Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Migration Package Deal
Megan McArdle is still against a guest worker program:
What will we do with pregnant guest workers? For three to six months, at least, they won't be working. They'll need health care; who will provide it? Will we force companies to provide their guest workers health care, which will make them uneconomical compared to other low-skilled labor, or will the taxpayer foot the bill? Do we ship them home? Do we rewrite our constitution to exclude their babies from citizenship.
That's one troubling question. Here's another: do we let the guest workers date and marry American citizens, as they will? Because if we do, we'll find a lot of our guests have become permanent members of the household.
These are hard questions, so I'm going to avoid them. Economist Lant Pritchett answers them better than I can in an interview in the February issue of reason, but he also recognizes that the details of any such plan don’t matter nearly as much as most of us think they do.
Here's why: Citizenships are club memberships you happen to be born with. Some clubs, like the Norway club, have truly awesome benefits. Others, like the Malawi club, offer next to none. Membership in each club is kept limited by club members, who understandably worry about the drain on resources that new members might represent. Wishing the U.S. would extend more memberships in 2008 isn’t going to get you very far.
Conceptually, for whatever reason, most of us are in a place where we think labor market access and citizenships ought to be bundled. A Malawian can’t come work here, we think, without the promise of a club membership, which is nearly impossible to get. This is an incredibly damaging assumption for two reasons: (1) memberships are essentially fixed in wealthy democratic societies (2) uneven labor market access is a major cause of global inequality. Decoupling the two leads to massive gains, as we see in Singapore, without the need to up memberships.
Here’s another way to think about it: Clubs have positive duties toward their members, including those of the welfare state. But the negative duty not to harm outsiders exists prior to clubs, and denying people the ability to cooperate with one another violates their rights in a very basic way. Our current policy is one of coercively preventing cooperation. In saying “we can’t let people into this country unless we confer upon them all the rights and duties of citizenship,” you are saying that we need to violate their right to move freely and cooperate unless we can give them welfare benefits. But that’s backwards.
This is why humanitarian economists can be enthusiastic about even a tiny guest worker program; the bundling of labor market access and citizenship is an obvious obstacle to global prosperity. Establishing the two as distinct matters.
So will we send home pregnant guest workers? I hope not, but maybe. Will we force companies to provide health insurance for young, healthy people who come here wanting to work? Probably. Will we allow guest workers to marry Americans? I don’t see why not. But none of these concerns comes close to justifying a system that locks people into poverty and out of our labor markets based on conditions of birth.
Jennifer|12.27.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Will we allow guest workers to marry Americans? I don't see
why not.
I'd've worded the question the opposite way: "Will we allow
Americans to marry guest workers?", mainly because I'd then enjoy
watching the squirming of the pro-American patriots trying to
explain why they'd refuse to let their countrymen marry the love of
their life.
Brandybuck|12.27.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Why would anyone with a brain prefer illegal migrants to guest workers?
|12.27.07 @ 12:37PM|#
But the negative duty not to harm outsiders exists prior to
clubs, and denying people the ability to cooperate with one another
violates their rights in a very basic way.
So - where should I have the fruit salad delivered?
Oy!
Jennifer|12.27.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Why would anyone with a brain prefer illegal migrants to
guest workers?
Availability? When the number of illegal immigrants you can hire is
"infinite" while the number of available guest workers is "zero," I
can see how hiring a flesh-and-blood employee would be preferable
to dreaming of an imaginary one.
|12.27.07 @ 12:38PM|#
Why would anyone with a brain prefer illegal migrants to
guest workers?
Not saying they have a brain, but these are the people who harbor
fantasies of 20-foot-tall concrete ramparts along every inch of the
border.
Brian Sorgatz|12.27.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Not saying they have a brain, but these are the people who
harbor fantasies of 20-foot-tall concrete ramparts along every inch
of the border.
Let's ask today's Germans what they think of the idea. They have
such lovely cold war memories of border walls.
x,y|12.27.07 @ 12:53PM|#
Citizenship is nothing like a club, unless of course you mean a club that you can't opt out of with forced/coerced membership dues.
x,y|12.27.07 @ 12:55PM|#
These are hard questions, so I'm going to avoid them.
Not the best way to convey you have anything intelligent to
say.
thoreau|12.27.07 @ 1:01PM|#
Kerry-
I guess I see the point that a guest worker program is a lesser
evil compared to simply not letting people in. I would say this,
though: A guest worker program should allow guest workers to change
jobs, and they should be able to quit their current job and live
off savings until they find a new one. They shouldn't have to get a
new job on the same day in order to retain their visa.
Without that element of mobility, guest workers will be hostages to
their employers. And that has all sorts of bad implications.
Indeed, it might even be worse than illegal immigration. An illegal
immigrant might not have much bargaining power in the marketplace,
but since the INS doesn't know who he is they won't be dragging him
away if he decides to look for a new job. A guest worker, OTOH,
will be on the radar and unable to shop around.
jtuf|12.27.07 @ 1:04PM|#
But the negative duty not to harm outsiders exists prior to
clubs, and denying people the ability to cooperate with one another
violates their rights in a very basic way.
If there is going to be a quest worker program instead of increased
citizenship quotas, then this is a good rule of thumb.
|12.27.07 @ 1:05PM|#
"These are hard questions, so I'm going to avoid
them."
Say what?!
"Will we force companies to provide their guest workers health
care, which will make them uneconomical compared to other
low-skilled labor, or will the taxpayer foot the bill?"
As consumers have to foot the bill for the difference in labor
costs, I can see how it might behoove most of us if the taxpayers
footed the bill. ...especially considering how much of the tax bill
is paid by a small group at the top.
In a perfect world, there wouldn't be any taxpayer funded health
care. Of course, this isn't a perfect world, and the woefully
imperfect solution of denying health care based on the recipient's
national origin would seem to suggest that being born in the United
States entitles someone to free health care. ...a suggestion that
makes me want to retch.
BTW, isn't there some kind of prohibition against the government
discriminating against people because of their national origin?
very modest proposal|12.27.07 @ 1:12PM|#
As part of the free health care the illegals get, maybe we
should include a complimentary D&C when they come over the
border?
I'd prefer open borders with no state freebies, myself.
|12.27.07 @ 1:13PM|#
If you're all hell-bent on increasing labor mobility, why have
"guest worker" programs at all? Why not just negotiate treaties
that provide for reciprocal migration rights, and a basic set of
legal, property and economic rights between the countries
effected?
If folks from other countries have a "right" (a dubious proposition
in itself) to seek employment in the US, why wouldn't US citizens
equally have the right to do the same in other countries? And if
that's the case, wouldn't it be the US government's responsibility
to attempt to secure those rights for it's citizens as well?
thoreau|12.27.07 @ 1:18PM|#
First, she didn't actually dodge the question. She joked about
dodging the question, but then she cited a reference for the
answers.
Second, to Pig Mannix: I hear this complaint about reciprocity all
the time from people who want very strict limits on immigration.
Are you really that hell-bent on working in Mexico?
<i>REASON</i> Commenter|12.27.07 @ 1:23PM|#
Why does anyone care what Megan McArdle thinks about
anything?
She reminds me of a "learned horse" from a 19th Century
carnival.Wow!, she can count and add and subtract! You take away
the "horse" part and it's like ...So what?
|12.27.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Second, to Pig Mannix: I hear this complaint about
reciprocity all the time from people who want very strict limits on
immigration. Are you really that hell-bent on working in
Mexico?
No, but I wouldn't mind retiring there. And whether or not I'd
personally work there, there are certainly people who would want
to.
But you still avoided the question, so we'll try again - if
migration to other countries is a "right", why should it apply only
to foreign nationals, but not to US citizens? And since when is the
business of a nation's government to secure the rights of
non-citizens, while neglecting to do the same for it's own
citizens?
|12.27.07 @ 1:27PM|#
In saying "we can't let people into this country unless we
confer upon them all the rights and duties of citizenship," you are
saying that we need to violate their right to move freely and
cooperate unless we can give them welfare benefits. But that's
backwards.
You are exactly correct here.
Another way to look at it is that individual rights are fundamental
while citizenship is derivative. The rights to migrate and labor
are among those inalienable rights that governments are instituted
to secure. But citizenship is a pragmatic institution designed
primarily to deal with issues of national sovereignty and
international law and secondarily to deal with the selection of the
government's constitution and officials.
Free migration for any who want to work temporarily or permanently
in the US should be the normal state of affairs. The question is
whether and how to offer citizenship to immigrant workers. A happy
medium needs to be found, and that medium will necessarily be
pragmatic. I'm not terribly concerned. As far as I can tell, the US
has done a pretty good job of handing out citizenship so far in its
history.
|12.27.07 @ 1:28PM|#
And since when is the business of a nation's government to
secure the rights of non-citizens, while neglecting to do the same
for it's own citizens?
I take it you don't believe in unilateral free trade either.
|12.27.07 @ 1:33PM|#
I take it you don't believe in unilateral free trade
either.
No. "Unilateral free trade" is an oxymoron. If only one partner has
the ability to choose freely, then by definition it's not free
trade.
And you didn't answer the question, either.
thoreau|12.27.07 @ 1:36PM|#
if migration to other countries is a "right", why should it
apply only to foreign nationals, but not to US citizens?
I think the Mexicans would do well to allow greater labor mobility
and greater participation in their economy by foreigners. However,
since I don't vote for Mexico's government I focus my attention on
the policies of my government, and I think my government would also
do well to allow greater labor mobility, allow greater economic
participation by foreigners (for the mutual benefit of all parties
to the transaction), and respect the right of American businessmen
to hire people whom they wish to hire regardless of nationality. I
think America's government would do well to allow these things
irrespective of what other governments do. If another government
doesn't want to take these steps toward a more dynamic economy,
that's their loss, and I see no reason why we should follow their
lead.
|12.27.07 @ 1:40PM|#
Ken Shultz wanted to know, "isn't there some kind of prohibition
against the government discriminating against people because of
their national origin?"
If that were so, then no visitor, legal or illegal, could ever be
deported.
There is this: ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1).
That applies to States and, by derivation, to localities; it does
not apply to Feds. Still, it would seem to invalidate a whole lot
of local prohibitions against renting to illegals, etc.
I'm a seer; I see a future court decision -- very flowery language
that boils down to "the Constitution couldn't mean what it actually
says, because we have such a great need for it not to."
|12.27.07 @ 1:43PM|#
I agree with MikeP.
No, really...
