GOP Restrictionists Are Big Labor's Dupes on Immigration

Anti-immigration Republicans are advancing organized labor's agenda.

A group of bipartisan senators is planning to beat President Obama's scheduled appearance in Las Vegas this morning by laying out their own vision for immigration reform first. Their intention, at least, is to make our current immigration system less of a living hell for American employers and foreign workers. The only stumbling block is restrictionist Republicans—who have killed every recent reform effort. But before they get their knickers in a knot, they should consider that the status quo they are defending is a creation of Big Labor and completely antithetical to their bedrock commitment to a free market.

In a free market, employer needs, not federal bureaucrats, would determine which and how many immigrants enter the country. Uncle Sam's role would be restricted to conducting security and health checks.

That is not how our system works now. The travails of high-tech workers begin when employers sponsor them for a temporary work visa called the H1-B. Its annual cap is only a quarter of demand and gets filled within the first few days, forcing those who don't get one to wait another year before they can play the visa lottery again. The lucky few who do get one must wait as much as a decade while their green cards are processed. Indian and Chinese techies must wait even longer, thanks to limits on green cards for those countries. During this time, they can't switch jobs and their spouses can't work. Many move to America's competitors—such as Singapore and Australia—in frustration.

And they have it good compared with their unskilled counterparts. H2-B temporary work visas for nonagricultural unskilled workers—the bulk of the illegal population—are even harder to get. The cap is just as tight, but the demand is far greater. Worse, these workers must prove they have property and jobs at home to return to before they can get the visa. Of course, if they had these things, they wouldn't be so eager to come here. The kicker, however, is that these workers are not allowed to apply for green cards.

How did this Land of Immigrants put in place such an arrogantly inhospitable system? Two words: Big Labor.

Don't take my word for it. Here is what Vernon Briggs, a pro-union Cornell University labor professor, has written: "At every juncture, and with no exception, prior to the 1980s, the union movement either directly instigated or strongly supported every legislative initiative enacted by Congress to restrict immigration and to enforce its provisions."

Indeed, unions were responsible for the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, America's first serious piece of restrictionism. They also authored the national-origins quotas—the precursor to the country-specific quotas on green cards—which imposed strict limits on immigrants from all but Western European countries. The high-skilled/low-skilled distinction was their way of tightening the labor supply in union-dominated sectors and artificially boosting their wages. And although now Big Labor supports immigration reform, it hasn't dropped its long-standing opposition to a guest worker program for unskilled workers, no doubt because it means competition but no prospect for recruitment.

In fact, the entire undocumented "problem" was created in 1965, when, thanks to union opposition, America scrapped the bracero program, a guest worker program with Mexico, leaving Mexican workers few options but to come and live here illegally.

But both President Obama and the Senate reform plans will proceed apace with creating Fortess America. The Senate plan in particular puts border enforcement ahead of liberalization of our immigration laws. It would increase the number of unmanned aerial vehicles and agents at the border, put in place new rules tracking people entering the country on temporary visas and create a commission of southwestern political and community leaders to ensure the new enforcement mechanisms take effect—all completely redundant measures in a world with rational immigration laws. It will also make the E-verify program mandatory, requiring companies to spend $150 to verify the immigration status of every potential recruit—foreign and American, mind you—against a federal database. This is effectively an employment tax.

It will presumably raise the H1-B cap but not scrap it. It will also try to cut back green card backlogs, but there is no talk of country-specific quotas being eliminated.

As for low-skilled immigrants, both Obama and the senators are talking about a guest worker program but not about eliminating the high-skilled/low-skilled distinction altogether. Never mind that these are economically meaningless categories that will always give short shrift to sectors reliant on low-skilled labor.

Yes, both Obama and the Senate would give illegal immigrants a path to legalization after making them jump through a gazillion hoops such as paying fines, waiting for years in the back of a queue, and demonstrating proficiency in English. Why can't employers decide what language skills they want or require of their workforce?

Restrictionism was Big Labor's way of applying the closed-shop idea to immigration. Republicans should not be protecting it—they should be trying to remove it root and branch.

An earlier version of this column appeared in the Washington Examiner.

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.

  • sarcasmic||

    But before they get their knickers in a knot, they should consider that the status quo they are defending is a creation of Big Labor and completely antithetical to their bedrock commitment to a free market.

    I almost spit coffee on the screen. Republican politicians give as much of a shit about the free market as they do about smaller government. It's just something they give lip service to in order to get votes. In practice they couldn't care less.

  • Rasilio||

    Yeah I had a similar reaction.

    I mean I am sure that there are a handful who really do care about the idea of a free market, but even there outside of ther Pauls and Amash I'm not certain there are any who really understand what that term means. Ultimately however the real problem is that there is a single bedrock commitment for Republicans "We're not Democrats"

    Outside of that you can probably find a way to get them to support or oppose pretty much anything

  • some guy||

    That was my reaction as well.

    A libertarian should know better! /Treebeard voice

  • KPres||

    I wish that were true. Reality is the opposite. large swaths of people don't want free markets or small government, because government is looting on their behalf. Republicans betray their libertarian roots in order to get votes, not the other way around.

  • eyeroller||

    Republicans betray their libertarian roots

    Um...might want to review your history of the Republican Party.

  • KPres||

    Relative to what? Democrats?

  • GregMax||

    Being "republican" doesn't mean you aren't a socialist. If they promote big government then they're socialists.
    A pox on them both.

  • Randian||

    You have three options with illegal immigrants:

    1. Make them legal
    2. Keep them as part of the permanent underclass
    3. Mass deportation

    Not being a Statist, I support #1.

  • sarcasmic||

    Legal immigration is for suckers. Just sneak in you'll probably become a citizen faster than the chump doing it the legal way!

  • Randian||

    What's your point?

  • sarcasmic||

    Something that flew over your head, apparently.

    Maybe Captain Obvious will flesh it out for you.

  • MWG||

    Yeah, those who are here illegaly sure have it made in the shade... or perhaps the messed up restrictions placed on immigration has created perverse incentives.

  • ||

    How dare you not show respect to the government's legal citizenship ritual!

  • johnl||

    Self-deportations could improve the standard of living for the deported. If the bracero program was brought back, most workers would prefer for their families to be in their home countries, where they could have middle class lives off remittances.

  • ||

    You can hardly send a message less supportive of the free market than telling people they can't work without the government's permission.

    That's the situation of the GOP with respect to Hispanic voters. They preach the message of individual responsibility, and then turn around and say "Except for you. You aren't allowed to work. You aren't allowed to take individual responsibility for you lives. You aren't allowed to pursue happiness. "

  • Jeff||

    Because all Hispanics are illegal immigrants, and all illegals are Hispanic.

    Hispanics don't vote for the GOP because Hispanics are overwhelmingly leftists.

  • MWG||

    Are you suggesting that when people refer to illegal immigrants they're thinking of the Chinese and Europeans?

  • aelhues||

    No, they're thinking of people who sneak in, instead of going through the actual, legal immigration process. What does that have to do with racism?

  • MWG||

    "What does that have to do with racism?"

    I don't know. Ask Jeff.

  • Jeff||

    I highly doubt it's universal, so I guess some do and some don't. But why does it matter what race people think of? I think the majority of people who are bothered by illegal immigration are probably bothered just for the reasons they say: that both foreigners and the government are ignoring the law.

    If you automatically assume that everyone who claims to be bothered by the erosion of rule of law is actually just using that as a front for the fact that they think Hispanics are icky, then there is really no conversation to be had, is there?

  • ||

    So libertarians should hate people who smoke weed because they are violating "the rule of law?" Only people who actually support the law use the "rule of law" argument Funny how I don't hear any conservatives arguing that we should register our guns because "it's the law." I hear alot of people advocating to disobey the law when they don't like the law. So yeah, conservatives and faux-libertarians just really don't want them dirty Mexicans takin er jerbs. But sure, keep calling it the rule of law. We know what you mean.

  • Jeff||

    I didn't say anyone should hate anyone. I also didn't say that libertarians should feel one way or the other. Do please try not to put words in my mouth.

    I do think that an existing law should be enforced without exception, and if it's a bad law, it should be repealed and the offenders pardoned rather than leaving it on the books and just ignoring it (until such a time comes that you need it for a politically motivated prosecution). In fact, enforcement of stupid laws seems to me a rather good way of building the political will to repeal such laws as well as drawing attention to the fact that we live in a ridiculously overlegislated country.

    And as a libertarian, I'll take rule of law over rule of man any day.

  • ||

    Oh my mistake, libertarians should be "bothered" by weed smokers, j-walkers, people who buy guns without registering them, etc. Yes, conservatives are just "bothered" by illegals. Maybe you should read some of the rants posted here by "bothered" yokels.

    And as a libertarian, I'll take rule of law over rule of man any day.

    You think there's a difference between those two things? Which laws are not made by men?

  • SugarFree||

    Immoral laws undermine the rule of law all by themselves.

  • Jeff||

    I don't see why I should ascribe these "yokels'" opinions to every anti-illegal immigration person any more than I should ascribe Voz de Aztlan's views to every open borders person.

    And I do think there's a difference between rule of law and rule of man. Neither is ideal, but rule of man is intolerable. Rule of law would mean David Gregory being treated the same as you or I for violating D.C.'s gun laws even after he was explicitly warned not to pull his little stunt. Rule of man means that he's special so nothing happens to him. That shit is physically agitating to me.

  • ||

    Anti-illegal immigration is the same thing as immigration control. One has to ask, why would someone want to control immigration? Either they are a nativist, or they're not a nativist but arbitrarily support nativist policy (or just have some naive respect for whatever some nativist politician writes in the rule book). Those are really the only two possibilities, either you are a nativist or you are being naive.

    Equality under the law doesn't make sense if the laws aren't fair themselves. Equality under arbitrary or discriminatory laws is completely meaningless. You're talking about how a law is carried out, I'm saying a law can be carried out perfectly fairly and still be fucking stupid.

