, man constructed political and moral institutions to overcome the natural state of man. Why should we embrace that which is damaging and which we have worked so hard to avoid?

  • skr||

    "Naturalism fallacy" much? If you take the natural state of affairs for the vast majority of human history, you end up with a life that is brutish and short and probably ends due to violence or disease. However, man constructed political and moral institutions to overcome the natural state of man. Why should we embrace that which is damaging and which we have worked so hard to avoid?

  • MWG||

    "Look to nature and protectionism is the norm."

    I'll assume you feel the same way about the free movement of goods and services as well.

  • ||

    To a certain extent yes.

  • ||

    Some of the perceived free movement of goods is not really free at all and has been forced from outside with the underlying intent of sustaining income inequality.Certain 3rd world countries would be much better off if they weren't compelled to produce or not produce certain goods.

  • hk||

    I'm sure those people forced into labor would magically find a job they liked, if only we stopped trading with them?

    That doesn't make sense and you're mostly wrong. Free trade is supported by most Economists.

  • EMp ||

    I think this is the basic, instinctive feeling the American people have been /are going through right now, and it's breeding intense resentment - toward the immigrants AND a lot of corporate entities - coming from the native-born working-class.

  • GroundTruth||

    Why is Scott Brown supporting this you ask? Because there is a large tourist industry in Massachusetts, and employers are sick of "workers" (i.e. US citizen) who walk away from a job half way through the tourist season, or won't even take the job because it is too menial. OTOH, the Jamaican and Irish and Russian kids who show up to work are will to do that: WORK!

  • Realist||

    No one can make an intelligent case for open borders.
    Cut unemployment and welfare and like magic....all the labor you need.

  • ||

    In a society without a welfare state (relatively) open borders would make perfect sense. Without the distortions of government influence, labor markets would be more or less self regulating, and immigrants who didn't find success through their abilities would leave by attrition. That's why a basically open-borders policy worked so well in the United States, as the article mentions, until the late 1800's. But absent that key detail, open immigration is a recipe for a public services Malthusian catastrophe.

  • ||

    A very good point PM.

  • ||

    I absolutely agree.

  • hk||

    David you just praised PM that means you don't know what the fuck to think on this topic.

    Also the welfare state will end along with out government spending when we become bankrupt, so I'm not worried.

  • hk||

    * with our

  • ||

    There are several complications to this analysis. Most importantly the price control that is the minimum wage and the welfare state. The price control creates a black market in illegal labor because there are fewer repercussions for dodging the minimum wage since illegal immigrants may not believe they have as many legal protections due to their status. And the welfare state makes open immigration a sort of Malthusian impracticality since it subsidizes non-production and since the vast majority of illegal immigrants (both the 40% that overstay legal visas and the remainder that jump the border) tend to be poorer and consequently make more extensive use of public services. The extent to which they replace those public monies with tax payments is dubious since, by nature of being illegal, they can't be measured directly.

  • ||

    The latter point is why Ron Paul supports the enforcement of our immigration laws unless and until the welfare state is at least partially dismantled.

    That's leaving out other important tangentials, like communicable disease screening and basic literacy requirements of legal immigrants vs. illegal immigrants, etc.

  • hk||

    Ron Paul sounds legitimately Xenophobic, he's not the best on this issue.

    If you eliminated the welfare state there is no case against open borders. Closed borders will not halt illegal immigration either.

  • EMp||

    Depends on 'how' you enforce the borders. So you are basically saying we cannot enforce immigration laws? Lemme ask you, big guy - what laws are you in favor of and why should anyone else adhere to those laws? Then you have no problem with the U.S. going into other country's without permission?

  • hk||

    The immigration laws don't make sense in the first place.

    Bad comparison, private citizens have the right to move where they please. Not armies.

  • WanT||

    Being all open border is good in theory, but there are substantial practical problems. Imagine, for instance, a country releasing their entire violent prison population or mentally ill into the US (see Mariel Boatlift from Cuba). The role of the gov't is to protect the rights and lives of individuals - allowing a schizophrenic mass murderer from Cuba entry to this country is quite the opposite.

    While I think that current laws are absurd, there has to be some screening before one can emigrate. People coming to the border are not blank slates - they do have a history.

  • Metazoan||

    We had open immigration through the industrial revolution. That worked out pretty well, and it's pretty hard to believe that people now are substantially different from just a century or two ago.

  • skr||

    Actually, we are an order of magnitude less violent which is even more reason for opening borders.

  • Brian||

    Still, it's an interesting question: what if we had an open border, and, say, China decides to send over enough people to take over California politics?

    It would probably be an improvement.

  • WanT||

    What I was raising was an issue of justice. A libertarian society has certain ideals, ie protection of life and property. If someone violated these ideals (through murder, theft, etc) somewhere else, why should those transgressions be forgiven/ignored at our border?