Not giving full citizenship to everybody worked pretty damn well
for the Romans. One of the many factors contributing to the fall of
Western Rome was that they started offering full citizenship to
everybody, which kind of screwed up their whole societal
structure...
Brandybuck|12.27.07 @ 1:45PM|#
What benefits do I gain by being a citizen? I can think of only
one: The privilege to vote. That's all I can think of. Even legal
residents can get welfare and social security, so I don't even have
the benefit of members-only largesse.
I think that's why many people come here illegally, there's just no
point in migrating legally.
x,y|12.27.07 @ 1:46PM|#
I'm not sure Kerry was joking about not answering the hard questions. If so, it was lost on me.
TLB|12.27.07 @ 1:47PM|#
Kerry Howley: I think about this with my brain. I realize that's
probably difficult for you, so can I suggest finding some really
smart people who can help you figure these things out? You might
have to pay them a few bucks, but at least you won't embarrass
yourself so much.
Those smart people will clue you in to what's called "The Left" and
"The Democratic Party". They'll push for "guests" to become voters
in order to obtain power. In fact, those smart people can point out
to Howley that that's what the Dems are doing
now.
So, even under the best libertarian/crypto-corporatist scheme,
those who have power will compare the
libertarian scheme to SouthAfrica in order to give them voting
rights. They might even threaten violence in our
streets without such rights. And, the MexicanGovernment won't
just be satisfied with getting money out of the deal, they'll want
power. They've even explicitly stated that they're going to
be using U.S. nonprofits to push their agenda inside the
U.S.
The bottom line is the Howley, McArdle, and MattY have absolutely
no clue about this issue. But, at least they're helping discredit
themselves and their publications, so we've got that upside.
|12.27.07 @ 1:48PM|#
If another government doesn't want to take these steps
toward a more dynamic economy, that's their loss, and I see no
reason why we should follow their lead.
All very nice, but the proposition here is that migration is a
"right".
That being the case, is it not the responsibility of the US
government to be securing the rights of it's citizens?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
--Declaration of Independence
Sulla|12.27.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Taxtix-
I'm much more familiar with middle to late Republic Rome (hence the
name), but my impression was that Western Rome in the Middle to
Late Empire relied too heavily on non-citizen soldiers. Is that
impression completely incorrect? Was it that they were offering
citizenship to the inhabitants of the fringes of the Empire and
then sticking them in the army before they were truly part of the
civitas?
|12.27.07 @ 1:59PM|#
it was lost on me
Not the best way to convey that you have anything intelligent to
say, xy!
I respond to the questions line by line in the last paragraph,
though I'm sure quite a few people will have jumped ship by then.
It's a long post.
|12.27.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Isn't it that the soldiers prior to that had to be land owners? That was relaxed and all were encouraged to be soldiers, with land given to them for serving. This land was often the spoils of war. The problem was that the soldiers became more faithful to the general that started this practice than to the state.
|12.27.07 @ 2:02PM|#
"But none of these concerns comes close to justifying a system
that locks people into poverty and out of our labor markets based
on conditions of birth."
That is a facinating and probably unintentionally revealing
comment. If a nation cannot control its borders, then how is it a
nation in any sense of the word? The right to control entry and
access is fundemental to the concept of the nation. Although Howley
probably doesn't realize it and if she did wouldn't admit it, what
she is really arguing against is the concept of a nation. Liberals
want a world government and libertarians want a world market. But
the idea that there is such a thing as the United States that is
exceptional and worth sacrificing for goes away.
I really think that is going to be the political split and conflict
in the 21st century. It will be the conflict between nationalists
like me who believe in the country and concept of national
sovereignty and transnationalists like Howley whose loyalties lie
in either the market or in the case of left wingers, transnational
organizations like the UN.
|12.27.07 @ 2:03PM|#
Sulla,
I'm not totally sure about the military, but I know they often
waved the citizenship carrot to put an easy end to slave riots and
provincial revolts, especially when the army became stretched to
thinly.
This lead to an overpopulation in the cities when these new
"citizens" also had their land taken to appease unruly patricians,
who were growing out of control as well. They simply showed up at
the gates and requested their citizenship bread...
However, this occurred more in the areas closer to Rome. Out toward
the border, you're right, they were pressing newly conquered
peoples into military service. But one can go on and on, as there
were throngs of reasons for the empire's decline...
|12.27.07 @ 2:07PM|#
EDIT: when these new "citizens" also had their land taken to
appease unruly patricians the citizen soldiers
"brotherben" is talking about
Sorry, I think I got two different eras confused. It's been a
while...
|12.27.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Taktix,
I think the current view of the fall of Rome in the west is to
equate it to something like the fall of the Soviet Union. The
central authority of Rome went away and the local authorities
steped in to take its place. European culture did not decline so
much as it's horizons shrunk. The world elite class that existed
under Rome that allowed say Augustine in the 4th Century to
communicate freely with his colleges in Milan went away. Things
became much more local and less cosmopolitan. But, culture and
learning did not disapear during the dark ages as we are lead to
believe in school.
Tacos mmm...|12.27.07 @ 2:21PM|#
However, this occurred more in the areas closer to Rome. Out toward the border, you're right, they were pressing newly conquered peoples into military service. But one can go on and on, as there were throngs of reasons for the empire's decline...
The problem is that Rome has become a scrying glass for subsequent
Western civilizations attempting to read their own fates. As much
as we have in common with the Romans, the differences are greater,
and it's probably best if we stop drawing crude parallels.
|12.27.07 @ 2:23PM|#
All very nice, but the proposition here is that migration is
a "right".
Yes, it is a fundamental human right.
That being the case, is it not the responsibility of the US
government to be securing the rights of it's citizens?
Absolutely, I would agree that the US government ought to be trying
to open up other countries to free migration for US citizens. But
this is not an argument for reciprocity - it's an argument that
other governments ought to do what's morally right as well.
For example, imagine another country has some clearly immoral law -
say lashing a woman who is seen associating with a man who isn't
her husband - and a US citizen ends up running afoul of that law in
that country and is so sentenced. I would certainly hope the US
government would bring all the pressure it could on that country to
prevent such barbarism. However, it is also clear that the US would
not be justified or acting morally to tell that other
country that until it changes its laws we will impose the same
punishment on women of that country when they are in US.
Reciprocity is not the measure of human rights. I would think such
a notion is obvious.
Timothy|12.27.07 @ 2:26PM|#
I think the most wrong thing in the parade of shame that is
McArdle's post is this little nugget:
Cultures have some right to preserve themselves
First of all, that wrongly treats a "culture" as some kind of
entity with the ability to make decisions instead of as the sum of
the biases of all the individual participants. That's just foolish
collectivism. Secondly, if you interpret it with what I think is a
correct perspective on what a culture is (that is, the sum of the
actions/biases/preferences of some arbitrary group of people), it
implies that people have some right to preserve their biases.
That seems pretty ridiculous: people have a right to be left alone,
but no positive right to have their preference for English road
signs and bland, midwestern food preserved by keeping millions of
brown people destitute poor. Some dude named Jose moving in across
the street, opening a Taqueria and having a quincenera for his
daughter doesn't exactly violate anybody's property rights or the
NAP, so I'm having a real problem coming up with exactly what the
problem is. I also don't think it matters if Jose opens his own
Taqueria or works in a shoe factory or whatever, since when does
trying to better one's station in the world make one some kind of
deplorable criminal?
Sulla|12.27.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Isn't it that the soldiers prior to that had to be land
owners? That was relaxed and all were encouraged to be soldiers,
with land given to them for serving. This land was often the spoils
of war. The problem was that the soldiers became more faithful to
the general that started this practice than to the
state.
Again, I'm more familiar with the middle to late Republic, but that
sounds more like the reforms instituted by Gaius Marius in 107 B.C.
In response to the threat of invasion by the "Germanic" tribes, he
did away with land ownership requirements, allowing Roman citizens
of the lower classes (the "head count") to enlist. This did have an
effect on the soldiers because it allowed the generals to promise
land to them. A general could use that promise of land to create
greater loyalty. It was this loyalty that allowed the next few
generations of generals (Marius, Sulla, Pompey and Julius Caesar,
among others) to create a cult of personality and exceed the powers
of the office of Consul and/or Dictator. However, you could also
argue that it was the instrangience of the Senate to grant the land
that led to soldiers viewing land as a gift from the general who
"fought" the Senate to ensure that his "boys" got their just
reward, instead of a payment from the State to thank its citizens
for their loyal service. So, by the end of the Western empire,
soldiers had not been required to own land for almost six hundred
years.
|12.27.07 @ 2:30PM|#
"That seems pretty ridiculous: people have a right to be left
alone, but no positive right to have their preference for English
road signs and bland, midwestern food preserved by keeping millions
of brown people destitute poor. "
That assumes that the people in the midwest minding their own
business are somehow responsible for keeping "millions of brown
people poor". What a bunch of leftist horseshit that is. What is
keeping people poor is their own ignorance and fucked up
governments. We have nothing to do with it. Further, why is it that
people here are somehow obliged to give up their quality of life so
that other people can escape their own disfunctional countries
rather than fix them. Migrationists like Howley and you are nothing
but dupes for assholes like Carlos Slim. YOu take the starving
masses and in return they get to run their countries in the ground
and steal millions with no consiqences because if anyone doesn't
like it they just leave and come here. We are not doing the world
any favors by taking in its poor. The sollution is to fix the
countries from which these people come.
|12.27.07 @ 2:31PM|#
Yes, it is a fundamental human right.
I would tend to agree that no person should be forced to live in a
particular place, so I think I agree that the right to leave is a
fundamental right. IOW, the local authorities should not be able to
force you to stay.
However, this is not the same as saying that you should have the
right to go anywhere you want. I'm not sure I'm willing to accept
that extension of the right to leave. The right to exclude is the
fundamental property right, for example, that would seem
inconsistent with a universal human right to go anywhere you
want.
The degree to which the right to exclude scales up from individual
property owners to collectives like governments is a contentious
issue on this board, but I'm not yet convinced that governments
should have no controls over their borders whatsoever.
|12.27.07 @ 2:34PM|#
"However, this is not the same as saying that you should have
the right to go anywhere you want. I'm not sure I'm willing to
accept that extension of the right to leave. The right to exclude
is the fundamental property right, for example, that would seem
inconsistent with a universal human right to go anywhere you
want."
RC it is a fundemental sovereign right of nations. People like
Howley don't beleive in the nation state anymore. If you don't
beleive in the concept of a national sovereignty, then the US has
no more right to prevent someone from Mexico or Norway moving here
than Maryland has a right to keep someone from California moving
there.
highnumber|12.27.07 @ 2:41PM|#
I respond to the questions line by line in the last
paragraph, though I'm sure quite a few people will have jumped ship
by then. It's a long post.