  • Jeff||

    It is possible, whether or not you are willing to admit it, that non-nativists object to the government arbitrarily deciding when to enforce and when to ignore a particular law. It chafes people's general sense of fairness that immigrants who play by the rules have to deal with endless amounts of bullshit to keep their immigration status current while those who ignore the rules entirely are (rightly or wrongly) perceived as getting a free pass. I'm personally bothered by the fact that so much emphasis is put on the need to DO SOMETHING!!!! to help the people who have ignored the law, and very little time and energy has been spent on creating a more liberal immigration framework for people who have been following the law. Clearly the squeaky wheel does get the grease.

    On the flip side, look at the horror stories Reason has been running about people being raided and threatened with deportation despite the false sense of security Obama's executive actions had given them. In a very real way, this is worse for them, too, than just a uniformly rigid application of the law. Such is the nature of an arbitrary system.

  • ||

    It is possible, whether or not you are willing to admit it, that non-nativists object to the government arbitrarily deciding when to enforce and when to ignore a particular law.

    But the inherent wrongness of the law doesn't chafe them, so they're just idiots. Again, this has nothing to do with the rule of law. That argument only applies to rules they like.

    I'm personally bothered by the fact that so much emphasis is put on the need to DO SOMETHING!!!! to help the people who have ignored the law, and very little time and energy has been spent on creating a more liberal immigration framework for people who have been following the law.

    First of all, going from punishing people who have done nothing wrong to not punishing them for doing nothing wrong is not "DOING SOMETHING!!!! to help them." It's just minding your own fucking business. And second, in the real world way more time and energy is spent on immigration reform vs. amnesty. Amnesty is one of those political suicide issues.

  • XM||

    Does the constitution mandate we have to accept a certain number of immigrants? Do immigrants have a civil right to cross another nation's border because their personal situation demands it? Why should I feel heartened about left leaning immigrants who will burden the nation in the long run when they habitually vote along racial / political lines? And yes, they do love big government. More than seniors who might vote GOP but want to protect medicare.

    I'm not opposed to amnesty, but the immigration fantasy is just that. They don't identify as Americans, and are not invested in much of the issues discussed here. They rarely venture outside of their ethnic / ideological comfort zone.

    What you're trying to love is hallmark notion of immigrants spread by the MSM. I'm an immigrant, I live among them, and I cannot stand some of them. Collectivists, nationalists, traditionalists, patriarchs, xenophobes. (Surprise, many Latinos, Asians, and blacks don't like each other) When I try to engage them in libertarian thoughts, they'll say I'm "too American style" or some other nonsense.

    Surely there are many decent hard working immigrants. But even so, increased immigration basically means increase in the size of government, one way or another.

  • ||

    Does the constitution mandate we have to accept a certain number of immigrants?

    No. Does the constitution mandate we have to allow you to live here?

    Do immigrants have a civil right to cross another nation's border because their personal situation demands it?

    No, they just have that civil right regardless of their personal situation.

    Why should I feel heartened about left leaning immigrants who will burden the nation in the long run when they habitually vote along racial / political lines?

    What does that have to do with their right to move around without government coercion? I don't like nativist yokeltarian tards like you. Doesn't mean I'm going to start arguing you shouldn't have the right to spout a bunch of foolish nonsense.

    They don't identify as Americans, and are not invested in much of the issues discussed here.

    So the fuck what? Do you venture outside of your ethnic/ideological comfort zone? Oh wait, it's none of my damn business whether you do. Carry on being a retard then.

    But even so, increased immigration basically means increase in the size of government, one way or another.

    Yes, we need to give the government power to stop it from getting powerful! Fucking brilliant! You nativist fucks never cease to meet my expectations of retardation. Maybe its because you all say the exact same thing.

  • Azathoth!!||

    What does that have to do with their right to move around....

    No one has this 'right'. It doesn't exist anywhere in the animal kingdom. Territoriality does. Animals mark off and defend their territories. They exist in a near constant state of border war.

    without government coercion?

    The government coercion you decry so easily is the result of endless finagling to satisfy human territoriality while allowing people to live safely alongside one another.

    The migration towards the US is identical to a migration towards better hunting/grazing land that is already occupied. When that happens in nature there is often conflict. When that happens among humans there is war.

  • ||

    Actually the GOP's stance on immigration probably hurts them with ALL foreign immigrant minority groups. Hispanics are just the largest.

    I can see how Chinese Americans might be equally pissed if they have undocumented Chinese friends.

    Indians, in particular, tend to maintain lots of ties back ot India, which meanst hey probably have friends and relatives who are trying to get a visa, or who have immigrated illegally. You constantly hear stories of people smuggling their wife into the country illegally.

    I wouldn't be surprised at all if almost all Asians had the same horror stories to tell as Hispanics.

  • SIV||

    So you think the GOP is solely responsible for our fucked up immigration laws?

  • ||

    I bet you don't see the irony in collectivizing Hispanics while pointing out the stupidness of collectivizing Hispanics.

  • Jeff||

    Only I wasn't pointing out the stupidity of collectivizing anyone, but rather the fact that illegal immigrants =/= Hispanics =/= illegal immigrants.

    I then pointed out (correctly) that Hispanics break so heavily for Democrats primarily because they agree with Democratic policies, and that those policies really have fuck all to do with immigration.

  • ||

    No but illegal Hispanics and legal Hispanics generally live together in the same communities and know eachother. So all the legal Hispanics likely have some direct experience of the immigration system.

  • John||

    And a lot of them who got here legally hate the illegals. While a majority of Hispanics favor amnesty, a sizable minority don't.

    The world is more complex than the cartoons Libertarians like to paint.

  • ||

    And a lot of them who got here legally hate the illegals.

    Citation please.

    I've heard this trope before, but I've seen little evidence for it appart from the fact that Republicans repeat it to themselves to reassure themselves that they are right.

    They might not favor *amnesty* but that doesn't mean they "hate illegals". IMO, most immigrants sympathize entirely with illegals, having experienced the hell that is the legal immigration system. They just don't think that the system should incentivize illegal entry. They want the legal system ot be reformed.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That statement assumes that all Hispanics self identify as immigrants. Which is not the case for a number of reasons. One of which is that some of them were here before the country was.

  • Azathoth!!||

    There were no hispanics in existence before the US. Not one.

    'Hispanics' didn't exist in the US until 1970. It's a made-up term that bears little relation to the various peoples of European, Africa, indigenous, or mixed descent that live in the US. They are not a monolith--as I often point out, Arpaio is a 'hispanic' name.

  • John||

    You can't use google Hazel? Are you so fucking racist you honestly think that every Mexican thinks just like the rest? Of course a sizable minority thinks that way, just a minority of any group supports about any side of a position.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The Cosmos are amazingly delusional on this issue.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yeah, the guys who think that Hispanics = socialist doom in spite of all evidence to the contrary are the clear-sighted. Uh huh.

  • John||

    Here you go Cytoxic

    According to one study, “Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent).”

    One survey found that 73 percent of Hispanics opposed cutting Medicare spending and 83 percent preferred to deal with the deficit by raising taxes on the wealthy in conjunction with some budget reductions.

    Philosophically, a Pew Hispanic Center poll determined that 55 percent of the Latino electorate would prefer to pay higher taxes to promote a bigger government. Hispanics were also more trusting of the government compared to private charities than either whites or blacks.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/11.....epublican/

    Why do you continue to live under this delusion that Hispanics are not supporters of big government? How do you think most of Latin America turned into a socialist hell hole?

    Get rid of the welfare state and then come talk to me about open boarders.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Why do you continue to live under this delusion that Hispanics are not supporters of big government? How do you think most of Latin America turned into a socialist hell hole?

    Or CA.

  • Cytotoxic||

    CA was run into the ground by white liberals. Texas has lots of Hispanics and is not CA.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    CA went to shit in the late 90s when hispanics became the largest voting block.

    And they continually vote in those white (and brown and black) socialist assholes. So at some point, you should admit that they endorse those types of politicians and their policies. And no I'm don't mean all Hispanics are some undifferentiated mass. But you should accept the reality of the situation.

  • Cytotoxic||

    How do you think most of Latin America turned into a socialist hell hole?

    You mean the Latin America that is mostly becoming more and more free-market? Oops you did that thing again where you based your perceptions on your prejudices.

    One survey found that 73 percent of Hispanics opposed cutting Medicare spending and 83 percent preferred to deal with the deficit by raising taxes on the wealthy in conjunction with some budget reductions.

    Philosophically, a Pew Hispanic Center poll determined that 55 percent of the Latino electorate would prefer to pay higher taxes to promote a bigger government.

    So in other words, they're natural Americans.

  • John||

    You mean the Latin America that is mostly becoming more and more free-market? Oops you did that thing again where you based your perceptions on your prejudices.

    You mean like Argentina and Venezuela? And there is nothing free market about Mexico or central American.

    Face it dude, Latins just are not that into you. They like Libertarians even less than liberals do.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Outside of the waning Bolivarian Axis, Latin America is evolving to free markets.

    And there is nothing free market about Mexico or central American.

    Wrong. Mexico's corporate income tax rate is lower than Americas. They are headed in the right direction.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Dude, you're delusional if you think there's anything free market about Mexico.

    They're less free market than fucking China.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yeah, the guys who think that Hispanics = socialist doom in spite of all evidence to the contrary are the clear-sighted. Uh huh.

    Yep, every Hispanic country on earth is libertopia.

  • MWG||

    Drink.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Apparently shoehorning 'racism' in place of an argument isn't just for Liberals.

  • ||

    Still no actual citiation John.

    Why should anyone care what a "sizable minority" of Hispanics think? Whatever "sizable" means.

    Quit using weasel words and address the reality. The majority of Hispanics see the oppression caused by current immigration law every day, and they hate it. And the GOP going aroung mouthing platitudes about freedom means NOTHING next to the daily reality of boot-stomping facist oppression that they see people - human beings they know personally - living under as a result of that system.

  • John||

    http://www.latinodecisions.com.....inos-want/

    Are you too stupid or too lazy to look Hazel. Even a Latin political group admits 1/4 of all Latino voters do not support a path to citizenship. And a majority of them support making illegals pay a fine for coming here illegally. And 40% think they should have to return home before being allowed back in the country.

    Now go fuck yourself and learn how to use the internet.