    One legitimate aspect of govt power is to ensure that an individual who violates another's rights is held accountable.

  • hk||

    You're an illegal immigrant.

    Read that carefully and take it in, now stop with your preposterous scenarios. Criminals and mentally ill people will be dealt with even in an open border society.

    Let's be honest, most illegal immigrant hawks sound protectionist.

  • ||

    To most of its advocates, open borders does not mean anyone who wants entry can gain entry. Open borders means that no one can be denied entry without specific cause in service of a compelling public interest applied to the particular individual -- e.g., he is a violent felon, a terrorist, a carrier of contagion, or, indeed, part of a government conspiracy.

    That an immigrant exceeds the quota for his class, or that he wants to stay longer or shorter than the visa he can receive, or that he must be bound to a particular employer? These are the actual restrictions immigrants face today that make so many of them illegal. If you simply believe that prospective immigrants should pass background checks, count yourself among the open borders crowd.

  • WanT||

    I agree with you, but the sentiment of some on this board seems to be that there should be nothing on the border except a sign-post.

    Also, the fact that many of the current illegal immigrants have not undergone this background check is a valid concern. The author of the article seems to suggest that the illegality of their crossing is just excuse for the whole 'they took our jerbs' crowd, while, in actuality, there are important implications that libertarians should be concerned about.

  • ||

    ...implications that wouldn't exist if the laws offered a legal avenue for the current illegal crossings.

    The acceptance rate at Ellis Island was 100% for first and second class passengers and 98% for lower class passengers.

    The number of visas available for the 500,000 illegal immigrants per year seen recently is 5,000.

    The difference between 98% and 1% is vast, and is effectively the difference between open borders and restricted migration.

  • WanT||

    Well, if there were an appropriate legal avenue and people still bypassed it, those implications would still exist.

    Other than that, I agree.

  • hk||

    I don't give a shit about open borders, you are fear mongering to me.

    Most immigrants are fine people, but some are not. Some Legal citizens in this country are also sick and horrible people.

    Chill out. You are naive if you believe in borders, and people are presumed innocent in this country.

  • hk||

    I have a big fucking problem with pre-crime. Until someone commits a crime they are not criminals, the government doesn't know how to handle pre-crime well.

  • ||

    We can't realistically take every person who would like to come here. The U.S. is already in ecological overshoot even if future immigration were zero. Every time a person moves from a lower ecological footprint country to a higher ecological footprint country (like ours), the world eco-footprint rises further into overshoot. Thus, immigration to the U.S. exacerbates not just our problem, but the world's. Unlimited immigration to the U.S. is unethical considering the environmental consequences. This moral argument trumps the likes of "he should be able to hire whomever he wants" which does not take externalities into account. It would make some people feel good to take everybody in now and not worry about the effect on future generations but don't we have a moral obligation not to be so selfish?

  • SoCal Refugee||

    "We had open immigration through the industrial revolution. That worked out pretty well, and it's pretty hard to believe that people now are substantially different from just a century or two ago."
    Really? I can think of several salient differences:

    1. The country is more densely populated now than it was then. Housing is more expensive, and wages for unskilled work are lower. And this is WITH double-digit unemployment for unskilled workers. Most illegals are unskilled, so it exacerbates the situation.

    2. Immigrants in the 19th century did not come overwhelmingly from a group that benefits from affirmative action.

  • hk||

    1. You could fit the entire world population in Texas with like 1/5th an acre of land.

    2. Then be against affirmative action, stop making excuses for borders.

  • SoCal Refugee||

    1.That's rather irrelevant since you'd need infrastructure and food supply to service 7 billion people.
    2. I am. But it's rather hard to get rid of (the ethnic elites who get the lion's share of the benefits are understandably opposed to losing them). And bringing in more people who benefit, even barely, from affirmative action isn't likely to make it any easier to get rid of. This is known as "living in the real world, as opposed to libertarian fantasyland".

  • EMp||

    SoCal - you make a lot of sense to me...

  • hk||

    Your arguments are invalid, because the world is not over populated.

    You're a Malthusian, your theories have always been wrong.

  • hk||

    2. No you sound openly xenophobic, address the real issue not your illogical fears.

    Eliminating the welfare state solves almost everything. Then makes drugs legal.

  • hk||

    *make

  • SoCal Refugee||

    3. Immigrants in the 19th century didn't come overwhelmingly from a country that lays claim to the southwestern US, where most of their emigrants settle.

  • hk||

    3. I don't get this at all, why should anyone care that the Southwest is where emigrants settle? I don't give a damn to be honest, you're an illegal immigrant imo. Look at what the founding fathers did to get their land.

  • SoCal Refugee||

    4. Immigrants in the 19th century spoke a multiplicity of languages, so there were fewer people that they could communicate with w/o learning standard English. By contrast, it is now possible for most Hispanics to get by without ever learning proper English.