YOWZA! Did that sting a little, x,y?
Kerry,
It's also a great post.
Timothy|12.27.07 @ 2:49PM|#
John - If you're definition of "Quality of life" is "not living
next door to somebody who's brown and speaks Spanish" you're even
more pathetic than I'd presumed. Exactly how are they "stealing
millions" by participating in the free exchange of labor for money?
I wasn't aware that willing exchaning one's labor for pay was a
form of theft, please enlighten the class on your new theories of
property, I'm sure they're quite intriguing.
It's also pretty cute that you still think we can "fix" other
countries by keeping people from leaving them. Man, that sure
worked out for East Germany didn't it? How's that whole "keep
people in Cuba for prosperity's sake" thing coming along?
As to how it's the midwest's fault? By voting for politicians who
want to do whatever is needed to keep poor people from other
countries out so that ignorant bigots won't have to suffer through
listening to Tejano music during block parties and eating the
occasional tamale. That's how. And you, John, you're a piece of
work: You complain about illegals because they "break our laws" and
you complain about proposals to make sure people don't have to
break laws to come here and work. I'm starting to think there's
more going on with you John. I'll give you a hint: it starts with R
and rhymes with bassist.
VM|12.27.07 @ 2:52PM|#
"I'll give you a hint: it starts with R and rhymes with
bassist."
um...
I'll take "outer planets" for three hundred, please.
|12.27.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Yes, it is a fundamental human right.
Really? From where is it derived, and in what nation on earth has
it ever been recognized?
thoreau|12.27.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Well, if somebody finds a private employer who's willing to hire him, a private landlord who's willing to rent to him, and a private store that's willing to sell him food, I'm pretty sure that government stepping in and trying to stop that violates all sorts of fundamental rights from a libertarian perspective.
Timothy|12.27.07 @ 2:55PM|#
VM- The answer is: I orbit the sun and recently lost my stature as a real planet. I was, in fact, built by a kindly old man in his woodshop then placed into orbit. Disney named a dog after me.
Tacos mmm...|12.27.07 @ 2:57PM|#
That assumes that the people in the midwest minding their own business are somehow responsible for keeping "millions of brown people poor". What a bunch of leftist horseshit that is. What is keeping people poor is their own ignorance and fucked up governments.
If you view "the people" as a faceless, amorphous mass, then you
are probably right, although I would be more likely to blame a
broader base of institutions than simply the government. However,
with reference to some specific individuals, US immigration policy
_is_ helping to keep them poor by preventing them from coming to
this country and taking higher-paying jobs.
Further, why is it that people here are somehow obliged to give up their quality of life so that other people can escape their own disfunctional countries rather than fix them.
No one is asking you to give up your quality of life. How is my
hiring a Guatalmalan immigrant to mow my hard interfering with your
quality of life?
YOu take the starving masses and in return they get to run their countries in the ground and steal millions with no conseqences because if anyone doesn't like it they just leave and come here. We are not doing the world any favors by taking in its poor.
But we are doing ourselves a favor. We've always taken the world's
poor, and done it to our own benefit.
|12.27.07 @ 2:58PM|#
RC it is a fundemental sovereign right of
nations.
Sure, and the Confederate States of America thought slavery was a
right of sovereignty. Could the CSA's sovereignty rights trump the
individual humans it wished to hold as slaves?
Obviously not. Fundamental human rights trump whatever "rights" you
wish to assign to a government. Governments (e.g. states) are
creations of man and cannot be created to take away that which is
fundamental to the individual (i.e. the only true rights are
individual rights).
|12.27.07 @ 3:06PM|#
Really? From where is it derived
Well, it is fundamental so you shouldn't have to derive it from
anything. What is the opposite - that you can be forcibly contained
in a prescribed area by other people? That seems pretty
fundamentally wrong on its face. But, you can derive it from
freedom of association if you must. I should be free to associate
with whomever I wish - and that includes working for, hiring,
selling to, buying from, renting from or to, etc., etc. In order
from that freedom of association to mean anything the people in
question must be free to move about (and yes, that still leaves the
right of a property owner to exclude the individual from property
he actually owns).
|12.27.07 @ 3:08PM|#
Timothy,
First person to call the other one racist is generally the loser of
the argument. Too bad you are not smart enough to argue on your own
terms and have to resort to name calling. Keep working at it
though, maybe someday you will get better and be a little smarter
than you are today.
Quality of life has nothing to do with the color of the people but
the number of people. I don't want to live in a country of a
billion or 500 million. There are too many people here now. If you
had open borders, that is what we would have.
Further, if all things were equal and the US had the same welfare
state as Mexico, which is to say no welfare state, then open
borders would be ideal. But that is not the case and the welfare
state is not going away.
As far as economically, this country should have immigration, but
it needs the right kind of immigration. It is a myth that the US
has always been a dumping ground for unskilled labor. The waves of
immigrants who came here in the 19th century were highly skilled
for their time. They were tradesman and farmers who filled a need.
We need immigration of the world's best and brightest, not the
worlds uneducated and desperate. The influx of unskilled labor is a
net looser for everyone but the unskilled.
" Low Levels of Education Create Deficit. The findings of this
study show that the primary reason illegal households create a
fiscal deficit at the federal level is that their much lower levels
of education result in low incomes and tax payments that are only
28 percent that of other households. Thus, even though the costs
they impose are estimated to be only 46 percent those of other
households on average, there remains a significant net deficit.
Whether one considers their use of services low is a matter of
perspective. Because illegals are not even supposed to be in the
country, many Americans are angered by the fact that they receive
any services at all. This is especially true of transfers to
households like food stamps or cash payments from the Child Tax
Credit. Although many Americans are upset about their use of public
services, there is little evidence that illegals come to America to
take advantage of public benefits. Most illegal aliens come for
jobs, and the vast majority are in fact employed. But low levels of
education mean they unavoidably create large costs for taxpayers.
"
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalconclusion.html
We have every right as a country to determine who moves here. If
the Pakistani PHD engineer wants to come here, I say come on in.
100 million low skilled workers who can barely make minimum wage,
no thank you. Further, the influx of cheap labor makes labor
cheaper in relation to capital. This lowers productivity and
overall wealth. More expensive labor means more investment in
capital and higher productivity and higher wages and standard of
living.
|12.27.07 @ 3:12PM|#
Brian Courts,
If you can't control your borders than you are not a country
anymore. To equate controlling borders to slavery is so histrionic
and ignorant it boggles the mind.
Further, why don't you try to assert these rights in Mexico
sometime? See how long it is before they kick you out. I actually
would support amnesty if the Mexican government would agree to take
any American who wanted to move there as a citizen with full
rights. Mexico is a nice country. The influx of Americans would
totally change the corrupt political culture and make it more like
here. All for the better. Of course, the Mexicans would never do
that because it would take the elites out of power.
|12.27.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Brian Courts,
I see what you are saying and it is not an unreasonable position. I
just disagree with it. But, you ought to admit that the
consiquences of that which is that there is no such thing as a
nation state and that no one in the US has any right to claim that
their interests are any more important than anyone else's interest.
It is world market rather than world government. No thank you.
x,y|12.27.07 @ 3:18PM|#
I respond to the questions line by line in the last paragraph, though I'm sure quite a few people will have jumped ship by then. It's a long post.
YOWZA! Did that sting a little, x,y?
Not at all. I didn't argue or suggest Kerry had nothing to say.
Just that starting her post that way isn't the best way to convey
she has anything intelligent to say. Her rejoinder misses the
mark.
As to Ms. Howley's snark: I read the post several times. It's not
clear to me you were kidding at the outset. Also, I'm not the only
one who thought so (see Ken Shultz's post at 1:05 p.m.).
|12.27.07 @ 3:19PM|#
We need immigration of the world's best and brightest, not
the worlds uneducated and desperate.
I suppose we should rub away that "Give us your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses yearning to be free" statement from the Statue
of Liberty and replace it with John's asinine statement above in
italics...
|12.27.07 @ 3:23PM|#
Why is it assine TAktix, because you don't like it? Why don't we let in the entire Shia population of Iraq then? And how about the entire population of the West Bank while we are at it. My guess is that a very large portion of those two populations would like nothing better than a visa to the US. If borders should be open, they ought to be open no? Does immigration mean open borders or just Mexican the amoral corporate right can exploit?
|12.27.07 @ 3:24PM|#
To equate controlling borders to slavery is so histrionic
and ignorant it boggles the mind.
I didn't equate those two. The point of the analogy was to show
that individual rights trump a nation's "rights". Not understanding
how analogies work is so ignorant it boggles the mind.
x,y|12.27.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Who cares what the Statue of Liberty says, doesn't say, or should say. The question is if it's moral to restrict human movement based upon where one is born.
|12.27.07 @ 3:25PM|#
No making stupid and histrionic analgies is stupid Brian. But again, your position is not unreasonable, just unrealistic. But you ought to at least have the intellectual honesty to admit its consiquences, which is namely the death of national sovereignty as we know it and with it the end of the United States in anything but name.
x,y|12.27.07 @ 3:26PM|#
John,
We should let anyone in who wants to come. Period. Once here, if
any one of them (or a group of them) start infringing on my
individual rights, then bang them over the head.
Timothy|12.27.07 @ 3:27PM|#
John,
Sometimes a spade is a spade. And I'll just keep in mind that
"leftist horseshit" and "Migrationists like Howley and you are
dupes" don't count as namecalling. I'll keep that in mind, and then
I'll be sure to take my netiquette lessons from you, Eric Dondero,
and Billy Beck III.
The waves of immigrants who came here in the 19th century were highly skilled for their time. They were tradesman and farmers who filled a need.
So you're saying that the people who come here to work currently
don't fill a need? There's no need for them, the people who employ
them just do so for no productive reason at all? Just on a whim
then? And you think the potato famine only displaced merchants,
hatters, cobblers? I'm sure only the upper crust were displaced by
the potato famine, I'm sure that's exactly who got on crowded ships
for a three week journey across the Atlantic. C'mon, haven't you
seen Gangs of New York?
Also, why the fuck am I arguing with you? That's joe's job. JOE!
I've immigrated to your place in H&R and I'm arguing with John.
I've displaced you, dude, and now I'm doing it for free and like
taking your healthcare and stuff! You'd better come hit me with a
tire iron before I open up a taqueria!
|12.27.07 @ 3:29PM|#
"We should let anyone in who wants to come. Period. Once here,
if any one of them (or a group of them) start infringing on my
individual rights, then bang them over the head."