  • ||

    25% don't support a path to citizenship =/= "many who got here legally hate illegals".

    Many legal immigrants want comprehensive immegiation reform. They want to create a legal path for entry, rather than incentivizing illegal entry. Creating a path to citizenship without reforming immigraiton law does nothing to solve the underlying problem. It just makes it easier to break the law than to ollow the legal path. But that doesn't mean they are hunky dory with the current legal system.

    That 25% of Hispanics doesn't necessarily "hate illegals". They probably sympathize with them. They just think that amnesty without reform will incentivize immigrating the easy way.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And again Hazel conflates Hispanics with illegal immigrants.

  • ||

    Learn to read.

  • Jeff||

    And if the legal Hispanic can work legally and the illegal Hispanic can't, then hey, crazy thought: there is something other than anti-Hispanic bias at play.

  • ||

    Sure conservatives are fine with the small number of educated Hispanics who get through immigration control. I think they're more concerned with unwashed hordes of Mexicans invading their country. That's still anti-Hispanic bias.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Conservatives have a problem with hordes or poor people coming to this country.

    And only a small minority of Hispanics are immigrants.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Conservatives have a problem with hordes or poor people coming to this country.

    Which is stupid and evil.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Why?

    Is it stupid and evil for my country club to exclude homeless bums?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Your country is not your country club. But wow what a clear example what great insight into your views on how the state should operate.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep I think the state should operate for the benefit of it's citizens.

    You think that state should operate for what exactly?

  • MWG||

    The government exists to protect our rights. You don't have a right to decide who I can and cannot hire to mow my lawn. OTOH I do have a right to free association.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    No but the government does have the right to control the borders of the country.

    Without that there is no government or country, which is desire that many here fear to express.

  • ||

    Yes, just look at what happened with that open border between Canada and the US. I can't tell which country is which! Thank you for proving just how retarded yokeltarianism truly is, Zaytsev

  • ||

    I didn't say there was anti-Hispanic bias at play. I said it that it appears to be grotesquely hypocritical to Hispanic voters to observe the GOP spouting this rhetoric of "freedom" while simultaneously denying their friends and relatives the right to hold a job.

  • Jeff||

    You said that it appears hypocritical to Hispanics because the GOP is saying to them, "Except for you." But since this is on the basis of whether or not someone has broken the law, and not an accident of birth such as race, then it is in nowise hypocritical.

  • ||

    The physical geographic location you were born in isn't an "accident of birth" ?

    People immigrate illegally because there is no legal path to immigration for them. Because they have no other choice. It's either break the law or don't pursue happiness.

  • Jeff||

    The geographic location you were born in is indeed an accident of birth, but making the choice not to develop the qualifications necessary (i.e., the skill sets we're looking for) to immigrate legally is not.

  • ||

    So because you dropped out of school when you were 10 and living in a mud hut in Guatemala, that should permanently prevent you from ever pursuing a better life in America?

  • Jeff||

    Would be worth having a conversation about that, I guess. But such a person is not welcome in Mexico, either, and somehow that country avoids getting tagged as anti-Hispanic.

  • ||

    Could we drop the "anti-Hispanic" canard for a while?

    My point is not that it is pro-hispanic or anti-hispanic. My point is that it is HYPOCRITICAL to espouse the rhetoric of liberty while simultaneously supporting current immigration law.

    I can't think of any more oppressive legal circumstance for a human being to live under in America right now that is worse than the plight of a young adult who was brought here illegally as a child. We legally condemn innocent young people just beginning their lives to second class status. We forbid them from legally holding a job.

    And the GOP swaggers around bathering about "freedom" and "individual responsibility". How the fuck do you explain THAT?

  • John||

    Yes Hazel. I would have real open boarders for everyone not just Mexicans, which is what we are going to end up with.

  • Jeff||

    You could ask the same question about any number of other positions widely held by the GOP.

    But the fact remains that even if the GOP made its immigration policies (and its drug policies, and its fiscal policies, etc., etc.) more congruent with its rhetorical support for liberty, Hispanics still wouldn't ditch the Democrats because they agree with the Democrats' social policies.

  • 34lbs||

    The Republicans should launch a campaign targeted towards hispanics along the lines of "How would you feel, if you woke up, and your padre had been deported", all about how the Obama administration is deporting all these immigrants and destroying hispanic families.. They wont just have the Bush Era Hispanic vote.. They'd be the hispanic part for years to come.

  • ||

    So, your response is, instead of trying to change Hispanic voters minds and persuade them of the virtues of free markets and individual responsibility, the GOP should support policies that systematically oppress and discriminate against the friends and relatives of Hispanic voters, in order to keep them from ever voting for Democrats.

  • 34lbs||

    It was a joke mate.

  • Randian||

    She's high-strung and touchy ever since she went off the reservation about gun insurance.

  • 34lbs||

    A little background please, i've only been posting here for about 3 days...

  • Randian||

    Start here. It went on like this for a few days.

  • 34lbs||

    " I don't think it's that easy to get a black market gun if you aren't connected in some way to a gang , or have some other criminal connections." That part is fucking hilarious, my m8 recently bought an unregistered SKS from an old irish guy who runs a haberdashery, i guess technically that is a criminal connection, but this is the kind of guy who volunteers in the salvation army....

  • ||

    Sorry I was responding to Jeff.

  • Jeff||

    Yes. I mean, that's exactly what I said, isn't it? Oh, wait. No. You just made that shit up wholesale.

    No, my point is that your first post was dead wrong. The GOP aren't in the position they're in with Hispanics because of immigration, but because of their (mostly unwarranted) reputation of being fiscal hawks who want to gut the safety net.

  • 34lbs||

    Because you are hispanic and you know why they vote the way they do... totally.

  • Jeff||

    Amazingly, despite not being Hispanic, I do have the ability to read opinion polls.

  • Randian||

    Who cares how Hispanics are going to vote? we don't require political fealty oaths to enter the United States or at birth, so the conversation is irrelevant.

  • Jeff||

    Tell Hazel, not me.

  • Randian||

    I'm telling everyone. While it may be true that Hispanics at the outset support a welfare state, it's simply our job to convince them otherwise. I see little difference between the Hispanics of today and the Irish (or Italians) of 130 years ago.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Are you referring to the Irish that just voted for the socialist piece of shit fauxcohantus? Good job there.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Wait, Hispanic voters aren't allowed to work?

  • aelhues||

    No matter how many times this topic comes up, it inevitably leads to conflating illegal immigrants, with Hispanics, thus making it about racism.

  • Jordan||

    Hazel's talking about perception. Wish it away all you want, but vehemently opposing illegal immigration makes you look like a bigoted crank, whether you are or not.

  • aelhues||

    Only because people relentlessly frame the debate in racist terms. It is wrong to allow one side to define terms in an inaccurate way, in order to paint their opponent in an harsh light.

    I'm personally fully in support of open immigration, just as soon as we rid ourselves of the yoke of our welfare state, and remove the silly barriers for legal entry. Until then, I'm pro Hispanic, and anti illegal immigration.

  • aelhues||

    I just thought, if the system allowed much, much easier legal immigration, without country or number restrictions, I'd still be anti-illegal immigration, for those cases where it existed. If you want to make the USA your home, do it the right way.

  • ||

    And by the right way you mean the government's preferred way. I don't think you're going to convince any real libertarians.

  • aelhues||

    I meant, follow the law, go through the process. It may be stupid, and I may think that the immigration law is terrible, and ridiculous, but that doesn't mean I have to support illegal immigration.

  • tarran||

    So why have any restrictions at all?

  • carol||

    Agreed. The welfare state is incompatible with open borders. Heck, it is incompatible with pretty much everything. If people want to come here for economic opportunity then I say more power to them but they should be able to support themselves and their families.

  • sarcasmic||

    White or brown Hispanics?

  • ||

    Hispanic voters probably know personally someone who isn't legally allowed to work.

  • SIV||

    I personally know people who aren't "legally allowed to work". What is this "Hispanic voter" shit?

  • R C Dean||

    Hazel, you realize that "Hispanic voters" and "illegal immigrants" are two mutually exclusive classes for the most part?

    A Hispanic voter no more needs government permission to work, pursue happiness, etc. than any other citizen. Which, I grant you, isn't saying much, but Hispanic voters aren't being singled out for anything.

    Of course, they could be voting based on tribal/"racial" solidarity with (illegal) immigrants, in which case I have little respect for their position.

  • Jordan||

    Or they could be voting because they perceive the GOP's illegal-immigrant-bashing as veiled racism. I don't share that perception, but I don't think it's insane for someone else to believe it. And I don't particularly care if statists get mistaken for racists. Statism and racism are both immoral.

  • ||

    Yes, of course, but Hispanic voters often have friends and relatives who are illegal aliens.

    Say you're a US citizen, but you fall in love with and marry a woman who is undocumented. She can't even adjust status without leaving the country for several years, with no guarentee of being allowed back in. Leaving you a single parent with noone to support them.

    The fact is that if you are a Hispanic, even if you are a US citizen, you can immediately see the hyporcrisy between the rhetoric of freedom and the actual policies espoused by Republicans, because there is a large chance you have had some direct experience of the immigraiton system and experiences howoppressive it is of individual liberty.

  • John||

    but Hispanic voters often have friends and relatives who are illegal aliens.

    And no natives do?

    Say you're a US citizen, but you fall in love with and marry a woman who is undocumented. She can't even adjust status without leaving the country for several years, with no guarentee of being allowed back in. Leaving you a single parent with noone to support them.

    That is a fantasy Hazel. You get married and send her back and apply for a marriage VISA. That doesn't take years, you fucking half wit.

  • ||

    You get married and send her back and apply for a marriage VISA. That doesn't take years, you fucking half wit.

    Yes it does. You obviously have never been through the immigration system. And you don't know what the law says.

    If you have been in the US illegally, you are REQUIRED to wait at least 2 years before applying for an immigrant visa. And they can then deny it on the basis that you were in the country illegally.

    That is true even if you would otherwise be eligible to immigrate immediately. Even if you are married to a US citizen.

  • ||

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency.....tizen.html

    As a legal punishment for your unlawful entry, you will not be able to apply for a green card within the United States.