    5. There was no federal welfare state in the 19th century. While illegals themselves do not qualify for certain federal welfare programs (although that doesn't stop them from using various state-level services, since states can't legally discriminate against them), any kids of theirs that are born here do qualify, and they use them. Since Hispanic immigrants, especially the illegals, tend to be poor, we're saddling ourselves, in the long run, with a large welfare-dependent population.

  • hk||

    4. Why is this a bad thing? If people choose to not speak english then that is their problem.

    I as a businessman do not give a shit what you think, I want to hire people that speak whatever language they want to as long as they work well.

    5. Then eliminate the welfare state, you're using that as another excuse to believe in naive borders.

  • SoCal Refugee||

    4. Because not having a commonly understood languages not only raises transaction costs, which is an economic problem, but it is also a major cause of cultural balkanization. If you don't understand how that might be a problem, there's a few war-torn third world countries you might like to visit.

  • hk||

    Good thing there is a real-world example that proves this is false.

    Oh that dangerous country Switzerland?!?! WHAT ARE WEH TEH DO?

    You are mentally insane if you think "illegals" will stop coming into this country.

    And my goods will be cheap regardless of the language spoken, which should be whatever the PRIVATE sector dictates not the public.

  • hk||

    Apologies if I sound harsh I mistook you for another poster. :]

  • EMp||

    False analogy - the Swiss are by far a much more homogeneous country, with a bit of a language gap. If'n a bunch of Bavarians, Burgundians, or Tyrol-Italians snuck across it would prolly not be that noticeable. The culture in that area is pretty much agreed upon by the natives and close nieghbors - plus, do you know what it required of prospective immigrants there? Looky it up, 'cause you'd more than likely label them a bunch o' xenophobes.....

  • SoCal Refugee||

    5. The welfare state isn't all bad. I'm not a big fan of people in my society dying or leading miserable lives due to poverty. I just don't think we can be expected to provide welfare to everyone in the world, and I don't want the welfare-dependent to grow at a rate that outpaces that of net contributors (taxpayers).

  • hk||

    Wrong again, the Welfare state is completely bad and private charities do it much better.

  • SoCal Refugee||

    6. Mexico clearly doesn't want them (otherwise it wouldn't encourage them to move here, and their officials wouldn't scream bloody murder every time the US government makes a passing consideration of more vigorously enforcing our immigration laws), so maybe they know something about them that we don't, or that most of us do know but won't acknowledge?

  • hk||

    6. I get to decide that, not you. Who the fuck do you think you are to tell me who I should and should not hire, or who is or who is not qualified?

    Your argument is Bullshit because it is ultimately protectionist.

  • SoCal Refugee||

    "Still, it's an interesting question: what if we had an open border, and, say, China decides to send over enough people to take over California politics?"

    Criticizing the PRC would become "hate speech".

  • hk||

    China has better workers that should get jobs over Americans.

  • EMp||

    China is also communist, and they basically hold a gun to the head of the masses - quite literally. The megalomania is beginning to creep through....

  • hk||

    Yeah 90% of Economists agree with free trade, even the ones that hate capitalism.

    So like I said I love Chinese people.

  • EMp||

    You, more than likely, LOVE the Chi-com business model I bet....

  • ||

    HK, you're a damned cheat. You want these people to come here and work cheaply for you. However, they won't pay enough taxes to afford the medical care and schooling they'll require and the rest of us get stuck eating your externalities. You make out big and the taxpayer gets screwed. Thanks for nothing.

  • hk||

    Nah i already addressed this.

  • SoCal Refugee||

    "The only person with a claim on the job is the one cutting the paycheck, and he should be able to hire whomever he wants."
    That's good to know. I'd like to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and do away with the EEOC as well.

  • hk||

    We should because the government encouraged a lot of sub-prime mortgages with your ideology. it is important to know who is and who is not racist.

    Free Speech and private property means people do things you will not approve of, that is what freedom of expression is about.

    I don't agree with racism but it is better than having the Boston Central bank threaten businesses with lawsuits over imaginary discrimination.

  • SoCal Refugee||

    I'm sorry, what ideology? I like to think that, for the most part, I avoid thinking purely in line with any ideology. I may, of course, be biased by my own preferences from time to time (I'm only human, after all), but in general I strive to be fair-minded and undogmatic.

  • hk||

    Nope, you're violating the first amendment of the Constitution.

  • SoCal Refugee||

    "If they were right, then the state with the lowest immigrant population, a mere 1.3 percent of all residents, should be an economic powerhouse. That state – West Virginia – is certainly not."
    If free-traders were right, the US economy should have been stagnant in the late 19th, because we had a strongly protectionist trade policy. Or maybe there are multiple factors that can influence the economy independent of single policies.

  • EMp ||

    Right on, right on, SoCal....