What if they come here and say they want to have a completly
different culture and government? They live here to don't they?
What if they don't agree with the concept of individual rights? Who
says they have to play by your rules? They have a right to come
here, they ought to also then have a right to determine how things
are done.
Rhywun|12.27.07 @ 3:32PM|#
because I'd then enjoy watching the squirming of the
pro-American patriots trying to explain why they'd refuse to let
their countrymen marry the love of their life.
Well, many of them have had lots of practice lately telling gays
the same thing. I don't think they'd sweat it.
GinSlinger|12.27.07 @ 3:33PM|#
John,
Your history is so unreal, I don't even know where to begin in
correcting you. How 'bout we start with JamesTown in 1607 and work
our way forward?
|12.27.07 @ 3:35PM|#
"So you're saying that the people who come here to work
currently don't fill a need? There's no need for them, the people
who employ them just do so for no productive reason at all? Just on
a whim then? And you think the potato famine only displaced
merchants, hatters, cobblers? I'm sure only the upper crust were
displaced by the potato famine, I'm sure that's exactly who got on
crowded ships for a three week journey across the Atlantic. C'mon,
haven't you seen Gangs of New York?"
I actually read history books as opposed to getting it from
Hollywood. The Irish were not the ignorent rubes portrayed by the
Engish establishment. They were farmers and did have skills.
Moreover, there was an entire continent to fill. This is not the
19th Century. Yes, illegal immigration does fill a need in some
sense. They allow employers to avoid investing in capital and rely
on cheap labor. That has economic consiquences, not all of which
are good or benificial to the people who live here.
It is probably true that if you count the entire population of the
world in the aggregate, unrestrained immigration is an overall
good. If, however, you count just the people who already live in
the US, it is not an overall good.
|12.27.07 @ 3:37PM|#
Well, it is fundamental so you shouldn't have to derive it
from anything.
If it's so fundamental, how is it that so many centuries of
civilization have passed with nobody besides a few prodigies like
you recognizing it as such?
Wishing for a pony for Christmas does not make a pony for Christmas
a fundamental right. Sorry.
x,y|12.27.07 @ 3:38PM|#
They have a right to come here, they ought to also then have a right to determine how things are done.
So if I come into your house, I can tell you what to do?
GinSlinger|12.27.07 @ 3:38PM|#
Yes, John the Irish were farmers, of a sort. Generations before, prior to the enclosure movement in Ireland. And, just so you know, the farming practices of Ireland, and in fact, most of the US, were not what you would call "skilled."
Timothy|12.27.07 @ 3:40PM|#
It is probably true that if you count the entire population
of the world in the aggregate, unrestrained immigration is an
overall good. If, however, you count just the people who already
live in the US, it is not an overall good.
And here, ladies and gentlemen, is where John admits that he thinks
millions upon millions of people should be denied opportunity
because they did not have the good luck to be born in the US. This
is where John admits that he is a jingoist and a bigot. There it
is, John, there it is: in order for the US to remain "on top" you'd
damn millions to a life of destitute poverty all the while not
understanding that free trade in labor raises the boats the same
way that free trade in goods does. Your world view disgusts and
preturbs me.
|12.27.07 @ 3:40PM|#
"John,
Your history is so unreal, I don't even know where to begin in
correcting you. How 'bout we start with JamesTown in 1607 and work
our way forward?"
Let's start with that dumbass. Jamestown was a corporation that
sent urban people to a wilderness. They had lots of skills but not
the right ones. I defy you to show me one source that describes the
colonists at Jamestown as unskilled. That is just not true. Try
again.
"On October 1, 1608, a company of settlers arrived aboard the
English vessel Mary and Margaret with the Second Supply. The
journey took roughly three months. The company recruited these as
skilled craftsmen and industry specialists: soap-ash, glass, lumber
milling (wainscot, clapboard, and 'deal' - planks, especially soft
wood planks) and naval stores (pitch, turpentine, and tar). Among
these additional settlers were eight "Dutch-men" ( consisted of
unnamed craftsmen and three who were probably the
wood-mill-men--Adam, Franz and Samuel) "Dutch-men" probably meaning
German or German-speakers), and Polish craftsmen, who had been
hired by the Virginia Company of London's leaders to help develop
manufacture profitable export products. There has been debate about
the nationality of the specific craftsmen, and both the Germans and
Poles claim the glassmaker for one of their own, but the evidence
is insufficient.[6] Ethnicity is further complicated by the fact
that the German minority in Royal Prussia lived under Polish
control during this period.
William Volday/Wilhelm Waldi, a Swiss German mineral prospector,
was also among those who arrived in 1608. His mission was seeking a
silver reservoir that was believed to be within the proximity of
Jamestown.[7] Some of the settlers were artisans who built a glass
furnace which became the first factory in America. Additional
craftsmen produced soap, pitch, and wood building supplies. Among
all of these were the first made-in-America products to be exported
to Europe.[8] However, despite all these efforts, profits from
exports were not sufficient to meet the expenses and expectations
of the investors back in England, and no silver or gold had been
discovered, as earlier hoped."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown,_Virginia
|12.27.07 @ 3:43PM|#
"There it is, John, there it is: in order for the US to remain
"on top" you'd damn millions to a life of destitute poverty all the
while not understanding that free trade in labor raises the boats
the same way that free trade in goods does. Your world view
disgusts and preturbs me."
That is because you are an idiot Timothy. It is called national
sovereignty. The people of this country have a right to do what is
best for them in the same way the people of Mexico have a right to
pass laws and do what they feel is best for them. The government of
Mexico doesn't owe Americans anything and the government of the US
doesn't owe Mexicans anything. It is not nor should it be our duty
to save the world.
|12.27.07 @ 3:44PM|#
"So if I come into your house, I can tell you what to do?"
If you can't tell me to leave it is not your house, it is our
house.
highnumber|12.27.07 @ 3:46PM|#
x,y:
Not even a little?
How about if I tell you that I got that she was joking on the first
read? Maybe that stings a bit?
No?
C'mere! SMACK!
|12.27.07 @ 3:50PM|#
I'm sure only the upper crust were displaced by the potato
famine, I'm sure that's exactly who got on crowded ships for a
three week journey across the Atlantic
Timothy,
In John's world, white folks are automatically skilled
laborers...
GinSlinger|12.27.07 @ 3:52PM|#
OoooOOO, the great Wiki has spoken, all tremble in fear.
"Upon his return to England, Smithn - always eager for new
adventures - joined
the expedition that founded the Jamestown colony in 1607. An
iron-willed
disciplinarian, he tried almost single-handedly to keep a
quarrelsome, inept, and
frequently dissatisfied party intact. In his reports to his
superiors Smith deplored the
lack of skilled labor, complaining that too many of the colonists
were "gentlemen"
who found "not English cities, nor such fair houses, nor at their
own wishes any of
their accustomed dainties, with feather beds and down pillows,
taverns and alehouses
in every breathing place . . . For the country was to them a
misery, a ruin, a death, a
hell.""
excerpted from the introduction to The True Travels,
Adventures, and Observations of Captain John Smith
(1630).
Timothy|12.27.07 @ 3:53PM|#
I'm an idiot because I don't see a reason to value your welfare
more than the welfare of a Pakistani because you were born here and
speak the same language? Nice to know. I'll keep that in mind while
I'm not drooling on myself and banging my head into the wall
repeatedly screaming about my helmet.
I mean, I wish I could be an enlightened xenophobic jingoist like
you, but I'm just far too stupid I'm afraid. Woe is me, for I
cannot see the light! Woe is me! Where's my helmet? French fried
potaters!
GinSlinger|12.27.07 @ 3:53PM|#
John,
A silk weaver in a land of no silk is definitely not
skilled labour in any meaningful sense. Furthermore, being able to
make a kick-ass carne asada most certainly is skilled labour.
VM|12.27.07 @ 3:54PM|#
"If, however, you count just the people who already live in the
US, it is not an overall good."
what the fuck does that even mean?
confirmation bias much you weak-kneed pencil fucker?
|12.27.07 @ 3:55PM|#
Smith deplored the
lack of skilled labor, complaining that too many of the colonists
were "gentlemen"
who found "not English cities, nor such fair houses, nor at their
own wishes any of
their accustomed dainties, with feather beds and down pillows,
taverns and alehouses
in every breathing place . . . For the country was to them a
misery, a ruin, a death, a
hell.""
You are misinterpreting it. Lack of skills meant the "right
skills". Yeah they were city people who had no idea how to live in
the wilderness, but they were not unskilled. They had skills, just
not the right ones. The Jamestown collonists were not the poor and
desparate of England.
|12.27.07 @ 3:56PM|#
Here's another: do we let the guest workers date and marry American citizens, as they will? Because if we do, we'll find a lot of our guests have become permanent members of the household.
It's clear that Megan McArdle doesn't know anybody who has recently
married and had to go through the legal immigration process.
Marriage no longer means guaranteed
citizenship.
I have a Canadian friend who is a)going to college in the US
b)married to a US citizen and his only saving grace was that she is
on Social Security for a disability. If it weren't for that, he
would have been a "no-go".
Let me repeat that again, he is healthy, young, motivated, getting
an education, paying his own way working above board and paying
taxes, from a first world country, married to a US Citizen and he
would have been deported had she not been on the US dole.
You of course realize, that since they are now married his income
prevents her from receiving "public assistance".
|12.27.07 @ 3:59PM|#
VM,
It means this. If you allow everyone in the world to come into the
US, the US will be a hell of a lot less livable than it is now.
Markets equalize themselves. Lets say you opened up the border to
Mexico. People will migrate from Mexico to the US until the two
standards of living are equal. BAsically, the wages in the US will
go down and the ones in Mexico will rise until you hit some kind of
equalibrium. That is great if you are Mexican. If you are an
AMerican, that kind of sucks because the equalibrium is below what
what you have now.
Elitist fucks like Timothy, who would never live in a neighborhood
inhabited by immigrants or have any contact with them beyond using
them as underpaid slaves, expect average people in this country to
sacrifice their standard of living in return for helping out
everyone else and call them racist when they voice any
objection.
|12.27.07 @ 3:59PM|#
I suppose we should rub away that "Give us your tired, your
poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free" statement from the
Statue of Liberty and replace it with John's asinine statement
above in italics...
I wasn't aware that the laws and public policy were made in this
country by posting inspirational slogans on statues.