    However, a potential hurdle could arrive after you arrive at the consulate. Once an undocumented entrant enters the U.S., stays for more than six months and then leaves, he or she triggers a three- or ten-year bar on reentry, as described in, "Consequences of Unlawful Presence in the U.S. -- Three- and Ten-Year Time Bars."

    If you are barred from reentry to the U.S., your only way to enter or be approved for a green card is likely to request a waiver of your reentry bar. ...

    You will need to prove that, if denied the waiver and visa, your U.S. citizen spouse or parent would suffer extreme hardship as a result.

    Actually its a 3-10 year bar on reentry not a two year bar. And the only way around it is to prove that your spouse or child would suffer "extreme hardship".

  • John||

    Yeah because the consulate is going to know you were in America how? You were fucking illegal Hazel. All the person has to do is go back to Mexico, stay there and then have their spouse come and visit them and say they met that way. It is not hard.

    It happens all of the time. Talk to people who actually work in the area sometime.

  • tarran||

    John,

    My brother married a Mexican national so I have personal knowledge of how the system works.

    Hazel is right; my sister in law had to document where she lived, where she worked, the whole nine yards and go through brutally invasive interviews where any seeming inconsistency was torn apart.

    Had she been in the U.S. and tried to pretend she had been in Mexico, they would have detected it. Fortunately for her, she had been going to school in the U.S. legally when she met my brother and had nothing to hide. And yet they went through nine months of hell.

  • ||

    Why don't you?

    Surely you realize that a lawyer can't advise you to break the law.

    And surely you understand what the consequences would be if you got caught.

  • John||

    I am telling you what people do Hazel. And I am telling you that there are not tons of people out there who fell in love with illegals and can't get them a visa.

    It is a fantasy Hazel. Stop it.

  • ||

    Projection alert. Projeciton alert.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yes, of course, but Hispanic voters often have friends and relatives who are illegal aliens.

    No more so than many other hyphenated Americans.

  • ||

    And you'll notice that the other kinds of hyphenated Americans tend not to vote for the GOP either.

    Wonder why?

  • John||

    It couldn't be that they support Democrats policies and like big government. Couldn't be that because no foreigner ever supported big government.

    What about immigration makes Libertarians go full fucking retard?

  • ||

    Yes, the idea that they just LOVE "big government" is SO MUCH MORE PROBABLE than the fact that they have first hand experience of the oppression that is current immigration law and thus regard the GOP as a bunch of facist shit-bag liars for supporting it.

    NOBODY who has first hand experience of the immigration system could POSSIBLY come away from that experience hating the system and regarding anyone who supports it as an enemy of freedom.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So you think Black-Americans don't vote GOP because of their immigration positions? Even though blacks are more anti immigrant than whites are.

    Face it, the socialists and their sycophantic media have done a great job of smearing small government advocates as racists. You're delusional if you think supporting some position of the socialists (like immigration reform) is going to change that tactic

  • ||

    The whole point of this article is that the current immigration system is entirely a creation of socialists via the labor unions.

    It is big labor that created the whole idea of the labor certification in the first place. That's WHY it's impossible to get a work visa approved without proving to the Department of Labor that no American can do the job. That is what made it impossible for low-skilled Mexicans to immigrate legally in the first place.

  • SIV||

    socialists via the labor unions, or as you call them, the Republican Party...

  • KPres||

    That's the situation of the GOP with respect to Hispanic voters. They preach the message of individual responsibility, and then turn around and say "Except for you. You aren't allowed to work. You aren't allowed to take individual responsibility for you lives. You aren't allowed to pursue happiness. "

    This ignores the politics. The only reason Republicans are trying to keep immigrants out is because 70% of them vote Democrat. The only reason those 70% vote Democrat is because they want free shit. There's nothing wrong or hypocritical about telling a thief they can't "pursue happiness" when their pursuit of happiness involves theft.

    What Republicans need to do is find a way to keep socialist immigrants out while letting the rest in. Let that and nothing else be the focus regarding any reform. But this is the party of stupid. No way they look at things that way.

  • SIV||

    They campaigned last cycle on instant green cards for STEM degrees. I suspect it f that ever comes to a vote it won't be "racist republicans" opposing it.

  • ||

    The reason 70% of them vote Democratic might be because 70% of them have freinds and relatives who are suffering under the oppression that is current immigration law, and the Democrats are the only ones pretending they'll do anything about it.

    And if you don't have the right to hold a job, getting free shit is the only viable alternative.

  • lap83||

    "In a free market, employer needs, not federal bureaucrats, would determine which and how many immigrants enter the country."

    That is utter baloney. Employers don't decide what a "country" is.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No....so?

  • jili5||

    I completely agree. We can't let anyone in who wants to come in because we'll eventually turn into Haiti with severe overpopulation and poverty. Governments control the borders not corporations. Mexico has a severe overpopulation problem and if they don't want to fix it that doesn't mean they should be allowed to let excess population bleed over onto us and strain our resources.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Mexico has a government problem, not a population problem.

  • KDN||

    We can't let anyone in who wants to come in because we'll eventually turn into Haiti with severe overpopulation and poverty.

    What? People are naturally assets, not liabilities. Your gripe is with the welfare state, not the brown hordes plotting to steal your country.

    The 142nd most densely populated country on Earth is not, in any practical sense, overpopulated.

  • lap83||

    If you are for completely open immigration, please admit that either 1. you are against sovereignty or 2. you don't give a shit about what incentives that creates.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Or you could admit you're full of shit and can only fight strawmen.

  • lap83||

    Um, I'm pretty sure I'm not the one who resorted to swearing but actually showed the logical implications of a position. Is "strawmen" just easier than forming a relevant counterpoint?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Your 'arguments' have been debunked a hundred times here already. I'm not going to bother.

  • kinnath||

    Fuck off. You are years behind the H&R regulars in the discussion of immigration and open borders (or not open borders but tall fences with wide gates or whatever) and the incentives caused by the welfare state.

  • lap83||

    I wasn't talking about the incentives of the welfare state, per se.

    As for the rest of your point, are you saying the borders of H&R is closed to new commenters? How cute.

  • lap83||

    btw, I've been reading Reason for over 5 years.

  • ||

    Reason is not the same as the H&R comment section, which is what you are posting on. Your point has been argued endlessly by smarter people than you and shown to be complete bull.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Your point has been argued endlessly by smarter people than you and shown to be complete bull.

    No it hasn't.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes it fucking has. This should be over. We won.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    No you didn't.

  • kinnath||

    Were you stating that no one on that side of the argument is smarter than lapdog above?

    Or were you stating that the anti-immigration side of the argument is not bull?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I was saying that you can't have a nation state without said nation state controlling it's borders.

    Cosmos calling someone a racist for pointing out that reality does not meant that the have won the argument.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    ...does not mean that they have won the argument.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No one's arguing for ending America's control of its borders.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    No one's arguing for ending America's control of its borders.

    No one?

    heller| 1.28.13 @ 12:19PM |#

    Anti-illegal immigration is the same thing as immigration control. One has to ask, why would someone want to control immigration? Either they are a nativist, or they're not a nativist but arbitrarily support nativist policy...
  • kinnath||

    I think that only a handful of the anarchist-leaning commenters here have argued strenuously for the position of no borders and no nation-state. So the lapdog's initial question/comment was bullshit on its face.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    A lot of people advocate just that so his point wasn't bullshit.

    Someone is running around this thread saying why would a libertarian want someone to get government approval to move or work.

    Well guess what, if that's your position (not you kinnath) then you want to do away with the nation state. Just admit it.

  • kinnath||

    A little over-reach there.

    If a software house in Ireland offers me an engineering job, I would not be surprised if the nation-state of Ireland wants to verify that I am not a criminal before they let me immigrate.

    But I would be appalled at the idea that the nation-state of Ireland could force that software house to prove there were no adequately trained Irish engineers available to do the job before the job could be offered to me.

    So I state again, there are few people here that actually argue for the elimination of the nation-state.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'm in favor of expanding work visas and giving permanent residency to the illegals that are already here. But Cosmos call me a racist because I don't favor eternal unrestricted immigration and believe that citizenship means something.

    In your example of Ireland, can you just move there with no job offer, bring your wife and kids and live at the expense of Irish taxpayers and also vote in Irish elections.

    Because that's what a lot of people here want for America.

  • MWG||

    "I was saying that you can't have a nation state without said nation state controlling it's borders."

    Actually, we had pretty much that for the first hundred plus years in the US.

    "Cosmos..."

    Drink.

  • kinnath||

    First time I remember seeing this handle

  • VG Zaytsev||

    We don't cotton to no illegal immigrant commenters here, son.

  • kinnath||

    He's a registered, migrant commenter. Legal per the existing terms and conditions of the H&R site. But a dumbass none the less.

  • JWatts||

    "the incentives caused by the welfare state."

    This is the part that baffles me about people uncritically supporting legalization. I've got no problem with immigration assuming it's a net benefit. But let's face it, the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are low skilled, low waged and going to draw heavily on the existing welfare state. If we legalize 12 million current illegal immigrants they qualify for a whole bevy of Federal benefits that they don't currently qualify for.

    With the current level of benefits and Obama's attempt to increase them at every turn, a large amount of immigration may well result in a poorer country.

    First, we fix the entitlement system. Then we can fix the immigration system.

  • ||

    I've got no problem with immigration assuming it's a net benefit.

    Most of us here aren't utilitarians so that argument holds no weight.

  • JWatts||

    Ok, let me rephrase my point slightly:

    I've got no problem with immigration as long as it's not a net negative.

  • Randian||

    "I've got no problem with the freedom to give birth as long as it's not a net negative"

  • ||

    Um that's the same utilitarian argument...

  • JWatts||

    No, it's not a utilitarian argument and I'm not sure why you think so, but that's really beside the point.

    I'm in favor of immigration as long as it's not a net negative.

    If you disagree, please make your case for immigration that is a net negative.

    If you can't, then you don't have a logical position, just an opinion.