  • hk||

    I just exposed his factually inaccurate arguments.

    He's a Malthusian who believes protectionist is good. He sounds like Obama.

  • hk||

    *protectionism is good

  • SoCal Refugee||

    Actually, I was pointing out that if we used the same argument advanced by the author of this article to "prove" the baneful effects of immigration policies to analyze the effects of free trade versus protectionism, protectionism could be vindicated.

  • SoCal Refugee||

    As for me being a Malthusian: Yes, and proudly so. It's only very recently in history that the Malthusian Trap's hold has weakened to any degree, and that was due to an unprecedented spate of technological advancement, such as the "Green Revolution" pioneered by scientists such as Norman Borlaug (who, incidentally, also expressed concerns that we would walk back into the Malthusian trap through uncontrolled population growth).

    Before the modern era, history pretty much consisted of human populations growing to carrying capacity, shrinking due to some catastrophic event (famine, or plague, or war), and then rising back to Malthusian levels of subsistence. Even in modern times, overpopulation has been felt very keenly in places like China and India, which is why both countries now have policies geared to controlling population growth.

  • hk||

    Yeah you just lost the argument then.

    It is very hard for me to take the Malthusians seriously, they are extremely socialist.

  • hk||

    Your environmental regulations are probably worse than Obama's, embarrassing.

  • hk||

    Sorry you just openly admitted you're against free trade, you lost all your credibility.

    Free trade means the price of my goods are cheaper, I don't give a shit about Americans losing jobs. Businesses become more efficient with free trade. And we'll start a trade war if people listen to you.

    I'm glad you revealed your true colors. Protectionist psycho.

  • SoCal Refugee||

    My goodness, you truly possess a keen wit. It's not as if the movement of people over borders has any externalities, after all, nor is it as if labor markets can function any differently from markets for consumer or capital goods (except that "liquidating" labor as you would liquidate useless capital would involve something mass impoverishment and starvation).

  • hk||

    Your argument is pure nonsense. Because China is not playing on a level playing field either. Yet we benefit from their low-paid labor force, and their labor force benefits by getting a better paying job.

    I've addressed all the externalities (Drugs and government handouts).

    It makes no sense to pretend to be Libertarian, and say we need closed borders because illegals take jobs.

  • Dan||

    This article is idiotic.

    You focused on one group of people that have their own agenda for their own reasons. And then you attempt to intimate that that means anyone that is opposed to illegal imigration really believes what these people believe and are clearly being disingenuous.

    Nothing like building a good straw man I guess.

  • ||

    This makes a lot of sens edude.

    www.World-Anon.tk

  • aaskavind||

    There's something unseemly about open borders baby-boomers lecturing entry-level workers over the question of "who owns the job"?

    Those wealthy enough to own businesses and hire others got that way, in large part, due to the economic effects of immigration limits which allowed them to earn living wages early in life. That, or they benefitted from inheriting money from yet older generations who did the same. But now that they are older and economically established, this group demands the "right" to suppress wages for those who come after them.

  • EMp||

    You are basically hitting the nail on the head here. It's (almost...) tantamount to gettin' yers while the gettin's a-good, then effectively pulling up the draw-bridge after you get into your gated community (nothing against gated communities...I live in a quite modest one actually, but I SLUGGED my way up the corporate -> small company ladder over many years to get here...).

  • ||

    You realize you are perfectly describing the United States here.

    It is comical that people are complaining about gates being closed and drawbridges being pulled up between people inside the US on a thread that is all about closing the gates and raising the drawbridges to prevent foreigners from getting into the country.

    Did you slug your way into being born in the US? Do you consider the US a modest community compared to the sources of prospective immigrants?

  • EMp||

    Actually - my father(from Glasgow, Scotland in the late 50's...) slugged his way in, took his citizenship oath(after about 5 years of residency...), went to school & worked, and he had sponsers and had to agree to not become a burden on the state, while also having a job ready for him when he arrived. I theenk ees a leedle beet deeferent than now, amigo.....

  • ||

    Yeah. Nowadays half a million immigrants aren't allowed to have sponsors, sign agreements about not being a burden on the state, and prove they have or can get a job.

    Instead they're just illegal.

  • EMp||

    Yep - meaning they were not authorized, and most Americans want the flood to dwindle to a trickle. They are not opposed to 'legal' immigration, but - I think - they are OK with a type of 'Theodore Roosevelt' style of immigration regulation.

  • ||

    When Theodore Roosevelt was president, there were no visas or quotas, and 98% of the people who stepped out of steerage were admitted after a background check.

  • EMp||

    *BUT* working conditions for the domestic labor force went from barely tolerable to in the toilet. Roosevelt then took steps to remedy this.... T.R. was 'blue-blood' but he had an affection for America's employees/ workforce.

  • hk||

    You're also an illegal immigrant from Europe.