If that is the case, how about I just put a statue of lady liberty
on my front lawn wielding a baseball bat, with a plaque that says
"G'wan! Get the fuck outta here!", and we'll just call it even?
VM|12.27.07 @ 4:00PM|#
gah!!!!!!! froth froth spittle spittle.
ahem.
*prints out and heads to Stevo's bunk*
GinSlinger|12.27.07 @ 4:00PM|#
Not at first John. Though again, I must say that being a
silversmith in 1608 Jamestown most decidedly is unskilled
for the purposes of Jamestown. Secondly, since you're such a
history buff, I'm sure you have a dog-eared and annotated copy of
American Slavery American Freedom right beside you. Okay,
pick it up and read the several hundred pages describing endentured
servitude. Those are some pretty skilled laborers, huh, I mean the
street trash of London and Liverpool and all. Then, read some more,
how skilled in tobacco planting were the first Africans bought off
the Dutch in 1619?
I read Smith's comments perfectly correctly, it is you that would
put a database admin on a desert island with you because he is
"skilled" and leave behind a Pacific Islander, because he is
unskilled.
VM|12.27.07 @ 4:00PM|#
"If that is the case, how about I just put a statue of lady
liberty on my front lawn wielding a baseball bat, with a plaque
that says "G'wan! Get the fuck outta here!", and we'll just call it
even?"
only if at least one breast is exposed.
(sorry for double)
GinSlinger|12.27.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Lets say you opened up the border to Mexico. People will
migrate from Mexico to the US until the two standards of living are
equal. BAsically, the wages in the US will go down and the ones in
Mexico will rise until you hit some kind of equalibrium. That is
great if you are Mexican. If you are an AMerican, that kind of
sucks because the equalibrium is below what what you have
now.
In other words, Mssr. Moose, ZERO SUM GAME!!!
Timothy|12.27.07 @ 4:04PM|#
Trade isn't like osmosis, John, but I shouldn't expect you'd get it. I can point you in the direction of a number of good books on trade, but you can't read, so it'd be like giving a stand mixer to a chimpanzee: amusing, but ultimately pointless.
VM|12.27.07 @ 4:05PM|#
ZEROSUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*hysterically runs around in circle, screaming wildly*
|12.27.07 @ 4:09PM|#
Er, I may be missing something, but isn't the real concern being
expressed by McArdle that if we register folks, we WILL have to
deport them, whereas in the current system it is a practical
impossibility?
Isn't the argument that because of the ambiguity of the illegal
immigrant - that they are accepted in certain roles like farming
and utterly unacceptable in public conversations, we are more
permissive than we would actually be if we knew exactly what
everyone's status is?
I have to admit, I have these concerns. When you create the guest
worker option, you create an object to contrast against the
background of the illegal immigrant. If it turns out not to be
preferable to be a guest worker (i.e. you lose your competitive
advantage), we will have only created a backlash. If it turns out
that guest workers 'abuse' the system by getting married and
becoming involved formally in US culture and don't want to go home,
we will have created a backlash.
Maybe I'm paranoid, but somehow I like the notion that there is no
practical way for lonewacko to get his way right now. It is
impossible to come up with the enforcement resources he wants. It
is impossible police the border the way he wants unless we create a
Great Southern Army. It just can't be done no matter how much he
screams about it. By way of contrast, who becomes the target of his
ire when a bunch of people register and can be found?
Tacos mmm...|12.27.07 @ 4:09PM|#
Lets say you opened up the border to Mexico. People will migrate from Mexico to the US until the two standards of living are equal. BAsically, the wages in the US will go down and the ones in Mexico will rise until you hit some kind of equalibrium.
This assumes that economics is a zero-sum game, an old Marxist saw
that has long been disproven.
VM|12.27.07 @ 4:10PM|#
MARKUSEN ET AL:
INTERNATIONAL TRADE. THEORY AND EVIDENCE.
MCGRAW HILL.
ISBN 007040447X
PEMBERTON AND RAU
MATHEMATICS FOR ECONOMISTS.
MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY PRESS
ISBN 0719033411
ASYMPTOTIC VARIANCE ANALYSIS!!!! ASYMPTOTIC VARIANCE
ANALYSIS!!!!ASYMPTOTIC VARIANCE ANALYSIS!!!!ASYMPTOTIC VARIANCE
ANALYSIS!!!!ASYMPTOTIC VARIANCE ANALYSIS!!!!ASYMPTOTIC VARIANCE
ANALYSIS!!!!ASYMPTOTIC VARIANCE ANALYSIS!!!!
Timothy|12.27.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Those are pretty good books, I really like the Markusen one a lot, VM. I haven't read the Pemberton/Rau book, but have heard it's quite good. It came highly suggested by a prof of mine.
Tacos mmm...|12.27.07 @ 4:13PM|#
You are misinterpreting it. Lack of skills meant the "right skills". Yeah they were city people who had no idea how to live in the wilderness, but they were not unskilled. They had skills, just not the right ones. The Jamestown collonists were not the poor and desparate of England.
No, but the Jamestown colonists were a small minority of the
English migration to the new world. By far the largest group were
the so-called Scots-Irish, who were, in their skillsets probably
largely comparable to the Mexican farmer of today.
|12.27.07 @ 4:15PM|#
If it's so fundamental, how is it that so many centuries of
civilization have passed with nobody besides a few prodigies like
you recognizing it as such?
Well, putting aside your unnecessary dickweedishness in that
response you're going to be hard pressed to find any fundamental
freedom which hasn't been ignored, suppressed or unrecognized
throughout thousands of years of civilization. Let's take just one:
freedom of speech (or do you deny that is fundamental as well?).
The vast majority of civilizations have not recognized any such
fundamental right and have violently opposed many who sought to
employ it. If that is really your standard, you're going to be
hard-pressed to find many fundamental rights that have a long
history of recognition by civilization. In fact, quite the
contrary, civilizations have a long history of, if anything,
not recognizing fundamental rights. So, are you really
sure you want to rely on history as your guide in this area?
highnumber|12.27.07 @ 4:16PM|#
I'm getting some great visuals from this thread:
The statue in Pig Mannix's front yard, complete with a rusted out
Chevy Nova on blocks, patchy lawn, chain link fence along the
sidewalk. (Look for Cook County Assessor's pix of Phoenix,
IL)
...
The chimp trying over and over to make a decent mango margarita,
finally hurling the blender against the wall in rage (I pictured a
blender, not a mixer)
...
John's monitor dripping with spit and mucus
...
VM running around screaming, flapping his arms, while Timothy aims
the trank gun, firing, missing, firing again, missing
again...
...
Youranus...uh, never mind.
VM|12.27.07 @ 4:16PM|#
Pemberton Rau is a good one for the basics. Dixit's
"Optimization in Economic Theory" (Oxford Press. 0198772106 is
aother goodie.
Gave the chimp the sand mixer to distract him from the tray of
glass dildos.
"They had skills, just not the right ones"
you mean they sailed a bunch of liberal arts students over
there?
VM|12.27.07 @ 4:19PM|#
Highnumber -
actually it's spit, mucus, fecal matter, and a little blood.
Similar to what's smeared on his left wrist...
(sorry for the double)
GinSlinger|12.27.07 @ 4:19PM|#
Ahh, Mssr. Moose, you wound me to the core. Liberal Arts skills are always applicable.
Timothy|12.27.07 @ 4:19PM|#
VM - Man, optimization problems are so fucking sweet. I love
them, I want to give hugs to optimization problems and prance with
them next to a tranquil woodland stream. Of course, my math ain't
what it used to be, so they might try to drown me in the stream and
then run off with a bear or something, but that's okay, I love them
anyway.
Must...read...more...books.
VM|12.27.07 @ 4:23PM|#
Gin - totally!
Timothy - woo hoo! Envelope theorem for all!
[booing]
Hamiltonians for some. LaGrangians for others.
|12.27.07 @ 4:24PM|#
This article is just rubbish.
But the negative duty not to harm outsiders exists prior to
clubs, and denying people the ability to cooperate with one another
violates their rights in a very basic way.
Clubs have every right to make sure members don't give away
communal goods for their own benefit. We don't live in a
libertarian paradise, government is involved in almost every
transaction that we have. In practice most of the low skill
immigrants who immigrate to the US use more government services
than they pay in taxes. Doesn't that matter?
Also in the real world, there are *billions* of poor people. We
could double the population of the US with immigrants and there
would still be *billions* of poor people. If you take away US
citizen's collective say in their lives, by saying anyone has the
right to live in the US, they di
Timothy|12.27.07 @ 4:26PM|#
VM - Hamiltonian sounds suspiciously like the cursed physics! I will have none of that, sir!
|12.27.07 @ 4:26PM|#
I meant to finish by saying,
.., they will disinvest in their communities and country. It will
be everyone for themselves.
|12.27.07 @ 4:30PM|#
"This assumes that economics is a zero-sum game, an old Marxist
saw that has long been disproven."
That doesn't mean it is a zero sum game at all. Just because there
are losers in a particular transaction, doesn't mean that it is a
zero sum game. Mass immigration is great if you run say a chicken
farm. It is not so great if you are a high school educated native.
It creates economic displacement and winners and losers. As BP
correctly points out, people have a right to have a collective say
over their lives. People here have rights as well. It is not just a
question of someone else's rights to move here.
VM|12.27.07 @ 4:36PM|#
hamiltonian for continuous time dynamic optimization. think: solvling the Ramsey model or Arrow-Romer or the other macro growth models......
|12.27.07 @ 4:41PM|#
So, are you really sure you want to rely on history as your
guide in this area?
Let's put it this way - I'm probably on firmer ground relying on
history than you are yanking unheard of rights out of your
ass.
By your standard, what can't be declared a fundamental
right?
Waitin' for my pony......which hasn't historically been recognized
as a fundamental right, either.....
Timothy|12.27.07 @ 4:43PM|#
No, it's a question of you valuing the welfare of poorly
educated Americans over the welfare of poorly educated foreigners
because you think where a person born was important.
Also, the wage effects of immigration are unclear at best.
Card.
A review of a Borjas (et al)
paper. That paper essentially says, "Immigration is one factor,
but certainly not the only one, there are others."
Another NBER
working paper, on border enforcement.
Not that it will matter to you John, you've got a lobbying
organization in your corner. NBER's aggression will not stand,
man!
|12.27.07 @ 4:44PM|#
"Here's another: do we let the guest workers date and marry
American citizens, as they will? Because if we do, we'll find a lot
of our guests have become permanent members of the
household."
This is looking at it all ass backwards. Do not deprive us of the
bounty that is Latin America!