  • ||

    Unless I'm misreading what you mean by "net negative" it sure as hell is a utilitarian argument. You are saying you only approve of immigration if it is a "net benefit" to society or as secondly stated "not a net negative." This is a purely utilitarian argument. Immigration should be legal because of individual freedom whether it is a benefit to "society" or not. That is the principled argument vs the utilitarian argument.

  • JWatts||

    No, if immigration impacts my personal freedoms and most particularly my quality of life and/or my taxes then I'm against it specifically for those reasons.

    If immigration is a net negative for society then most people would be against it, even if it benefits a few. That's not particularly a Utilitarian philosophy. That's a human philosophy.

  • MWG||

    "First, we fix the entitlement system. Then we can fix the immigration system."

    Of course you could make this argument about just about anything...

    'First, we fix the entitlement system. Then we can lower taxes.'

  • JWatts||

    No, as I stated above, this is a specific objection. Low skilled immigrants will, in most likely hood, be a drain on resources greater than their value with our current entitlement benefits.

    To sum it up, F you, I'm not paying higher taxes to support additional free loaders.

  • Randian||

    So, I'll ask again: do you favor forced abortions of poor mothers?

    Given that you have no evidence that a specific immigrant is going to be a freeloader, you must be making an argument based on probability, and therefore saying that it's OK to restrict the freedom of movement because it is (X%) likely that a new immigrant will be a "freeloader".

    What do you think the percentage of welfare recipients born to poor black mothers is going to be? And why are you letting freedom of reproduction enable "paying higher taxes to support additional free loaders (sic)"?

  • 34lbs||

    Don't give Nativists any ideas here Randian...

  • JWatts||

    I'm not arguing tangential hypotheticals about a completely unrelated subject.

    If you can't make a good case about the actual topic of immigration, then give it up.

  • Randian||

    Your argument rests on probabilities. The probability is greater that a poor single mother is going to raise a State-dependent child than it is that any given immigrant is going to be a drain on "social resources"

    It seems to follow that if you are saying that you oppose immigration because each immigrant represents a potential drain on resources, I would suggest that there are other sources of potential drain that are greater.

  • JWatts||

    "Your argument rests on probabilities."

    Yes. FU, I'm not paying higher taxes.

    You are welcome to voluntarily agree to incur any potential costs on my behalf and I'm perfectly fine with the idea of unlimited immigration in that case. Assuming I can trust you not to welch on the deal.

    Are you willing to philosophically commit to cover the full costs of your ideals? Because if you're not, you are no better than any socialist who is looking for a free lunch on someone elses dime.

  • kinnath||

    Black markets always cause more problem than they are intended to solve.

  • Sevo||

    ^?
    Black markets aren't the result of any 'intention' other than plain, ol' trading.

  • kinnath||

    Poorly written because I am trying to work at the same time (I need to get my priorites straight).

    In general, someone decides that some activity is bad for society and decides to ban it. But the activity doesn't go away, it just goes underground producing a black market. The black market causes more problems than the original "bad" activity was perceived to cause society.

    It doesn't matter whether society chooses to ban the use of recreational drugs or cheap migrant labor. The net result is a new black market in whatever thing society tried to ban.

  • Cytotoxic||

    WE ONLY HATE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TEH LAW IS TEH LAW /nativist Stoopid

  • $park¥||

    TEH LAW IS TEH LAW

    Not that I disagree with your point, but this is one of the dumbest ways to argue it. You know where else you could apply this little nugget? The US Constitution.

    I certainly don't hear people mocking TEH LAW IS TEH LAW when it comes to the 1st or 2nd Amendments around here.

  • Cytotoxic||

    My point is more that the law isn't justified in and of itself. The 1st and 2nd As are worth defending because they are morally right.

  • $park¥||

    I know, and I agree. But that particular way of arguing it should really go the way of the dodo IMO.

  • RightNut||

  • John||

    Lets have a real immigration reform. Lets start letting in large numbers of legal immigrants from all over the world so the political power of any one group of them is diluted. See how far that proposal goes with Hispanics. Hispanics don't give a shit about immigration. They at most care about their immigration and they sure as hell don't support open boarders in any sense libertarians do.

  • Homple||

    John has a very sensible proposal, and I have a suggestion how to implement it: eliminate all passport checks at airports and seaports. Make it as easy to enter the USA in an airliner as it is to wade across the Rio Grande.

    Done.

  • John||

    So we let everyone in, including criminals? Unless you are willing to do that, you are always going to have an illegal immigration problem.

  • Homple||

    Turn up the sensitivity on your irony detector. The point is that, under your proposal, we will still throttle the intake of people entering from anywhere except the Southern border and the flow across the Southern border will continue unabated. The folks from elsewhere will never catch up numerically with the Hispanics.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Are you so fucking racist you honestly think that every Mexican thinks just like the rest? -John, above.

    Hispanics don't give a shit about immigration. -John, here and bereft of awareness

  • John||

    You thin a real open boarder that diluted Hispanic political power would be a winner among Hispanics?

    Give me a fucking break. It is tribal politics and you know it. Why does this topic make you people into Tony level stupid?

  • Cytotoxic||

    I don't know John. Maybe someone should try it.

  • John||

    I would love to try it. And dream fucking on if you think hispanics are going to support you. And since they don't give a fuck about anyone else getting here, I really don't care if they live as illegals.

  • John||

    http://freebeacon.com/bloomberg-loses-focus/

    Tucked away in New York magazine’s profile of mayoral candidate Christine Quinn, the city’s Napoleonic mayor answered a compliment on his gun control push by checking out a nearby woman:

    Later in the evening, the host interrupted me to point out that the mayor himself had just arrived. Did I want to meet him? Sure. My friend and I followed the host over, shook Bloomberg’s hand, and my friend thanked him for his position on gun control. Without even acknowledging the comment, Bloomberg gestured toward a woman in a very tight floor-length gown standing nearby and said, “Look at the ass on her.”

  • jili5||

    "The travails of high-tech workers begin when employers sponsor them for a temporary work visa called the H1-B. Its annual cap is only a quarter of demand and gets filled within the first few days, forcing those who don't get one to wait another year before they can play the visa lottery again."

    Even with that cap U.S. engineers and scientists are sitting around unemployed while companies are hiring foreigners on these H1B visas. It doesn't make much sense to me for the government to keep claiming we need more technical workers and scientists when so many are unemployed. Then the government goes behind their backs and sponsors foreign workers to come over.

  • kinnath||

    Unless you're an unemployed engineer or scientist, fuck off.

    We can't hire enough engineers.

  • John||

    Reason, because they depend on Shika to write on immigration and she knows virtually nothing about how immigration law actually works, never talks about the H1-B problem. For an employer and H1B visa a great. If you have an H1-B visa, you are basically wedded to your employer. If you lose your job, your ass is back on a plane to Pakistan in a matter of days. This gives employers of holders of HB-1 visas tremendous leverage. Oh, you don't like the working conditions, fuck you go back to Mumbei. Oh, you don't like it that I never give you any training or promote you, fuck you go back where you came from.

    If you have a choice between hiring an American, who can quit at any time without worries of being deported or hiring a H1B visa holder who is dependent on your good will to stay in the country, you will hire the H1B holder every time.

  • JWatts||

    Generally, I'm in favor of bringing in high skilled immigrants. However, it is true that the current H1B system is structured in a feudalistic fashion.

    "If you have a choice between hiring an American, who can quit at any time without worries of being deported or hiring a H1B visa holder who is dependent on your good will to stay in the country, you will hire the H1B holder every time."

    A H1B Visa holder can jump to other companies, but it is a paperwork hassle and in the cases I've seen it certainly does put pressure on the Visa holder to keep working at the same company to avoid deportation.

    However, that's an argument for scrapping the H1B visa program , not for blocking skilled worker immigration.

  • John||

    Yes it is. We need to change the HB1 system. But immigration reformers never talk about that. And they always point to how employers are so willing to hire such workers as evidence that there is need for them. Well, not necessarily. It is more that we have created a system where it is advantageous to hire them over natives.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That's also true of illegal immigrants.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Apparently workers also favor the H1-B because they CHOOSE IT OVERWHELMINGLY. This could be solved by free immigration but the nativist neurotics are too obstinate to get on with reality.

  • John||

    Apparently workers also favor the H1-B because they CHOOSE IT OVERWHELMINGLY

    They don't choose it. It is the only thing available. And just because it is better for them, doesn't mean it is better for the rest of the country.

    Since when is the government making one group of workers more attractive to employers than another, something libertarians support?

  • Cytotoxic||

    1) Then let border-rationalists open things up and obviate the H1-B.

    2) Most libertarians are not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the improvement.

  • John||

    So letting people in under circumstances that are both exploitative to the immigrants and unfair to local workers is an improvement? Really?

    No most libertarians don't even think about the subject and don't know anything other than "but they are brown people so it must be cool".

  • Cytotoxic||

    It beats not letting those people in.

    'Exploitive'? Really? Now that's Tony-level stupid.

  • John||

    It beats not letting those people in.

    Why? You are fucking the people who already live here. And you are distorting the fuck out of the labor market. You just think it beats not letting them in because immigration is a fucking faux religion among libertarians.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You just think it beats not letting them in because immigration is a fucking faux religion among libertarians.

    It's a real religious belief for them.

  • John||

    Yes it is exploitative as shit. People here on Hb1 visas get screwed. And it happens because they get nitwits like you to buy into such a terrible system because "we have to let them in". No we don't. If we were bringing them in as slaves, would you support that?

    No, if you can't bring them in and treat them fairly, don't let the employers hire them.

  • MWG||

    Fucking free association... how does it work?

  • ||

    So letting people in under circumstances that are both exploitative to the immigrants and unfair to local workers is an improvement? Really?

    Could you stop with the internal contradictions? You just explained why the H1-B visa makes it easier to exploit workers. Then you turn around and oppose making it easier for them to get green cards too.

    Why is "being fair to local workers" a libertarian priority? Why should "local workers" have any power at all to decide who gets to work for who?

  • John||

    Then you turn around and oppose making it easier for them to get green cards too.

    No I haven't Hazel.