    Lest we not forget the Racist "wars" that predate our existence.

  • SoCal Refugee||

    Hmm...so the previous inhabitants were largely displaced by the current inhabitants? That seems like a really good argument for the current inhabitants not letting the same thing happen to them.

  • SoCal Refugee||

    In any case, the "your ancestors stole this land from Native Americans" argument wears thin. And black Africans stole southern Africa from the Bushmen, and Cro-Magnons stole Eurasia from Neanderthals and Denisovans. The competition for resources that has been the reality for most humans throughout history virtually guarantees that anyone alive today has ancestors who survived and reproduced over the dead bodies of their competitors.

  • hk||

    Right so if another culture is uncivilized, we should also resort to barbaric racism and torture?

    That's what I thought. We're a nation of illegal immigrants whether you like it or not. This time we can maximize illegal immigration by encouraging the private sector.

    Instead you want superfluous government control when simply cutting government regulations and spending, would solve the negative externalities.

    Your imaginary phobia about a bi-lingual America is laughable at best.

  • ||

    I think the argument that we can never stop or lower immigration because the last ones in got lucky and it would be unfair the first in line is extremely weak. Unless they're true refugees, that's just too bad for them. We should go by what we need as a country.

    Similarly, some argue that it's unfair to resign a person to the country in which they were born. Thus, we must have open borders. But as a practical matter, we can't take everyone in so why must we accept harmful overpopulation which open borders would cause?

  • Some Guy||

    Whenever someone tries to use that line, I always follow up with, "Since you say you're not against legal immigration, that means you support abolishing all quotas, right?"

    I have yet to receive an affirmative response.

  • EMp||

    Better yet, controlled & legal immigration with preference to those who can add quality and actually benefit our society - not part of the short-sited view of the 'make a quick buck' business model, which is the crux of our current problem, amigo.

  • Some Guy||

    So you think the government should be in the business of deciding who is beneficial to society?

  • EMp||

    Wrong assumption...I think the people should, and they have. Look at the polls regarding the desire to secure the border, i.e. halting illegal immigration. It's the government(allegedly representatives of the people...) that's refusing to enforce current immigration laws on the books.
    ...(T-minus 10,9,8,7...until someone makes an allusion/ false equivalency to civil rights or slavery....)

  • Some Guy||

    I'll take that as a "Yes, I do think the government should be in the business of deciding who is beneficial to society."

  • EMp||

    On the odd chance that you think the 'government' is, according to the Constitution, supposed to be representative of the people, or the will of the people(spare me the false equivalency of slavery or the ubiquitous 'Jim Crow' screeds...), then yes. If you are seperating the Government into the Leviathan State that Libertarians rightly oppose - that's a different matter. We already have immigration laws on the books - and are quite more liberal with those laws than roughly 99.9% of other countries.

  • hk||

    Jesus christ shut the fuck up already. You are for quotas because you are scared of immigrants,it is ok to admit.

    Weed is also illegal and I don't give a shit. The government is Xenophobic and so are you.

  • EMp||

    You are flat-out demonstrating a mind-set or personal pre-disposition that most people who study history, poli-sci, or psychology with your espoused type of rhetoric that is very closely linked to 'Megalomania' or at the very least 'Nihilism'...I've worked with and for people like that in the past - the best way to end the abusive traits are to stand up to individuals such as yourself. As to your command for me to S.T.F.U. - make me, tough guy. In either case, I would not want to hop on either of those pathological ferry rides. Look up the terms if'n ya don't know 'em, big fella. ;-)

  • EMp||

    BTW - Big Boy, I have no problem with cannabis being (at least...)decriminalized.

  • Some Guy||

    But wait, isn't Prohibition the "will of the people"?

  • EMp||

    Not according to some of the latest polls... ;-)

  • hk||

    Your clandestine bigoted arguments have no cognitive flow.

    "It is illegal so it is wrong." This is a horrible argument given the low credibility of our central planners today.

    Either you support legal immigration or you don't, clearly you are just a racist who worries about white people getting fired then. I hope I'm wrong but it seems this is the case.

    Quotas and race-based employment is completely unconstitutional. And it doesn't make sense economically.

  • EMp ||

    Nope - I dated a couple of girls who were hispanic ethnically back in my day, not a racist by your standard. Do you believe countries have the right to regulate immigration / borders or are you an anarcho-capitalist type?

  • ||

    The citizenry of a country has the right to decide who and also how many. The number is more important.

  • Yet Another Dave||

    Personally, my issue with illegal immigration is that I'm paying tax dollars to support a border patrol program. If we're not going to care a flip about illegal immigration, than please save me some money and open the freaking borders.