I swear, if I find out somebody in the government is actively
discouraging latin beauties from dating American men, I'll start
the revolution all by myself.
...and no, I'm not screwing the maid!
Timothy|12.27.07 @ 4:45PM|#
VM - MACRO IS VOODOO! :-)
Seriously, though, that makes sense. I just did a lot more micro
optimization stuff in school (trade, game theory, public choice,
tax, that kind of thing).
highnumber|12.27.07 @ 4:46PM|#
This could be the house
(Sorry, Pig Mannix. My imagination is running wild.)
Tacos mmm...|12.27.07 @ 4:48PM|#
People here have rights as well. It is not just a question of someone else's rights to move here.
You're right, it's ecomonic protectionism, which is a morally
bankrupt philosophy as well. If you're a carpenter, it may benefit
you if the city council passes a law preventing more carpenters
from being licensed - as your competition goes down, your pay
stands to go up. But the law artificially distorts the market, and
benefits the politically connected at the expense of the less
powerful. This is the kind of thing that is an anethema to
libertarians. You seem to be thinking that Americans have a right
to have a protected labor market. I'm not sure where you get this
right from, but it's what you're positing.
Unions do the same thing - distort the labor market to protect the
economic interests of the politically connected, but I doubt you're
very pro-union. Odd that you can't see that your philosophy simply
makes the United States one big labor union.
VM|12.27.07 @ 4:52PM|#
Timothy -
no kidding. I prefer to stick to Health and I/O and stuff like
that. but the macro class was tons of fun! did you get to do Solow,
Ramsey, Rebelo, Jones, etc in Macro?
Highnumber -
hier is the haus...
thoreau|12.27.07 @ 4:54PM|#
I swear, if I find out somebody in the government is
actively discouraging latin beauties from dating American men, I'll
start the revolution all by myself.
And let's not forget the Eastern European women.
Or the Asian women.
Or the Arab and Persian women.
Single men of America, unite for open borders!
Tacos mmm...|12.27.07 @ 4:57PM|#
As BP correctly points out, people have a right to have a collective say over their lives.
True, but libertarians believe that collective actions should be
limited by individual rights. In other words, there are something
things that the collective simply can't do to the individual, no
matter the interest of the collective. One of the things that
libertarians view as a fundamental right is the right for
individuals to exchange goods or services as they see fit. To say,
trade money for socks, or labor for food. The collective has no
right to say "you can trade with this person but not that one" or
"you can make this exchange, but not that one." This is the root of
libertarian positions on things like prositution and economic
relations with Cuba. You know this already, and as long as you
neglect to deal with this principle directly, you're not going to
be able to say very much that's meaningful to a libertarian.
Timothy|12.27.07 @ 5:04PM|#
VM - I got mostly RBC and Monetarism, and my adv. macro theory class didn't have a book so I kind of don't remember all of the primary readings. I know we did some Solow, and some IS/LM, and a lot of RBC stuff, but it's been awhile and I don't really remember too much of it.
GinSlinger|12.27.07 @ 5:08PM|#
Who's RBC, Timothy? I know it wasn't the Austrians.
Was it, hmmm
Keynesian?
Dirty bastard, now go take a shower.
|12.27.07 @ 5:12PM|#
John | December 27, 2007, 3:35pm | #
I actually read history books as opposed to getting it from Hollywood. They were farmers and did have skills. Moreover, there was an entire continent to fill. This is not the 19th Century.
Do you also read current
periodicals John?
US Land Area:9,161,923 sq km
US Population:301,139,947
US Population Density:32/sq km
Germany Land Area: 349,223 sq km
Germany Population:82,400,996
Germany Population Density:235/sq km
UK Land Area:241,590 sq km
UK Population:60,776,238
UK Population Density:251/sq km
I could be wrong here, but it looks to me like there is still an
entire continent to fill.
|12.27.07 @ 5:19PM|#
(Sorry, Pig Mannix. My imagination is running
wild.)
Ouch! I'll admit I should probably trim the hedge a little more
often... but things haven't quite come to that yet!
Timothy|12.27.07 @ 5:21PM|#
GinSlinger - Well, Austrian Business Cycle Theory is different than Real Business Cycle theory of the sort that grew up in the 1980s. I want to say it was mostly Robert Lucas's stuff and that of Prescott.
Rhywun|12.27.07 @ 5:25PM|#
There are too many people here now.
And thus we come to the root of the nativist argument: a
misanthropic longing to stop the clock once one has attained one's
desired station in life and wants to deny the same opportunity to
anyone else.
I live in a neighborhood inhabited primarily by immigrants, who
generally work hard, raise families, and stay out of trouble. They
don't give the impression of being "underpaid slaves". Does that
make me an "elitist fuck"?
GinSlinger|12.27.07 @ 5:26PM|#
You might get your Business Cycle from the movies, but I get
mine from books.
Get it? "Lucas"
HAH!
|12.27.07 @ 5:30PM|#
Let's put it this way - I'm probably on firmer ground
relying on history than you are yanking unheard of rights out of
your ass.
Well, no you really aren't. I've addressed the issue you raised -
historical recognition - which doesn't really exist for pretty much
any right, which refutes your attempted insult in the previous post
and you can only reply with more of the same? Further, I offered a
derivation, if you must have one, from freedom of association but
rather than debate the merits you just ignore it so as to continue
your childish responses. Why don't you try explaining what is and
isn't a fundamental right - is it only what the government says it
is?
Perhaps you, like other supposed free-market supporters around
here, just go all statist / collectivist only when the issue
involves people born on the other side of some arbitrary line.
Suddenly we all need the wisdom of the government to tell us who we
can and cannot associate with, but those bastards better not tell
me what I can do with my property or tell me which doctor I can
see... how convenient. With such flexible principles, that seem to
bend in suspicious congruence with your self-interest, I think it
is clear that you don't have much room to whine about anybody
pulling stuff out of his ass.
VM|12.27.07 @ 5:36PM|#
that's right, Timothy.
And Gin- New Keynesian econ is a big component in the "salt water"
programs on the coasts (MIT, etc), but it's not to be confused with
the politicized conceptualization of Keynesianism that you think of
hier... (Bernanke, Mankiw, Akerlof - that approach is the
identification of market imperfections and nominal rigidities).
That old Keynesian stuff, Freedman's Monetarism, etc. are mainly
there as building blocks (just as you often learn the classical
model, too).
(Actually - Post Keynesian and Austrian actually do share quite a
bit in common, such as "unknowledge".)
Prescott is a RBC guy - they assume output is always at the natural
level and movements or fluctuations in output come from things like
technological progress. It's heartily criticized (negative
fluctuation is technology backtracking????). they also don't think
changes in money have an effect on output (empirically shown to be
the opposite). It has some good analytical techniques that really
can be helpful when looking at other "schools" of macro...
ABC theory. there's some "solid" work. /sarcasm. [ducks]
Timothy|12.27.07 @ 5:41PM|#
You could even say that ABC theory is golden. Although,
realisitically, probably not as "easy" as (Fed Chairs) 1-2-3.
Keynesianism and straight Friedman are there as a way to understand
what's happening in the neoclassical theory that's pretty much the
standard these days. Unless you go to NYU, then it's REAL
Keynesianism: inflate your way out of a depression, fuck the long
run...it's crazy talk. I keed, I keed.
VM|12.27.07 @ 5:47PM|#
But you go to NYU to have Prof Greene teach you
econometrics!!!!
(his book, "Econometrics" is the bible)
yay!!!!!!!!!
GinSlinger|12.27.07 @ 5:48PM|#
Hey, Moose,
One of the depts I'm applying to is Harvard and have even
considered cognating in econ. They do pretty good stuff there
that's not econometric? 'Course with Emma Rothschild as an advisor,
I might never need step foot in an ec01 class.
VM|12.27.07 @ 5:51PM|#
AW KRAP. Premature posting, again today. ARGH!!!!!!
Anyhoooo, some of the posts on this thread really caused the
WTF meter to go haywire!!!
OMG!OMG!OMG! Gin - that's awesome!!!! check out Prof McCloskey
(hier)
for another angle on econ history.
i'll email yoooooo!
Timothy|12.27.07 @ 5:51PM|#
Moose - That's true, but then you suffer the dirty stink of Keynesianism! It's dirty! I can read his book without getting dirty!
GinSlinger|12.27.07 @ 5:57PM|#
Yeah Moose, I'm familiar with his/her work (too cruel?). And her
work on rhetoric is actually been a bit of a starting point for my
own. Unfortunately, there are very few good depts in my
sub-field/specialty and I couldn't justify going there.
You familiar with
Niall Ferguson's work? A bit conservative in some of his ideas,
but I like his square model.
|12.27.07 @ 6:03PM|#
I made this argument the other day and will repeat it:
Even most libertarians I know seem to give their family much
preferential treatment. It's not that they hate other people or
think them inferior, they just feel this connection to their
family. They won't just let anyone walk in their house, getting the
benefits and such. They don't hate them, they just have these
preferences for the way things are.
Many Americans can project this feeling outside their family to
their community, and then even to their nation. (This is why I can
give a shit about the state of, say, Mt. Rushmore, even though I
don't live near there or own any property rights nearby.) And they
don't think people should just be able to walk in, get the benefits
of the "family" and ultimately change the family willy-nilly.
Especially if that walk-in brings higher than average social
pathologies to your home...
|12.27.07 @ 6:46PM|#
I made this argument the other day and will repeat
it
I notice you left out religion, race, and sexual orientation -- as
well as eye color, hair color, handedness, and a host of others --
as characteristics that "many Americans" can project their familial
feelings to.
Why?
|12.27.07 @ 6:55PM|#
Lets say you opened up the border to Mexico. People will
migrate from Mexico to the US until the two standards of living are
equal. BAsically, the wages in the US will go down and the ones in
Mexico will rise until you hit some kind of equalibrium.
That explains why wages in Connecticut are equal to wages in
Mississippi as well as equal to wages in Puerto Rico.
|12.27.07 @ 6:57PM|#
Even most libertarians I know seem to give their family much
preferential treatment. It's not that they hate other people or
think them inferior, they just feel this connection to their
family.
Of course, because we know our family, we interact with them, we
know their character and have some kind of history with them. This
is not much different from saying I give preferential treatment to
my friends - I know them, there is something about what I know that
makes me like them etc. This says nothing whatsoever about the
treatment of complete strangers, much less governmental
treatment of complete strangers. If you say I prefer a stranger
born in Missouri to one born in Mexico for no other reason than
that, even though that is your right, I think it's essentially
racist. It's no different in my mind to preferring a white stranger
to a black stranger. In those cases you have no reason to offer
such preference other than the arbitrary classification of birth
place or skin color. To equate that with preferring one's family or
friends is completely inapt even if it weren't confusing personal
action with state action.