    John| 1.28.13 @ 12:28PM |#

    I tell you how you fix it. Give them all ten year green cards. Tell every one of them they can come in and get a green card that is good for ten years. At the end of that ten years, you have a choice of passing a test and becoming a full citizen or going home. And let anyone who wants one have such a card and let them have ten years to work here and do what they want. But no welfare and you must become a citizen or leave after ten years. And if you get convicted of a crime while you are here, you are deported and never given another green card.

    Read the damned thread.

  • ||

    Give them all ten year green cards. Tell every one of them they can come in and get a green card that is good for ten years. At the end of that ten years, you have a choice of passing a test and becoming a full citizen or going home.

    Them all meaning the people who are here illegally, or anyone who wants to immigrate.

    If the latter, I would totally support that, but it would be a RADICAL liberalization of the immigration laws. If anyone who wanted a green card could get one that would effectively be open borders.

  • 34lbs||

    I think laws that discourage businesses from hiring illegals that lead them towards shit menial labour (fuck you i can spell it however the fuck i want) like day work cause more exploitation then ones that allow them too.

  • 34lbs||

    to*, i can't spell for siht

  • ||

    she knows virtually nothing about how immigration law actually works

    As someone who just insisted that there's no wait time for an illegal immigrant spouse to reenter the US, you're not one to talk.

  • johnl||

    If you are a USA knowledge worker, you should want more H1-B visas. Bringing the top tier rainmakers from all over the world here makes more jobs for second raters, like me.

  • John||

    Sure. But the terms of H1B visas need to be changed to make them less advantageous for employers.

  • kinnath||

    Many people (and organizations) benefit from the current set of immigration laws.

    The market for cheap migrant labor will never go away, and there are plenty of people willing to exploit cheap migrant labor that is here illegally and can't rely on the protection of the law.

    And as you note, the far end of the scale with high-tech labor visas imposing serious restrictions on the high-tech laborer can be exploited by high-tech businesses who treat those employees as modern indentured servants.

    The system needs to be fixed so that labor can move freely in response to market pressures, and immigration control needs to focus its attention on keeping criminals and people with communicable diseases out of the country.

    As for the 20 million underclass immigrants that are already here illegally, I have no idea how to fix the consequences caused by the current set of immigration laws.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Just give them legal residency.

    No citizenship.

    And then let anyone in to work that pays an entry fee of a couple thousand dollars and tell them they will be deported for criminal activity or welfare use.

  • aelhues||

    What kind of taxes/fees would go along with residency? If it's a minimal annual fee for general use (roads/safety/etc.), can I sign up?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I wouldn't charge the ones that are already here past taxes. You're never going to collect them and it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to implement.

    I'd charge a large one time entrance fee to new entrants and make them pay whatever taxes everyone else is subjected to after that.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    ^This

  • JWatts||

    But then you still have some whiny ass complaining that it's not fair because they had to leave their wife, kids, grandmother etc, behind. And then when they bring the family over, suddenly they qualify for welfare benefits.

  • John||

    I tell you how you fix it. Give them all ten year green cards. Tell every one of them they can come in and get a green card that is good for ten years. At the end of that ten years, you have a choice of passing a test and becoming a full citizen or going home. And let anyone who wants one have such a card and let them have ten years to work here and do what they want. But no welfare and you must become a citizen or leave after ten years. And if you get convicted of a crime while you are here, you are deported and never given another green card.

  • ||

    Lets give EVERY prospective immigrant a green card good for 10 years, not just the illegals.

  • johnl||

    It's true. OTOH, now, the employer pays to get the H1B, and it's not cheap. If you are going to pay up front for a worker, they have to be indentured. Make the H1B simpler to get, make the worker pay for it, and then let them negotiate their jobs just like everyone else.

  • John||

    Exactly. And if we did that, I suspect the demand for foreign engineers would go down.

  • johnl||

    It would make the market more flexible and transparent. I would expect more foreign workers. Now an employer needs to have a legal staff that knows the process, and needs to pay up front, so small and risk averse employers are discouraged.

  • kinnath||

    Nope, working with off-shore employes is way more difficult than anyone predicted. High-tech companies would hire immigrants by the boat load if the H1-B was reformed and made sense.

  • John||

    If they did, good for them.

  • johnl||

    Yes, but. Sometimes the people who get h1b are smarter than the people who are working offshore. Reforming the h1b might double the number of people who come in, and make their contracts less slave-like, but we can't bring in 10x as many people as we bring in now. There just aren't that many good people out there. And there is no need to legislate the limit.

  • GroundTruth||

    john1, thanks! We "Eddie Willers" of the world can do our part, but we do need the "Dagny Taggarts". Glad to know that I'm not the only one to see this.

  • ||

    Why should I care what the nationality of engineers and scientists are?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Because FURRIN INVASION.

  • aelhues||

    Furyan? Damn, when are they showing up. I might need to find another planet to move to.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You're thinking of the guys who killed all the Furyans.

  • aelhues||

    Necro's No. but that would suck too. Furyan's might not be into invasions, but if they were invading, I still wouldn't want to be here.

  • 34lbs||

    FUCKIN NECROS, that series started getting shit after Chronicles, though the new game was sick....

  • johnl||

    Because you think the only thing standing between you and a promotion is a foriegner who is smarter than you. But the reality is that smarter person is what keeps you from unemployment.

  • GroundTruth||

    Somehow we need the title "Restrictionists Are Big Labor's Dupes on Immigration" to get a bit of attention from the general press. Amazing how many people are blissfully unaware of the origin of the mess that we're in: self-serving unions playing into xenophobic bigotry.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Open borders for socialism!

  • Cytotoxic||

    Nothing says pro-capitalism like 'you can't hire these people because the beurocracy has deemed is so.'

  • John||

    All we need to create a free republic is to import millions of low skilled workers and put them on the welfare rolls.

    You would have a point if we could export every liberal. But we can't. So what happens is liberals are waiting to turn these people into a permanent dependent class. You can have welfare or open boarders. But you can't have both.

    Get rid of welfare, public schools and all of the other forces of tribalism in this country and then come talk to me about open boarders. Until that time, you are just signing your own political death warrent.

    What makes you think Hispanic immigrants are ever going to do anything but vote big government, especially after the public schools and the welfare department gets through with them?

  • MWG||

    Why do I have the feeling you would be all about teh immigrantz if they voted overwhelmingly for BIG RED?

  • John||

    Why do I have a feeling you are a fucking moron who doesn't understand the conversation. I don't give a shit what team they vote for. What I don't want is a permanent under class that votes free shit for itself.

    It is not like this hasn't happened in other places. The Labor party in Britain admits now that its immigration policies in the 1960s was designed to do just that.

    And beyond that, that is the whole argument you half wit, that Hispanics are going to vote big government and make the US look more like Mexico not less.

  • MWG||

    Touch a nerve?

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    Straw Man meet Straw Man argument.

    The point is that they dont. TEAM RED doesnt represent free stuff, plus they're racist.

  • 34lbs||

    John's argument makes sense, i disagree with it but there is a case for restricting immigration when you have social services, government built infrastructure and public schools, and.. you know.. obamacare. But in reality i think the effect would be minimal, immigrants come to work. and restricting access to education, regardless if it is public, is kind of immoral. But he's not making a strawman, and neither is Dalmia. There are two types of "restrictionists" (did he invent this term?), your standard racist reactionary who is scared of dem immigrants, and the ones who have a fairly good grasp of economics and the free rider problem.

  • 34lbs||

    Holy shit... Shikha Dalmia is a chick... lol.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    I'm not saying that John's argument is straw man, this is however:

    "Why do I have the feeling you would be all about teh immigrantz if they voted overwhelmingly for BIG RED?"

  • 34lbs||

    Yeah MWG is being a retard, the argument "you'd support x if they were on y's side" should be considered an argumentative fallacy. But what the hell is with the weird colour coding in American Politics, shouldn't Blue be for the right-wing, and Red for the left? That's how they do it everywhere else.

  • John||

    34lbs

    It comes from MSNBC and the 2000 presidential election. That year the ever lovely Ashley Banfield stood in front of this huge map of the US with all of the Gore states colored blue and the Bush states colored red throughout the entire election. And the color code just stuck.

  • 34lbs||

    That's really fucking stupid. Is yellow for libertarianism/classical liberalism at least?

  • tarran||

    That's really fucking stupid. Is yellow for libertarianism/classical liberalism at least?

    Sorry bud, we don't win elections, so we don't get a color.

    I think they use white for 'independent'.

  • KPres||

    Red symbolizes passion, blue symbolizes calm and reason. The choice of colors is a propaganda instrument employed by the left (see John's comment above).

  • 34lbs||

    If that's true that's some clever shit, works at a psychological level.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But what the hell is with the weird colour coding in American Politics, shouldn't Blue be for the right-wing, and Red for the left? That's how they do it everywhere else.

    This whole color coding bullshit is only ten or fifteen years old. Some media assholes thought it would be funny to label Rs with red and it just stuck.

  • JWatts||

    The weird aspect is that prior to 2000 or so Red and Blue were used but it was arbitrary. One news service would have red for democrats and blue for republicans and another would do it another way. And sometimes the colors would switch between elections.

    But somehow in 2000 it became fixed.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But in reality i think the effect would be minimal, immigrants come to work.

    No they don't.

    They immigrate to improve their lives.

    They'll choose to do so via welfare state parasitism, if they are able, the same that domestic poor will.

    To believe otherwise requires a belief that they are somehow superior to people that are already here. Which is racist.

  • 34lbs||

    Coming from personal experience (a fair bit of my filipino side work illegally.... Agorist up in this bitch), in a country that has more fruitful social services then the United States based on access (though we don't have food stamps), most aren't really bludgers, usually they have work arranged for them before hand.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I've lived and worked with immigrants my whole life. I've owned businesses for the last twenty years and employed a number of illegal immigrants along the way. In that time, I've seen a change in the people that have been coming here. Thirty years ago they were all the hard working stereotype. But in the mid nineties the government started giving benefits to illegals on humanitarian grounds and slowly the nature of the immigrants that I encountered changed, more and more were parasites and with Obama's depression a lot of the entrepreneurial ones have moved on leaving the parasits behind. And a lot of their kids (who are citizens) have slipped into the welfare dependent underclass.