  • ||

    Alabama Unemployment Rate .vs U.S Unemployment Rate
    since enforcement against illegal immigration ... http://bit.ly/abPPrY
    Sept.2011 9.8% .vs 9.0%;
    Oct.2011 9.3% .vs 8.9%;
    Nov.2011 8.7% .vs 8.7%;
    Dec.2011 8.1% .vs 8.5%;
    Jan.2012 7.8% .vs 8.3%;
    Feb.2012 avail 03/30/2012 .vs 8.3%

  • ||

    ???

    The actual numbers at your link are:

    Sep.2011 8.8% vs 9.0%;
    Oct.2011 8.5% vs 8.9%;
    Nov.2011 8.3% vs 8.7%;
    Dec.2011 8.0% vs 8.5%;
    Jan.2012 7.8% vs 8.3%;
    Feb.2012 avail 03/30/2012 vs 8.3%

    Oh, and if you guessed that Mississippi's unemployment rate also dropped exactly 1% over that same time period without the aid of Alabama's obnoxious anti-immigrant law, you are correct.

  • EMp||

    Once again >illegal< immigrant law. Ya keep on fergettin' that distinction. Funny how that happens with strange bedfellows of open-borders, meaning the toxic axis of Socialist lefties/ & multi-'gnat' corporatists....

  • ||

    Do you support getting rid of virtually the entire illegal immigrant "problem" by issuing all migrants who can pass a background check a new unlimited and quotaless residence and work visa?

    If not, please reread the title of the original post.

  • EMp||

    NO - and I also think the wrongly assumed 'Birthright citizenship' as read into the 14th Amendment currently should be held in regards to it's *GASP*,*HORROR*...'Original Intent'.

  • ||

    NO

    You are the poster child of the OP.

    Please spare us the disingenuous protests that it's ">illegal< immigrant law".

  • ||

    14th Amendment currently should be held in regards to it's *GASP*,*HORROR*...'Original Intent'.

    By the way, just what is this original intent that means something different from the extremely clear text of the amendment and the supporting debates?

  • EMp||

    The fourteenth was put in place, and overwhelming debate supports this, to give citizenship to blacks who were horribly discriminated against back when. It was not intended as a gateway for 8&1/2 months pregant 16 year old latin-American nationals to cross the bordwer and get free 'access'(starting to REALLY dislike this 'buzzword' of the left...) to free healthcare, benefits (WIC, AFDC, foodstamps - and these people KNOW THEY CAN GET IT.....) , not to mention Education. Question for the Open-borders, business types here - after this current tidal wave becomes legal, will you keep them on and pay them the going wage OR dump them for cheaper(not yet legal..) workers in the next influx? Seriously would like an honest answer....

  • EMp||

    *pregnant...

  • ||

    I know the reason for the clause. If they wanted to restrict citizenship exactly to former slaves, they could have. Instead they granted it for anyone who was not a foreign diplomat or a member of a sovereign Indian tribe.

    But I have no problem with excluding immigrants -- both legal and illegal -- as well as their citizen children from targeted welfare for 18 or 20 years. Would that get you over your problem with birthright citizenship?

  • EMp||

    Yes, as long as I can add one caveat: the border must still be secured and immigration quotas enforced - because then, and I am just hypothesizing here - it would cause all but the more determinded & hardy to leave. The realization of no bennies as well as (probably the most important issue..) no free medical or educational benefits. That would cause the employers to raise the wages of laborers due to the smaller pool to draw from. That, IMO, would dramatically decrease the feeling of , justly or unjustly, an invasion of foriegners, loss of common culture, and a decrease of living standards by most working class/ lower middle class Americans.

  • EMp||

    **The realization of no bennies .... would serve as a deterent to future illegal immigration.

  • ||

    Indeed. It would also serve as a deterrent to future legal immigration by those who can't support themselves when virtually all migration is finally legalized.

  • ||

    ...immigration quotas enforced...

    Immigration quotas are what this debate is all about.

    Supporters of open borders don't want quotas. Supporters of restricted immigration want lower quotas, with possibly different selection criteria, and harsher enforcement against those who try to personally exceed the quota they fall under.

  • hk||

    You have to steal money from me to get this "higher standard of living".

    So please stop your disgusting attacks on immigrants.

    It is pretty obvious you're just for propping up the wages of those that do not work harder.

  • EMp||

    And just what do you do fer a livin' there, big-daddy warbucks? Didja 'build-up a company with yer own two hands, the sweat off yer brow - all by yer lonesome?' Or did you employ plenty of undocumented workers, drive 'em like they were building the Pyramids, and dump 'em soon as they started wearing down for another truckload at the local Home Depot? Not attacking immigrants, IMO. Just the illegal kind - of which welfare socialists can't wait to make into newly minted constituents and 'quick-buck, blow-hard,& (seemingly...) alleged 'entreprenuers' like yourself who do not realize the future scenario that is quite likely going to materialize in the next 30-50 years in this country. Once it becomes a gutted shell of itself due to a one-party socialist state...where's everyone gonna go to try and realize this 'Libertarian Eden' that everyone (most...) on this board talks about?