Further, if you wish to say that a community can extend the
preference for family and friends to prevent someone born in Mexico
from being part of it, then you must distinguish on some principled
grounds how that is different from a community wishing to exclude
blacks. That means you must offer a principled difference between
the categories "black" and "Mexican" in such a way as to render
excluding one wrong while excluding the other acceptable. If you
can't offer such a distinction, then when you justify your desire
to exclude Mexicans you are justifying another's desire to exclude
blacks.
So which one is it - can you offer a meaningful difference between
the neighborhood, state, nation, etc., that wants to exclude blacks
from the one that wants to exclude Mexicans (or limit them to some
acceptable number) or do you admit that excluding one is the same
as excluding the other?
|12.27.07 @ 6:57PM|#
"I notice you left out religion, race, and sexual orientation --
as well as eye color, hair color, handedness, and a host of others
-- as characteristics that "many Americans" can project their
familial feelings to."
Actually, I did not mention any characterstics upon which the
preferential treatment was based on. The only one was "being part
of said community." Members of the community have an admittedly
irrational preference to other members, a feeling they are all in
it together. And while they don't hate or think inferior others,
they also won't just willy-nilly admit them.
|12.27.07 @ 7:01PM|#
"That means you must offer a principled difference between the
categories "black" and "Mexican" in such a way as to render
excluding one wrong while excluding the other acceptable."
Blacks that are citizens are part of the American community. They
are part of the family. Mexicans are not. That was easy...
"This says nothing whatsoever about the treatment of complete
strangers, much less governmental treatment of complete
strangers."
But that is the point, most people in this nation don't see the guy
in Missouri and the guy in Mexico as equally "complete strangers."
We see the guy in Missouri as a fellow American, a member of our
nation and culture. I realize libertarians don't see that. But they
don't see a lot of things...
If your family is white (you happened to be born into a white
family) you prefer white folks over black folks EVERY DAY. You
racist you ;).
|12.27.07 @ 7:08PM|#
You might think that, just as in a family of four siblings it is wrong for the mother to arbitrarily prefer one to the other three but still ok for her to prefer any sibling to a non-family member, it is wrong for there to be racial/ethnic/etc distinctions between members of the American community while still thinking it OK to prefer our own by turning away some strangers from squatting on our lawn...
|12.27.07 @ 7:10PM|#
Blacks that are citizens are part of the American community.
They are part of the family. Mexicans are not
Before the end of slavery, blacks were not citizens - In Dread
Scott the Supreme Court declared that could not be
citizens. Was it ok (not legally, morally) to exclude them then?
Are you really going to hang such an important moral distinction on
the government declaration of "citizenship"? I mean how circular is
that? Government (community, neighborhood, etc.) wishes to exclude
group A - government declares group A to be "non-citizens". Problem
solved.
Also, in the time of Jim Crow, black were most certainly
not consider part of many neighborhood's and state's
"family" - was it ok to exclude them then?
That was easy...
Not really. Try again.
|12.27.07 @ 7:15PM|#
If your family is white (you happened to be born into a
white family) you prefer white folks over black folks EVERY DAY.
You racist you ;).
Yes, I realize you were joking, but in my post I said "If you say I
prefer a stranger born in Missouri to one born in Mexico for no
other reason than that" ... with the implication that the same
qualification applied in the following sentence about preferring
whites to blacks. I only point this out because it gets brought up
a lot - there is nothing wrong with preferring individual A who
happens to be white to individual B who happens to be black if you
have a reason for that preference - maybe person A is your sister.
But if you prefer person A to person B simply because of color then
yes, that would be racist.
|12.27.07 @ 7:18PM|#
I see Brian Courts has made essentially the same argument, but
since I typed it, I'll post it...
Blacks that are citizens are part of the American community.
They are part of the family. Mexicans are not. That was
easy...
In 1855, Mexicans could come and go across the national border at
will, and did. The vast majority of blacks in the US at that time
were slaves.
Similarly, through 1924 and well beyond, no immigration controls
were applied at the Mexican border because of the reliance on
seasonal migrant labor in the southwest. Meanwhile, the freedoms of
black citizens in the US were being more and more limited by
governments at every level.
You apparently see nothing wrong with whatever happens to be the
boundaries that separate who is in the "national" "community"
"family" from who is not. How do you justify this belief?
|12.27.07 @ 7:18PM|#
Ugh, yeah I hate corrections but some made in the haste of being busy are too egregious not to correct - that is "Dred Scott"
|12.27.07 @ 7:37PM|#
"I only point this out because it gets brought up a lot - there
is nothing wrong with preferring individual A who happens to be
white to individual B who happens to be black if you have a reason
for that preference - maybe person A is your sister. But if you
prefer person A to person B simply because of color then yes, that
would be racist."
Uhh, yeah. The reason for my preference is the guy in Missouri is
an American, part of my family.
"Before the end of slavery, blacks were not citizens - In Dread
Scott the Supreme Court declared that could not be citizens."
No problem here, I, like many Americans at the time, thought the
Supreme Court wrong. Maybe a court has declared that my adopted
nephew is not "legally" part of my family. I know this is not the
case though. He is.
|12.27.07 @ 7:38PM|#
"You apparently see nothing wrong with whatever happens to be
the boundaries that separate who is in the "national" "community"
"family" from who is not. How do you justify this belief?"
How do you justify your second cousin from getting preferntial
treatment from you?
|12.27.07 @ 7:49PM|#
How do you justify your second cousin from getting
preferntial treatment from you?
Because I choose to give my second cousin preferential treatment.
But I do not need to justify how I treat people in my private
affairs.
It is using the authority of the government to enforce a notion of
"family" that not only runs directly against the principle of
inalienable individual rights, but also appears to have no rational
or objective bounds, that needs justification. Do you have one that
doesn't amount to "might makes right"?
|12.27.07 @ 7:57PM|#
If I think "America" is my family then yes, who gets let in and is given preferential treatment (citizenship with all its rights) is a family affair, just like your preference for your second cousin, isn't it? Again, I realize many libertarians do not abstract at that high of level, but many of us do.
|12.27.07 @ 7:58PM|#
Just like you, and your family, have say over you, and your families, property, Americans have say over American property. We can make decisions on who we want to come live in our "house."
|12.27.07 @ 8:11PM|#
Just like you, and your family, have say over you, and your
families, property, Americans have say over American property. We
can make decisions on who we want to come live in our
"house."
Just what is this "American property" you speak of? I don't think
anyone is debating whether foreigners have the unequivocal right to
work on BLM lands or air force bases or the like. Pro-free
migration people are claiming that foreigners have the right to
work on private property for private businesses and live on private
property in private homes.
The government should have no more say over who lives or is
employed in those private arenas than they have over speech or
religion in those private arenas.
Tacos mmm...|12.27.07 @ 8:13PM|#
No problem here, I, like many Americans at the time, thought the Supreme Court wrong. Maybe a court has declared that my adopted nephew is not "legally" part of my family. I know this is not the case though. He is.
You were alive then? Christ, that must be a record.
What you keep skirting around is that these divisions, unlike
friends and family, are largely arbitrary. We don't choose our
family. We choose our friends from among our acquaintances. But the
vast majority of humanity exists for us only as an abstraction. Why
should I feel more for a man I have never met who was born in El
Paso than one who was born in Juarez?
|12.27.07 @ 8:17PM|#
Many individuals own property in what we call the United States of America, but the entire property of the USA belongs, in some respect, to all Americans (we can make the laws that pertain to all those property owners, even the "libertarian coercive laws" like tresspassing or murder). This land, is "our land."
|12.27.07 @ 8:18PM|#
"What you keep skirting around is that these divisions, unlike
friends and family, are largely arbitrary."
Holy shit, family is not largely arbitrary? You mean you chose your
family after extensive interviews?
highnumber|12.27.07 @ 8:20PM|#
...the entire property of the USA belongs, in some respect,
to all Americans...
Hey, hey, hey! One injustice at a time, partner!
Tacos mmm...|12.27.07 @ 8:21PM|#
If I think "America" is my family then yes, who gets let in and is given preferential treatment (citizenship with all its rights) is a family affair, just like your preference for your second cousin, isn't it? Again, I realize many libertarians do not abstract at that high of level, but many of us do.
Lizards think of nothing but themselves, to the point that many
will eat their own young. Social mammals and almost all humans can
form a close relationship with their family or pack. Most humans,
again, can extend that relationship to more abstract groups - all
people of their race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, etc.
It's a rare human being, like Albert Schweitzer, who can extend
this boundry to to include all of humanity into his family, but in
general, we do not call such people "incapable of abstraction." We
call them enlightened.
|12.27.07 @ 8:22PM|#
If some army comes and lands on "your" property many Americans
who do not own that property will come and fight to get them off
it.
It's because while we recognize you, within our system, "own" your
land, that it is also "American soil" and that you are a "fellow
American" whom we will fight for, even if we do not personally know
you...
highnumber|12.27.07 @ 8:26PM|#
So you'll die to protect my house, but you won't let me hire my
Mexican cousin?
You're a weird dude.
Tacos mmm...|12.27.07 @ 8:30PM|#
Holy shit, family is not largely arbitrary? You mean you chose your family after extensive interviews?
"Chosen" is not the opposite of "arbitrary."
Tacos mmm...|12.27.07 @ 8:33PM|#
It's because while we recognize you, within our system, "own" your land, that it is also "American soil" and that you are a "fellow American" whom we will fight for, even if we do not personally know you...
They could fight for me as a fellow American or not, but I would
expect them to be there because my tax money pays their salary. If
it was all about feelings, soldiers and sailors would work for
free.
VM|12.27.07 @ 8:34PM|#
"You familiar with Niall Ferguson's work? A bit conservative in
some of his ideas, but I like his square model."
do not know, but thank you for the introduction. Most Womby!
W.r.t. Prof McCloskey- she's a really cool person and talks about
both halves of her life very openly. and has a great sense of
humor!!
there's some neat work on linguistics and economics (on
immigration, for example) - "money variety of language" and on game
theory with persuasion and language in action (pragmatics). That's
really cool, too!! Hell, Michael Porter is at Harvard, so that's
great, period! :)
"Again, I realize many libertarians do not abstract at that high of
level, but many of us do."
many = ??? many do, many don't. great.
how is that a "high level", besides that "many" is a difficult
number to reach when counting?
High - oh yeah? not as strange as... something else!
|12.27.07 @ 8:37PM|#
Many individuals own property in what we call the United
States of America, but the entire property of the USA belongs, in
some respect, to all Americans (we can make the laws that pertain
to all those property owners, even the "libertarian coercive laws"
like tresspassing or murder).
Why again do you or a majority of Americans get to decide who I can
have on my property or in my house?
And just what are the limitations on this authority?
|12.27.07 @ 8:39PM|#
"They could fight for me as a fellow American or not, but I
would expect them to be there because my tax money pays their
salary. If it was all about feelings, soldiers and sailors would
work for free."
WTF? The Police take care of people who call who actually pay no
taxes. All the time. So do firemen or rescue squads.
Even homeless people with no income are protected by our
police.
Not Mexican homeless folks, by our police.
|12.27.07 @ 8:40PM|#
"Why again do you or a majority of Americans get to decide who I
can have on my property or in my house?"
Why can a majority of Americans decide that we will provide police
protection to those who violate your property? Maybe we should
leave you to defend it yourself (an interesting proposition when
you are 80).
Tacos mmm...|12.27.07 @ 8:48PM|#
WTF? The Police take care of people who call who actually pay no taxes. All the time. So do firemen or rescue squads.
Even homeless people with no income are protected by our police.
The police are interesting in that they really have a dual role.
The protect individuals and property, but they also act as a
mechanism of governmental control of the same. One can argue that
with the poor, and especially the homeless, the latter is much more
the case.
Not Mexican homeless folks, by our police.
I won't argue that in practice boundaries, borders and nations are
very real things. But I will say that determining the value of one
human being relative to another by such measures is not a practice
to be endorsed or encouraged.
|12.27.07 @ 8:51PM|#
Why can a majority of Americans decide that we will provide
police protection to those who violate your property?
What is Latin for "non sequitur" again?
Maybe we should leave you to defend it yourself (an interesting
proposition when you are 80).
The anarchist thread is two doors down to your right. You will find
that many there think that this is hardly a threat.
|12.27.07 @ 9:32PM|#
But, seriously, since you seem to think that the fact that
government protects property within its dominion is an argument for
legislated discrimination against those born elsewhere...
The argument is completely circular. The government chooses whom it
protects. As it happens, government dominion is based on territory.
Therefore, government protection accrues to residents of the
territory.
What does this say about freedom of travel, labor, residence, or
association?
Click \'n\' Learn|12.27.07 @ 9:39PM|#
JasonL says: Maybe I'm paranoid, but somehow I like the
notion that there is no practical way for lonewacko to get his way
right now. It is impossible to come up with the enforcement
resources he wants.
You don't understand my position. Unlike many others, I realize
this is a war of HeartsAndMinds, and I know that it's actually
pretty easy to get what I want. The only problem is finding
people to go out and do that, but I'm sure I can find some
volunteers next year.
The corporatists at Reason might consider job retraining.
|12.27.07 @ 10:41PM|#
"Just what is this "American property" you speak of?"
Oh, about 1/3 of the land in the country and trillions of dollars
worth of infrastructure, for starters? Anyone who receives
citizenship dilutes my share of everything the American people
collectively own. We have the right to decide who gets a share and
who does not.
That being said, let's double the number of new citizens we bring
in each year, have lots of guest workers, nail anyone who comes
here illegally or facillitates such activity, and get rid of the
absurd loophole that allow anyone whose mother can sneak across the
line to be automatically granted citizenship. No other important
nation has such a ridiculous policy, and neither should we.
Rhywun|12.28.07 @ 12:25AM|#
Blacks that are citizens are part of the American community.
They are part of the family. Mexicans are not.
I have a Malaysian friend who is every bit as "American" as you or
I. I'm sure many of us who place more importance on the individual
than on the tribe can say the same for a close
Mexican/Russian/Bangladeshi/whatever acquaintance.
The reason for my preference is the guy in Missouri is an
American, part of my family.
I'll try not to take that as creepy as it sounds and just offer up
the observation that there *may* be certain special situations when
Americans are my "family"--such as when travelling abroad and
having a friendly chat with some American strangers, or after an
event such as 9/11 that has national repercussions, but as a
general rule? No. Americans are not my "family" simply because
they're Americans.
Mike Laursen|12.28.07 @ 12:47AM|#
I swear, if I find out somebody in the government is
actively discouraging latin beauties from dating American men, I'll
start the revolution all by myself.
Fuckin' A, I'll back you up on that. In fact, I think all young
women from all over the world should be welcomed to our country
under a guest dater program. Any American male who disagrees should
have his citizenship declared null and void for not being
red-blooded enough.
|12.28.07 @ 2:20AM|#
Oh, about 1/3 of the land in the country and trillions of
dollars worth of infrastructure, for starters? Anyone who receives
citizenship dilutes my share of everything the American people
collectively own. We have the right to decide who gets a share and
who does not.
This hardly is the "American property" that Mr. Nice Guy was
talking about.
And if you'd read the anchor post or the long thread of comments,
you'd know that the topic is whether and how you can dissociate
migration and residence from citizenship.
I certainly have little attachment to a "share" in US government
assets that I can neither monetize nor have any effective control
over, but I would agree with you that the citizens of the US are
who get to decide how and when a denizen becomes a citizen and
acquires his "share".
But that is a question only tangentially and pragmatically related
to the question of whether the US should or rightly must allow him
to reside, associate, and work in the US regardless of his
citizenship.
|12.28.07 @ 9:23AM|#
I trying to understand the particulars of the arguments I see
here, and I'm still fuzzy on where exactly there is a problem in
most cases.
Libertarians are broadly concerned that illegal immigration creates
a class of people without substantial rights - who can be
institutionally abused. My own view here is that illegal
immigration is better than more restricted borders pretty much
across the board.
People like wacko, and I'll be generous here by leaving out the
more outlandish Mexican government aspects of his position, seem to
feel that there is an Us against Them war of culture, wherein
hispanics are involved in some sort of coordinated conspiracy to
'take over' the US. This view of things is so improbable to me it
almost doesn't bear mentioning. People make decisions to cross
largely based on economic opportunity, not to 'take our
stuff'.
Some people seem concerned about The Rules. This is the 'but they
are breaking the law!' argument. Again, I shrug. I jay-walk all the
time. I've been known to drive faster than posted speeds, too. They
are breaking a law that prevents them from being economically
productive. How much can that possibly matter?
I understand the concern about strains on welfare programs, but the
evidence is muddy at best about how bad this problem really is.
Given the thankfully low level of welfare transfers in this
country, I can see maybe that localities may be strained even if
the nation as a whole benefits from the presence of under the radar
immigrants. It seems to me a case can be made for national
transfers to reimburse those states for their losses. Overall,
though, I don't really understand the position that an educated
illegal immigrant working in your country is a bad thing.
There are people concerned about law enforcement being unable to
locate people. As a libertarian, I again struggle with the cost
benefit analysis. I'm willing to live with the risk.
All in all, it just baffles me that this is an issue. I can go with
a guest worker system, but it seems to me that the system as is
doesn't have an overwhelming downside. Immigration reform isn't
anywhere on the top 20 issues I can think of, except to the extent
that people are so worried about it they propose stupid, abusive,
expensive remedies.
|12.28.07 @ 11:14AM|#
Jason, I tend to agree but I do tend to worry a bit about the
"breaking the law" aspect.
It's mostly for the same reason that I worry about illegality in
the context of the Drug War.
First, having unreasonable, and ultimately unenforceable, laws
muddies the reasons for having laws in the first place.
Second, it leads to law enforcement and other government assets
being badly misallocated. For my part, I would prefer to see people
employed to process aplications to expedite the admission of
immigrants than to see them used to block their movement.
Rhywun|12.28.07 @ 12:55PM|#
having unreasonable, and ultimately unenforceable, laws
muddies the reasons for having laws in the first place
One man's unreasonable law is another man's law that isn't
draconian enough. Hence, a stalemate.
GILMORE|12.30.07 @ 12:36PM|#
I live in a neighborhood inhabited primarily by immigrants,
who generally work hard, raise families, and stay out of trouble.
They don't give the impression of being "underpaid slaves". Does
that make me an "elitist fuck"?
no.
it makes you one of the few people who understands the topic from
the position of reality on the ground, as opposed to endlessly
bickering about theoretical positions from which to argue about
good/bad of teh immigrationists
i swear i am so sick of politics
GILMORE|12.30.07 @ 12:48PM|#
JasonL | December 28, 2007, 9:23am | #
... Immigration reform isn't anywhere on the top 20 issues I can
think of, except to the extent that people are so worried about it
they propose stupid, abusive, expensive remedies.
And there, as they say, is the rub.
Well put Jason. This is one of those election-year boogeymen that
will likely churn up some monumentally stupid policy simply for the
purpose of winning votes from the vast number of middle americans
who have virtually no impact from immigration policy in any
case.
This is how 'the war on drugs' started. This is your brain. this is
your brain on carne asada. Ole.
the people i know who seem to be the most intelligent about
immigration policies are NYC cabbies. Ranging from native to fresh
off the boat. (finding a native NY cabbie is like actually getting
pizza from an italian. 1 in 100) In fact, id be willing to hand
over most national policy decisions to a cabal of cab drivers. They
tend to be pretty patient, diplomatic, and realistic types after a
few years of the shit. I get a lot of my best foreign affairs
analysis from these guys. Who better to ask about the impact of
Bhutto's assasination than a recent pakistani emigre? I learned
about satus quo in Haiti last night on the way home. These guys are
like a 24/7 Council on Foreign Relations, and you only have to tip
like $2 for international goodwill.
GILMORE|12.30.07 @ 12:58PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy | December 27, 2007, 7:37pm | #
Uhh, yeah. The reason for my preference is the guy in Missouri is
an American, part of my family
You do know that like every person who read this line
heard...
"da da ding dung ding dung ding dung derng..."
a la dueling banjos.
You got a pretty mouth there friend. This IS the Show Me State. Let
me show you something.
Once i was in Murfreesboro TN with a college friend who was of some
vague sicilian extraction (aka Half Eggplant according to dennis
hopper)
He went into a gas station with a sign that said "owned by White
Christians" to pay for the gas. He didnt come out. I went in to
look for him and he was surrounded by a bunch of bubbas in overalls
squinting at him. I asked what the problem was, and they said,
"what in the hell IS he?"
Yeah, that American brotherly love is something special.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245