    I don't know why that narrative should be controversial to libertarians. The truth is that welfare states are enormously destructive everywhere.

  • 34lbs||

    It's not, but i think the whole "they come here to tour social services" talking point is overblown, and i'm also kind of sick of hearing it because it is used repeatedly by the conservatives i have to work and study with so it just gives me a headache whenever i hear it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's not, but i think the whole "they come here to tour social services" talking point is overblown...

    Depends on where they live.

    It's definitely not overblown in CA now, but it would have been thirty years ago.

  • 34lbs||

    Well california's fucked up anyway, isn't the unemployment rate there like twice the national average.

  • Randian||

    Two wrongs don't make a right.

    The draw a parallel: I think more people may wind up on social services as a result of drug legalization, because I think you'll have more addicts.

    That doesn't mean that we get to hold liberty hostage until the welfare state goes away.

  • 34lbs||

    I don't think that argument will hold up well with restrictionists, because restrictionists also tend to be prohibitionists.

  • Randian||

    Alright:

    "We can't lower tax rates until the welfare system goes away"

  • tarran||

    "We can't lower tax rates until the welfare system goes away"

    Niiice! I like that one.

  • KPres||

    "Two wrongs don't make a right."

    No, but small wrongs are preferable to big wrongs.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The draw a parallel: I think more people may wind up on social services as a result of drug legalization, because I think you'll have more addicts.

    I doubt that there will be that many more completely dysfunctional addicts as a result of legalization.

    Increased usage does not equal more addiction does not equal more invalids.

    And even if you are right about increased addiction, on purely utilitarian grounds it would be cheaper and less damaging to deal with increased addiction than it is to fight the drug wars.

  • KPres||

    That doesn't mean that we get to hold liberty hostage until the welfare state goes away.

    The welfare state IS the breach of liberty. Look, you say more people will wind up on social services if you have drug legalization (I disagree, but for arguments sake I'll accept it). So how, then, does legalization advance liberty? Seems more like a transfer of liberty than anything. Drug users get more, tax payers get less. So arguing how you want to divide the tyranny is hardly "holding liberty hostage".

  • Randian||

    Well, taxes are the breach of liberty as well, but we can't lower them until the welfare system goes away.

    So how, then, does legalization advance liberty?

    You mean how does ceasing jailing people with decades prison sentences and a tacit admission by the State that people own their own bodies advance liberty?

    Gee willikers, I have no idea.

    And hey, just asking here, but since you are projecting (i.e. guessing) that more migrants will go on welfare and therefore breach your liberty, why aren't you advocating eugenics and abortions in the 'hood? What do you think the "projections" are vis-a-vis welfare with that generation, hm?

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    Yep, because this country is so much freer since Reagan gave millions of 3rd world immigrants citizenship....and voting rights.

  • Randian||

    You have a bit of a causation problem and a proof problem, but don't let that stop your ignorant nativism.

  • 34lbs||

    How much % of illegal immigration to the United States is coming south of the border?

  • Randian||

    Probably not as much as the race-baiters would have you believe.

    The most common form of "illegal immigration" is overstaying your visa. That's it.

    We all get this vision that it's about hordes of Mexicans streaming across a porous border, but it's just as much the Indian guy here to work who just decides to stay.

    And quite frankly, since I don't have any interest in the government demanding Ihre Papieren Bitte or tracking every single citizen, I really, really don't give a shit.

  • 34lbs||

    You think Illegal immigration from mexico seems overblown in US media? Here we have tied up parliament and the media in this whole "Refugee Question" (yeah, godwin's law up in this bitch), when refugees count for less than 1% of immigration, but the retardedly right wing channel 9 and their bogan (Aussie equivalent of a redneck) targeted ACA loved making it look like they are Coming in fleets of densely packed life boats from all da brown terrorist countries, when most are coming from south east asia, specifically east timor and malaysia... the place we occupied... twice.

  • Libertarius||

    At least you sound just like an American lefty asswipe. Score another one for Hollywood!

  • JWatts||

    According to the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS), an estimated 11.5 million unauthorized immigrants resided in the United States as of January 2011.

  • 34lbs||

    What percentage of them are from central and/or south america, and what percentage is that of overall immigration.

  • JWatts||

    According to OIS estimates, about 8.9 million unauthorized immigrants were born in North America (which includes Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and Canada). About 1.3 million were from Asia, 0.8 million from South America, 0.3 million from Europe, and 0.2 million from the remaining parts of the world. Mexico (59 percent), El Salvador (6 percent), and Guatemala (5 percent) were the top three countries of birth of the unauthorized immigrant population.

  • Azathoth!!||

    So what you're saying here is that Randian was incredibly wrong.

  • deffmike||

    Right, lift the visa cap so more American jobs are lost. Easy to be 100% free market when you don't have to worry about your own job.

  • Randian||

    You aren't entitled to use force to keep your job. If you aren't competitive, that's tough.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That would be more persuasive if the government was not actively destroying economic opportunity.

  • Randian||

    So it's supposed to make products artificially expensive for the benefit of this bozo?

    Hey, why not raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour. Then we'll all be rich.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    See above for my preferred proposal.

    His complaint is that the nature of the H1B makes that labor below market, which has negative effects for current employees.

  • Randian||

    No, his general complaint is that he doesn't want to compete in the labor market and will gladly use government to restrict it if he has to.

  • Azathoth!!||

    The government mandates wages and benefits for American workers. Illegal workers are not covered by that. The government forces American workers to compete at a disadvantage with illegals.

  • 34lbs||

    Work harder for less.. dumbass.

  • deffmike||

    Shit, why didn't I think of that? Sure why not spend spend 10's of 1000s of dollars on an education just to get a job working 16 hour days for the same rate of pay you could get at Burger king?

  • tarran||

    Yes... Why *didn't* you think of that?

    Who is stupid enough to spend thousands of dollars on an education that isn't going to increase their income?

    Seriously, what's wrong with you?

  • 34lbs||

    It sounds like he's using the labour theory of value, straight outta Marx and Engel's mouth... i couldn't resist making another strawman, they are just too fun....

  • 34lbs||

    You do realize how anti-market that argument is, don't expect the government to compensate you for making a stupid choice, the value of your labour is not based on how hard you trained, or how much time you spent in college, it's based on demand.

  • deffmike||

    Competitive? How exactly do you stay competitive against a foreign worker who gets paid between 4 bucks and 10 bucks an hour for something that at least used to require 4 years of college? Just so he can send all that money back home. Again, a lot of ideas sound great on paper until they affect you directly.

  • tarran||

    10 bucks an hour for something you need a college degree to do?

    Boy. You really must be a pathetic specimen of humanity.

    HAve you considered taking up the profession of Irish Rose drinker? You could fund it by holding placards up at intersections explaining that you're a pregnant Iraq vet with three kids to support.

  • deffmike||

    Well fuck-face it proves you don't know what your talking about when it comes to the reality of H1B visas

  • VG Zaytsev||

    They're completely opposed to government intervention in markets.

    Except when it comes to the indentured servitude of H1Bs. Then it's just great.

  • Randian||

    I'd rather eliminate them altogether. What's your answer? More drawbridges?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    See above for my preferred proposal.

    His complaint is that the nature of the H1B makes that labor below market, which has negative effects for current employees.

  • Randian||

    How exactly is that my problem?

    How exactly is it that you can justify me paying more for a product because you can't keep up?

    Creative destruction is a bitch, but you aren't entitled to point guns at people to keep your wages artificially high.

  • RightNut||

    Huh? You went to college and your job can be done by someone getting paid $10 an hour? Did you ever think that although a bachelors has become needed for employment in many fields, it is not necessary to do that job?

  • Libertarius||

    I still remain opposed to open borders nihilism.

    Believe it or not, the concept of the national borders (which means: property rights) includes a wider conceptual swath than that of immigration; our southern border country is a no man's land where anybody can smuggle anything into this country at any time, and a place where actual American citizens (ranchers, etc.) who live out there are having shootouts with smugglers and coyotes in their own barnyards. Curiously, such juicy stories are never reported in the lamestream media, including Reason; one might think they have an agenda...

    As to the argument on immigration, it is ridiculous to cite the europeans who came here 100+ years ago as an example relevant to today; the europeans who came here 100 years ago were *unanimously* NOT coming here for free shit, because there was no welfare state; they were heroic pioneers facing the dangers and opportunities of an unexplored continent.

    Today, the Obozo regime is advertising welfare programs on Mexican radio, and while I do not claim that all the illegal immigrants who come here are after free shit, the perverse incentive to do so is right there in front of your face. If this country is to have any future, we must first close the borders, and then dismantle the welfare/interventionist state. Open borders on the biggest welfare state in the world is not a "land of opportunity", it is a land of nihilists ringing the dinner bell for cannibals.

  • RightNut||

    Um, cannibals? really?

  • 34lbs||

    To rephrase you. "Ahh, the glorious white people who REMEMBER, AS IT SAYS IN THE CONSTITUTION, THE BOOK OF MORMON AND THE BIBLE, were promised this great land from shore to shore.. that includes hawaii, somalia and alaska, only came here to work and live as peaceful god fearing people, but now we got these disguisting brown catholic people coming here, who only want to come here to reap the benefits of our social security programs (which have origins in christian fundamentalism) and shoot ranchers and ruin drinking water, me and my brethren of the hood wont stand for it".. Yes i'm making a massive fucking strawman but you are still being a racist prick.

  • RightNut||

    Didn't someone further up say two wrongs don't make a right?

  • 34lbs||

    Yes, but i just couldn't resist making the comparison....

  • Libertarius||

    Hey faggot--I'm atheist, so don't try to lay that typical lefty psychologizing on me.

  • Azathoth!!||

    "me and my brethren of the hood wont stand for it"..

    So you're saying that black people don't like mexicans?

    Because, while Libertarius post said alot, it didn't mention race once.

  • tarran||

    national borders (which means: property rights)

    Dude, when you shit yourself with a non-sequitur straight out of the gate, you just look like a colossal idiot.

  • Libertarius||

    You protest too much. Border control is a corollary of national sovereignty, and national sovereignty is a corollary of the rule of law.

  • Calidissident||

    Except that you're not simply arguing for border control to maintain sovereignty. You're arguing to permanently keep people out of the country for arbitrary reasons

  • Libertarius||

    Until the American welfare state is ended (one way or another it is going to), there is nothing arbitrary about keeping the freegrazers off our land. These are the perverse incentives created by welfare statism, and as long I have to live under them I will choose the most logical.

  • Calidissident||

    Most people don't come here to live off welfare. And anyways, why are you so desperate to preserve the American welfare state? Your logic could be used to justify anything from sterilization and forced abortion of poor people, to subsidized birth control, micromanaging the lives of people to lower health care costs, etc. Why is immigration an exception?

  • Randian||

    the concept of the national borders (which means: property rights)

    Nope. The United States is not the Kingdom of the United States. This is why you fail.

    a place where actual American citizens (ranchers, etc.) who live out there are having shootouts with smugglers and coyotes in their own barnyards

    Then legalize immigration. The same problems you are having with the Drug War and other kinds of prohibitions are the ones you have here - violence and undesirable activity because if the illegality. So end Immigration Prohibition.

  • tarran||

    Just think, Randian, if people could get a $100.00 bus ticket from Mexico City to Denver, how many more shootouts ranchers would have in the with people footing it across the border. It would be a bloodbath!

  • Randian||

    Yeah, I'm sure the preference *isn't* to hoof it across the desert in the dead of night and have to give up your culo to some shitbag coyote every day.

    Coyotes, drug dealers, pimps (yes, tarran, I said it) act as loathsome individuals because they can. We should eliminate Immigration Prohibition and take the profit out of trafficking people/drugs/sex.

  • RightNut||

    you mean lower the profit right?

  • Randian||

    Yeah, I suppose I do.

    It's the margins are so egregious on illegal activity that you probably reduce it by 95%. But yes, that is what I meant.

  • Libertarius||

    You guys equate the concept of national sovereignty with monarchy, collectivism, and racism? National sovereignty is the concept of property rights applied to a nation that regards (its own) property rights and the rule of law as guiding principles.

    If there is no such thing as national sovereignty, then a Constitution or the rule of law is a pointless exercise, and we should renounce ourselves and our nation to the barbarism of whatever kind of Rothbardian or Chomskian or Mad Maxian weirdo commune you probably advocate...

    You like industrial civilization? Tough. Your mindless devotion to subjectivism--and to the nihilistic depravity it permits you to smuggle into serious conversation--is the antithesis of the rule of law. Without an iron clad system of rule of law and property rights, you will not keep the civilization you could not build, and the jungle is all you will deserve (or obtain).

    A nation that does not respect itself enough to observe and honor its own self-interest will not remain in existence; the same is true of any man.

  • Calidissident||

    "A nation that does not respect itself enough to observe and honor its own self-interest will not remain in existence"

    And there's the stated justification for every unlibertarian policy ever

  • Libertarius||

    End the welfare state before you end "immigration prohibition", asswipe; you guys have a footloose relationship with the law of causality.

  • 34lbs||

    Your argument about national borders being property based would stand if the entire population of the united states, homesteaded every single piece of land in the country, collectively, through development, then it would be the property of the american people, but then you'd be a bunch of commie collectivist scum bags and that's not the american spirit i've been exposed to. That space around the border, is, as you said, no man's land.

  • Bob Straub||

    Many people try to follow the official procedures for becoming a citizen. Many wait for years for the INS's slowly grinding wheels to process their applications.
    I favor open borders. I hope that it becomes easier, much easier, for people to come to the US on at least temporary work visas, and that it can lead to citizenship.
    I am also in favor of a way for "illegals" to become legal, without having to leave and reenter the country. I expect that there may be fines and other penalties involved.
    But I think that all those who have been following the rules and waiting should be processed first, and that their cases should be expedited.

  • XM||

    I'm always amused when I hear that immigration is a response to some sort of demand from employers or "free market".

    I think it's safe to assume that typical immigrants came here without being asked. They're not likely to settle in some mostly white mid westernish state (instead of ethnic enclaves like LA) because there's a demand for farming or something.

    If you're libertarian, what do you realistically benefit from immigration? Illegal Asian immigrants in So. Cal typically work in small restaurants and stores around Koreatown or OC. They don't have any unique skills that can apply to this country. If they did, not speaking English, having no appropriate license / seed money, or the fact that economy runs differently here renders that a moot point.

    They have no emotional attachment to Americana, like the second amendment or limited government. To them, the likes of you are weird people who loves deadly weapons and hates taxes. A massive OWS or tea party protest is just one of those things that happen. They'll vote for big government if it suits their needs. They'll exist in disparate coccon with little interest in reaching out to other groups or get involved emotionally in debates over the debt or the president declaring war somewhere without congressional approval.

  • Bob Straub||

    I don't know whether there's an explicit demand for immigrant workers, but based on a visit to Washington State this past Fall, there seems to be work for them. As we drove past many orchards in central WA, we could see fruit left on trees, in quantity. Since there was a drought in much of the Midwest last year, I have to believe there was a demand for WA's irrigated fruit. That fruit was left on the trees says to me that there weren't enough people at the right price (any reasonable price?) to pick it. There's a history of using migrant workers there. You can see many small villages of small cabins, obviously built to house temp workers.
    See also: http://seattletimes.com/html/l.....ethru.html

  • JeremyR||

    Yeah, but that's just a crutch.

    If there were no cheap labor to pick the stuff, there would automated solutions - machinery invented to pick it.

    Which would create high paid jobs, not lots of low paid ones.

  • Bob Straub||

    JeremyR: I would think that the scarcity of apples in the East and Midwest would have allowed orchard owners to pay more for pickers. But fruit didn't get picked, so there weren't enough local people available or willing to pick, there weren't enough migrants to do it, and there apparently aren't any automated solutions that owners are willing to pay for. From the Seattle Times article: "About 15 billion apples are picked in Washington each year, all by hand." and "Typically, about 70 percent of the state's farmworkers are in the country illegally. But many Mexican and other migrant workers stayed away this year after some states passed tougher immigration laws and the federal government cracked down." -- My point.
    I don't get the "crutch" metaphor. What's the crutch, and what is it assisting?

  • Azathoth!!||

    They can't pay locals what the illegal migrant workers get--it's against Washington State's liberal minimum wage laws. They can't afford to and still have cheap apples.

    What they pay the illegals is what the work is worth--but we have to work for what leftists think is a 'living wage'. We are priced out of the market before we even try to enter it.

  • Libertarius||

    You have to be able to contemplate the concept of borders beyond the concept of immigration; a country that does not respect its own property rights and national sovereignty enough to secure its borders, will not long remain a favorite destination for any immigrants who are actually worth a fuck--anyone ever heard of the "brain drain" that plagues welfare states?--and will instead attract looters and parasites.

    I am for 100% open immigration--in the absence of a welfare state and government intervention into the economy (most crucially in minimum wage laws and the income tax). As it stands, due to the regulations which are heaped on actual American citizens, every incentive exists to pay non-citizens while the actual citizens sit around rotting on welfare. It's bad news for everybody, but as it stands, you are allowing the forces of statist-collectivist destruction to have their cake and eat it too, to keep both their welfare state and an open border with which to increase its rolls.

    Open borders in the biggest welfare state in the world could not provide a better example of a country whose people have been brainwashed to hate themselves, hate the concept of property rights, to hate their freedom, and to hate their country. The concept of national sovereignty--and the honor to protect one's own--is not a symbol of jackbooted fascists or racism or whatever else you people have cooked up in your diseased minds.

  • RightNut||

    Is this guy for real? I kinda get the feeling we're being trolled.

  • Libertarius||

    I'm talking about reality and life on earth, hence your confusion.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't always agree with Stormy Dragon, but his/her post a few days ago about the "yes, but" libertarians was spot on

  • Libertarius||

    You are unprincipled nihilists posing as the height of purity, but you have nothing close to a rational philosophy beneath your colloquial ideology, which floats as a disintegrated cloud from left to right depending on which way the wind blows.

  • Calidissident||

    We're the unprincipled ones? And how the fuck am I a nihilist? Using big words you don't understand doesn't make you smart or superior. It makes you look even stupider.

  • Calidissident||

    It's remarkable how the subject of immigration so uniquely causes supposedly libertarian people to support collectivizing and stereotyping people, obedience to the law simply because it's the law, the notion that white Americans represent libertarianism, and the idea that people voting Democrat instead of Republican is the problem with the country. I especially enjoy John lecturing people about not grouping all Hispanics together in a thread where he does the exact same thing countless times. I am also confused as to why everyone blindly assumes that our current immigration laws are constitutional. I myself cannot find any clause that justifies them. (And no, naturalization is not the same thing as immigration)

  • MWG||

    Sigh... ^ this.

  • Sevo||

    Me, too.

  • johnl||

    Interstate commerce? General welfare? Necessary and proper? Am I getting warm?

  • ||

    Fresh shit certainly is warm, so yes.

  • ||

    Millions of newly certified Mexicans who have lost their fear of being deported will be celebrating in NYC and Chicago. Landlords will be yelling L’CHAIM, and employers will be yelling YOU’RE HIRED. Tequila will be flowing as swarms of Mexicans shout VIVA OBAMA.

  • ||

    The white Barber has become extinct; nobody wants to use high priced Barbers to mess with their hair when a Mexican or Asian can do the job at half price. African/American Barbers and beauticians stay away from white customers, they specialize in using a pound of Lye to cut and style a head of kinky hair. The first lady spends millions annually to keep her hair looking good, she has her private beauty salon with dozens of employees. The natural looking full blown Afro or Fuzzy Wuzzy once drove the Ghetto Barbers out of business; Angela Davis the revolutionary was famous for her Fuzzy Wuzzy.

  • ||

    Welfare recipients are not tolerated in Mexico unemployment rates are way down at only 4%, the laziest parasites are given enough Peso`s to survive for 90 days and then booted out to Norte America. It is estimated that over 25 million Mexican undesirables have been forced to leave in the last 20 years. Ten million American citizens who have been tired of being unemployed have left to work at the 70.000 US companies that have relocated to Mexico.

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