  • hk||

    Why don't people produce more products in the USA? That's what I fucking thought.

    Hmm sorry but the Private sector knows who it needs to hire, not incompetent government officials that want to protect (European) "Americans".

    Why are you so scared about Hispanics getting a decent wage?

    Let's keep it real here, you don't look good when you make that argument.

  • EMp ||

    Not scared of anyone getting a decent wage - why won't you hire legally and not have to go through the immgration/check hassle and pay your workers(of any color, creed, etc. ...) a decent wage? ---> 'cause it's harmful to yer bottom line, that's why. Spare me any attempt at appeals to 'altruism', cause it's total (B)ravo (S)ierra.

  • ||

    Incidentally, I searched 'Alabama "since enforcement against illegal immigration"' on Google and got 77 hits that look an awful lot like this one.

    Just how did such an error happen, and how did someone manage to proliferate it so broadly? Did someone anonymously email it to you, but you forgot to masquerade as an Alabama Employment Office board member to ask for corroborating documents? Or did you just forget to click the link.

  • EMp||

    Legal, controlled immigration rates in re:immigrants and bennies - fine. Illegal entrance and the overwhelming number of which has happened in the last 20+ years and extremely crowded County/Municipal hospitals, & schools and the resulting budget shortfalls & change to core school curriculum thats been happening - that's what has Americans alarmed/ ticked off, etc. - that would be a deal-breaker, IMO.

  • EMp ||

    This was intended for MikeP on the 1:51PM response. My apologies...

  • ||

    Threading comments Americans won't thread...

  • EMp||

    Good one....

  • hk||

    There's no such thing as overpopulation, you sound like a fucking idiot when you talk about overcrowded hospitals and services.

    We want illegal immigrants in order for people to buy cheaper goods, and more essential services. Fuck you EMp.

  • hk||

    *Assuming the welfare state ends, as well as the drug war.

    All this phobia about losing "culture" means jack shit to me.

  • ||

    For there to be "no such thing as overpopulation" in the U.S., the carrying capacity of the country would have to be infinity.

  • EMp||

    The Lyndon Baines Johnson hospital of the Harris County Hospital District(to be honest - I haven't been there in 2 or 3 years...) regularly had way more (unless my eyes and ears are lying to me....) Mexican, Guatamalan, etc. people there waiting for services than they had any other ethnicity there - by a HUUUUGE margin. I know what of I speak. If'n pointing it(and a number of other issues caused by 'sell-out America by the penny'- types') out makes me 'bigoted','Intolerant','hateful' (I think more damaging to your bottom-line...) so be it - my feelings ain't hurt.

  • hk||

    Your real enemy is not immigrants, but socialized healthcare.

    Big difference.

  • hk||

    Also EMp nice job supporting SoCal refugee's bigoted comments that were factually incorrect, too.

    Unemployment is solved by eliminating the minimum wage, not by punishing those DANGEROUZZ SCURY IMMIGRUNTS.

    Your hysteria over is laughable. We should promote less fear in this country not more.

  • hk||

    ^Your hysteria over this is laughable.

    :)

  • SoCal Refugee||

    "There's no such thing as overpopulation"
    The Chinese and the Indians beg to differ. Luckily, the US is not so crowded as that...yet.
    And what did I say that was "factually incorrect"? Illegal immigrants tend to be unskilled workers, and unskilled workers have the highest unemployment rate among all segments of the labor force. Bringing in more unskilled workers means we'll have more unemployment in that segment.

    "you sound like a fucking idiot when you talk about overcrowded hospitals and services."
    Have you ever been to LA? How about some of the border towns in Texas. People in those places, especially taxpayers, might have a thing or two to say about the validity of such assertions.

  • hk||

    In a Libertarian society there is no such thing as over-population, refer back to the Malthusians consecutive defeats over the past few centuries.

    India is Keynesian, China is a huge Communist bubble. Huge difference again, not a good comparison.

  • SoCal Refugee||

    Or maybe it goes the other way: In over-populated societies, libertarianism is untenable. Btw, Singapore has an authoritarian government and until recently spitting out gum on the street was a flogging offense. They also have policies to control population growth. All of these things were/are necessary because Singapore is very densely populated and has few natural resources.

  • EMp||

    I certainly appreciate the tasteful, genuine complements, HK.

  • hk||

    I'll keep the tone more professional if you want, I honestly don't care either way. :]

  • SoCal Refugee||

    "All this phobia about losing "culture" means jack shit to me."
    Then you might want to go to some places that are culturally balkanized. Like, say, the Balkans. Or practically any African country. Or a significant number of middle eastern countries, like Lebanon, Syria, or Iraq, each of which has multiple ethnic groups striving for control over one another, and then declare that having a common culture doesn't matter.

    "Fuck you EMp."
    Your argument contains a lot of curse words. You must be very knowledgeable about the subject.

    I know that it frustrates you greatly that the world does not automatically conform itself to your libertarian preference for atomized individualism. Please accept my most sincere condolences for reality being so un"Reason"able ;).

  • EMp||

    Wonder if Mr. Boaz posts here regularly (I don't post enough here to know..). Good Stuff, SoCal. I certainly hope Texas wakes up soon, your problem now is a foreshadowing for our state - in about 10 or 15 years. Arizona got fed up with the amount of illegal immigration (plenty of people have called it a 'flood of illegals...')and the inherent problems with it, but they have roughly the same number of illegals in their entire state as the Houston Metroplex does (roughly about 500k...). It is not a stretch to say that in total, Texas has about 2.5-3 million people residing here illegally, second only to the Golden State and with about 2/3rds of that state's population.

  • SoCal Refugee||

    Our only option was to get the heck out of the state. We're not wealthy enough to buy our way into neighborhoods segregated by price from the people they hire to do their landscaping and housecleaning.

  • EMp||

    It's actually still possible to do what you stated here in Texas. Not sure if possible in the next 10 or so years.....

  • hk||

    I honestly think you like white people more, yes legit racism is ugly.

    Also Singapore looks damn good to me right now.

    Come up with better stuff than this.

  • EMp||

    You have my permission to go there, post-haste. Hopin' ye be adaptable to the gubmint regs they have... to yer health!

  • SoCal Refugee||

    Unfortunately, contrary to what your local Objectivist club might have told you, stamping your feet and storming off to the mountains won't turn the world into an individualist paradise.

  • ||

    Yes.

    And every single criticism tendered about the state of Israel sounds in anti-semitism. There is absolutely no other reason for such criticism, therefore, Israel and illegal immigration are beyond all reproach by all right-thinking people.

    Right?

    p.s. Some scientists are not suggesting that it's no longer the 19th century, the scoundrels!

    p.p.s. So why not advocate for increasing the amount of legal immigration instead of crying, stamping your feet, and shouting racist at everyone who knows that, yes, large amounts of unskilled labor do affect people on the margins, and if you don't care, it's not so much because you're a swell fellow so much as it doesn't affect you.

    and a great way to prevent any sort of middle ground solution is to clothe ad hominems in quasi-Libertarian language and economics which cherry-picks the facts to fit the ideology.

  • EMp||

    Captain Obvious - in another day and age ^this^ here ^point^ would be, IMO, rather, er, ah...'obvious', ya know? For me, I admire the stated self-reliance philosophy of most Libertarians - BUT - culture, civics, and national defense are seemingly easily bartered commodities for this political sect - and for that reason I cannot buy into it, for the most part.

  • hk||

    Only the Constitution matters Emp, not your opinion.

  • hk||

    Way out of context, you're not paying attention.

    A Libertarian country could easily have open borders, but not the USA or Israel. There are other issues in the way.

    Further when someone openly admits they are hostile to LEGAL immigration, it is easy to see why.
    Why else would someone be against eliminating immigrant quotas in a non-welfare, pro-drug state? Hispanics shouldn't be taking your jobs because they're different and weird? Not a good argument. And that was the argument presented to me before.

    Let's be honest, Ron Paul sounds racist and I've read the news letters. I've read this preferential treatment for white people thing before, and it sounds disgusting.

    Not that you're racist (I don't know much about you), but some of your peers seem to be.

  • ||

    The woman who got canned for whining about the 'zionist jews' running the Fed... given that 7 of 12 bank presidents {plus the chair - plus chair of the sec, commodities trading board, Obama's budget office, etc. etc.}.... was she run out of town for speaking vicious lies

    or vicious truths?


    [yes, yes - I'm consumed by blind hate for all Jews because I wonder about that group's fascinating over-representation in the government in areas pertaining to finance - and since I'm merely a rabid anti-semite, the point itself lacks any merit.... if only it were any other group wildly over-represented - then we could talk about it, right?]

  • hk||

    I don't have a problem with the first amendment, so continue to spew your controversial ideas no matter what.

    However it seems I was right, people here seem legitimately scared of Mexicans.

  • SoCal Refugee||

    I'm not particularly "scared" of Mexicans. It took only a ragtag army of southerners in Texas to defeat Santa Anna's army, and I've seen nothing out of Mexico to indicate that their martial prowess has increased significantly since then (no, defeating the French doesn't count).

    But I don't particularly like the thought of a massive social upheaval and its aftermath, nor the conditions leading up to it, either.

  • hk||

    Btw, I know a lot of reasonable and lovely Jewish people from Israel. So we disagree on that as well.

    I have a problem with interventionism, not a specific group of people or race.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement