Barr vs. Boortz on Borders

David Weigel | April 9, 2008

The popularity of Neal Boortz and his brand of bare-knuckled, national greatness libertarianism is one reason Libertarian candidates do unusually well in Georgia. Georgia libertarian radio host, national audience: Seems like an unalloyed good for Bob Barr. But Jim Galloway listened in to a Barr-Boortz interview and heard the two scrapping about illegal immigration.

Said Barr:

“You set a mechanism internally to determine who is here. And if you catch folks that are here unlawfully, and do not submit themselves to a background check that those coming into this country are going to be required to do, then you send them back to their country.”

Said Boortz:

“It sounds to me that you’re saying, if you find an illegal immigrant in this country, and they’re willing to submit to a background check, that that could open the door to them staying here.”

Said Barr:

“I think as a practical matter, that makes a lot of sense. I’m not sure how you would go about rounding up millions of people and trying to deport them. The key here is security….”

What's Barr's immigration record? The rundown from the restrictionists at Numbers USA is here, and it reveals that Barr voted against most liberal immigration policies, with a few exceptions. Those exceptions were usually for employers.

Rep. Barr voted AGAINST the Gallegly Amendment to H.R.2202. That amendment would have made pilot workplace verification programs (see above) mandatory in five of the top seven immigration states

Rep. Barr voted IN FAVOR of the Pombo Amendment to H.R.2202. He was voting for a massive new program that would have allowed agri-business to import up to 250,000 foreign farm workers each year for a period of service of less than a year.

Before the House passed the H-1B doubling bill (H.R.3736), Rep. Barr had an opportunity to vote for a Watt Substitute bill that would have forbidden U.S. firms from using temporary foreign workers to replace Americans. Rep. Barr opposed that protection. The substitute also would have required U.S. firms to check a box on a form attesting that they had first sought an American worker for the job. Rep. Barr voted against that.

This is the kind of stuff that starts restrictionists' teeth gnashing. How much Republicans and pro-McCain bloggers make of this will depend on whether Barr becomes a threat, and how much he pounds on the issue.

Comments

|4.9.08 @ 12:05PM|#

Wait a minute. Wasn't Barr suppose to be thumping the walls and guard towers border security? I thought that was going to make him relevant, even as it made Paul irrelevant, because it distinguished him from the other candidates? What happened to that theory?

|4.9.08 @ 12:11PM|#

I have to explain this again?

1)There was and is a minority bloc of Republicans who vote on illegal immigration.

2)Ron Paul wasted a lot of effort at attracting them, because the rest of the GOP candidates were fighting for them, too, and Paul's natural support didn't quite overlap with the restrictionist vote.

3)Restrictionists are now facing an election choice between their most hated Republican figure and a Democrat who'll be just as "bad" on immigration. Their votes are no longer being sought by a scrum of candidates.

|4.9.08 @ 12:20PM|#

Dave,
Yeah, I got all that. What I'm asking, is if that's the case, why is Barr walking away from it?

shecky|4.9.08 @ 12:20PM|#

Is it wrong to be depressed that Barr sounds like an improvement over the alternatives regarding immigration?

The Democratic Republican|4.9.08 @ 12:24PM|#

wow. this is unbelievable. sounds like the worst possible combination: barr giving a pansy answer to a question he should hit hard in his home state getting cross-threaded with someone who should be his biggest ally.

Hell of a start to the campaign. I know I'm motivated now.

Episiarch|4.9.08 @ 12:29PM|#

Paul brought an energy to this campaign that Barr just doesn't have. I just don't see him having much of an impact, regardless of how he frames his immigration position.

Fluffy|4.9.08 @ 12:37PM|#

Screw Boortz and his Lonewacko tendencies.

It sounds to me like Barr is OK with Mexican immigrants being in the US, as long as their situation is normalized and we can perform background checks on them.

Hey, that's a pretty great position! Woo hoo Barr!

Now all he has to do is say that he doesn't believe in creation science, and that he won't let the newsletter guys ghostwrite his speeches, and he will have overcome everything that made me blush a bit about my support for Paul.

|4.9.08 @ 12:50PM|#

Barr's positions are certainly preferable to the Islamofascist-fightin' Boortz . . . even if he is a Romneyesque flip-flopper. I foresee him garnering 1-2 percent of the vote, which will replicate the Nader affect of 2000, this time tilting the vote to Obama.

Robert|4.9.08 @ 12:52PM|#

David Brudnoy was an immigration restrictionist too, as is Gene Burns IIRC. I'm trying to remember whether Raymond Scott is too. There seems to be something about being a phone-in radio talk m.c. that has this effect, even on libertarians, at least on the east coast. Blame Bob Grant.

|4.9.08 @ 12:52PM|#

In fact, my estimates for a ceiling of 2 percent may be overly optimistic . . . I just don't see a guy that looks like Barr and has all the charisma of three-toed sloth doing much else.

Orange Line Special|4.9.08 @ 1:00PM|#

I don't know whether Boortz called him on it, but Barr was highly misleading in the quote above. Try to wrap your minds around that: Bob Barr was being misleading either because he's ignorant, or he was attempting to mislead.

In fact, the bit about "rounding up" is every bit as much a misleading statement as Barack Obama said it.

As for the comment from the real or fake Weigel above, I already eviscerated Weigel's argument. If you think his argument vis-a-vis RonPaul and immigration holds any water, read that previous comment and try to think it through.

Episiarch|4.9.08 @ 1:03PM|#

As for the comment from the real or fake Weigel above

The conspiracy goes much deeper than any of us could have originally guessed. Thankfully, we have LoneWacko to see and inform us of the truth.

Taktix®|4.9.08 @ 1:20PM|#

Epi,

I prefer the fake Weigel myself. The real Weigel has too many calories.

Fluffy|4.9.08 @ 1:22PM|#

Lonewacko, here is why you are wrong:

I suppose you will claim that the statement about "rounding up" is misleading because you don't intend to arrest every illegal immigrant. You only intend to make spectacular arrests and harass business owners until illegal immigrants "leave on their own".

I would submit to you that if you put a law on the books and a punishment on the books, you pretty be prepared to actually enforce that law and apply that punishment. If your law and your punishment would be exposed as horrific and unjust if it was instantly uniformly applied to all lawbreakers, it's a manifestly horrific and unjust law.

Laws that are not designed to be enforced are evil. It's that simple. They're either evil because they're selectively applied, or they're evil because they lie in their very existence, or they're evil because they will tend to be excessively harsh because they need to be in order to have the proper "symbolic" value.

Your law and your punishment can't be defended with the claim that they won't actually have to be applied, because "people will get the message". It's actually WORSE if the law isn't universally applied, because [as with the drug laws] that means you are using some persons as sacrificial animals, with no intention of actually applying the law uniformly or fairly.

Let's do the checklist:

If all murderers walking the streets were instantly arrested and had to pay for their crimes, that would be awesome. [Check - just law.]

If all burglars walking the streets were instantly arrested and had to pay for their crimes, that would be awesome. [Check - just law.]

If everyone who has ever smoked pot was instantly arrested and had to suffer the penalties on the books for the number of times they possessed or smoked pot, the result would be an almost unimaginable disaster. [Check - unjust law.]

If every illegal immigrant was instantly arrested and had to be kept in camps while their deportation cases were adjudicated, I think most people would find the resulting spectacle to be an absolute atrocity. [Check - unjust law.]

See how easy it is?

Taktix®|4.9.08 @ 1:24PM|#

I'd vote for a monkey with rabies over Clinton, Obama or McCain, so I suppose Barr will do for now.

And he was slugging down scotch in between takes on Penn and Teller's Bullshit, earing a few good marks in my ledger...

Taktix®|4.9.08 @ 1:24PM|#

That should be:

...earning a few...

Duoh!

Episiarch|4.9.08 @ 1:36PM|#

The real Weigel has too many calories.

Wow, calling Dave fat. That's low.

stain on my notebook|4.9.08 @ 1:51PM|#

I'd vote for a monkey with rabies over Clinton, Obama or McCain

Don't know about that. Maybe a healthy monkey, but one with rabies might be embarrassing on the world stage. Now a dolphin as president - that would be cool!

Orange Line Special|4.9.08 @ 1:54PM|#

Truly some "fluffy" thinking up above. The plan I'm suggesting is actually the opposite of requiring InternmentCamps (or boxcars, or lines of buses as corrupted hacks like to portray for useful idiots).

Under the plan I'm suggesting, we'd do things like conduct stings against those who are known to employ large numbers of IllegalAliens, and then prosecute them with the vigor that the BushAdmin has used against BorderPatrolAgents. Now, who could object to going after crooked businesses? (Yes, around here that's a rhetorical question).

And, we would not do the things the BushAdmin has done that have made the situation worse for the vast majority of Americans. For instance, the BushAdmin made it easier for banks to profit from money that was earned illegally. That's called PublicCorruption. Now, who could support PublicCorruption? (Yes, around here that's a rhetorical question).

The goal is to get IllegalAliens to go home *on their own* and is to specifically avoid InternmentCamps, boxcars, and the rest.

Rimfax|4.9.08 @ 1:57PM|#

Taktix®,

Wait a sec! Tell me more about this rabid monkey. Will he survive long enough to take office? Who's his running mate?

|4.9.08 @ 1:57PM|#

"Barr's positions are certainly preferable to the Islamofascist-fightin' Boortz . . . even if he is a Romneyesque flip-flopper. I foresee him garnering 1-2 percent of the vote, which will replicate the Nader affect of 2000, this time tilting the vote to Obama."

Don't forget that Nader will be in the race as well, which will balance out by taking votes away from Obama.

|4.9.08 @ 2:00PM|#

Now, who could object to going after crooked businesses?

If the law under which they are deemed "crooked" abrogates individual freedoms, I would.

(Yes, around here that's a rhetorical question).

Damn.

Now, who could support PublicCorruption?

If the alleged "corruption" is in the unquestionable service of individual freedoms, as in this case it is, I would.

(Yes, around here that's a rhetorical question).

Damn again.

Nash|4.9.08 @ 2:00PM|#

Ron Paul wasn't for deportation either.

Rimfax|4.9.08 @ 2:01PM|#

Ah, I see the lonewacko's point. By making sure that illegal immigrants can't get work from anyone legitimate, everything will magically be all better. Hooray for lonewacko! Cause making something illegal always fixes things.

Taktix®|4.9.08 @ 2:03PM|#

Hey lonewacko.

Why are there even any illegal immigrants here? I mean, it's against the law, right?

Taktix®|4.9.08 @ 2:04PM|#

Wow, calling Dave fat. That's low.

I totally didn't mean it like that. I'm not worried though, I'm sure Dave has a thick skin...


...aww, dammit!

Episiarch|4.9.08 @ 2:07PM|#

The following ATHF exchange is for LoneWacko:

[Shake believes a cashier is Mexican]

Master Shake: What do you mean no? Do you know how much this check is for? Because I, do not.

Clerk: Uhh, we don't cash checks here.

Master Shake: And I don't respond to threats. Let me say it one more time in a language I like to call English. Or maybe I should say it in Mexicano - Get back dero and casho de checko amigo - andele andele.

Ignignokt: He's not responding, cup - lay into him some more.

Err: Lay into him some more!

Ignignokt: I've got this Err.

Master Shake: Cash the check!

Clerk: We don't cash them.

Master Shake: Oh me so sorry - well maybe you're in the wrong business - and maybe immigration would like to know about this.

Clerk: Good - because I'm American.

Master Shake: Well I'm not, but when I become one, maybe then I'll legally buy a weapon and we won't have to vote you out office - will we scumbag!

Fluffy|4.9.08 @ 2:10PM|#

Now, who could object to going after crooked businesses?

I deny the premise that the government can deputize me and force me to determine the citizenship status of people who apply for jobs.

For instance, the BushAdmin made it easier for banks to profit from money that was earned illegally.

I deny the premise that a bank should have to give a shit.

If a person brings a bag full of money to my bank and wants to deposit it, great. If you can produce evidence that the money is stolen, I might cooperate with law enforcement. If you can't, step off. It's not my job to help you enforce your drug laws, or your tax laws, or your immigration laws.

The goal is to get IllegalAliens to go home *on their own* and is to specifically avoid InternmentCamps, boxcars, and the rest.

And thus you completely ignore and refuse to respond to my post, which argued that you should not have laws that you admit you don't actually want to enforce as of this moment.

I take the above excerpt as an implicit admission that you don't actually favor enforcement of the immigration laws, because even you acknowledge that the human cost of actual enforcement [if it could actually be accomplished] would be unacceptable.

"Don't worry, they'll get scared and leave long before we could ever actually get to ALL of them!" is not actually a counterargument to my point, sir.

|4.9.08 @ 2:12PM|#

The goal is to get IllegalAliens to go home *on their own* and is to specifically avoid InternmentCamps, boxcars, and the rest.

You have to admit... Lonewacko doesn't play nativist favorites when it comes to the issue of immigration. He believes in going after citizens with vigorously punitive measures while handling undocumented guests with kid gloves.

I suppose that is consistent with the theory that heretics are worse than heathen.

MikeT|4.9.08 @ 2:12PM|#

If more H1B workers were needed, then salaries would be rising accordingly. However, you don't see any reports in the media of normal engineers getting paid bigger and bigger salaries to work in all of these jobs that are supposedly unable to be filled. A simple application of the law of supply and demand would show that the "IT labor shortage" is nothing more than a myth promulgated by companies unwilling to pay a living wage to American employees. Outside of urban areas, American still do many of those jobs that "Americans won't do" like work for gas stations, fast food restaurants and construction work.

Fluffy|4.9.08 @ 2:12PM|#

Sorry for the overuse/abuse of the word "actually" in the above post.

One of these days I have to declare that word off limits and see if doing so cleans up my expression. I think I have a sentence up there where I used it 108 times.

MikeT|4.9.08 @ 2:18PM|#

I deny the premise that the government can deputize me and force me to determine the citizenship status of people who apply for jobs.

Deny it all you want, but you have three options:

1) Comply.
2) Don't comply and face the consequences.
3) Leave the country.

You'll find that most other industrialized countries will be even less sympathetic to you on this issue than the federal government.

If a person brings a bag full of money to my bank and wants to deposit it, great. If you can produce evidence that the money is stolen, I might cooperate with law enforcement.

If you don't cooperate when you are shown good evidence to support the claim that it is stolen, you are morally responsible, as the banker, for any of that money that is spent. If you can't pay the victim back, you deserve to be sent to prison because you were presented with reasonable grounds that the money was stolen from someone else.

Your worldview is transparently morally bankrupt, even by secular standards.

|4.9.08 @ 2:18PM|#

More nonsense from Weigel on the wonders of importing millions of dirt poor people and dumping them off on the American Taxpayers.

Immigrants are poorer, pay less tax and are more likely to receive public benefits than natives," Mr. Rubenstein said, adding that while immigrants account for 13 percent of the U.S. population, they and their children will account for more than 80 percent of the population growth through mid-century.

Mr. Rubenstein, former senior economist at W.R. Grace & Co. where he directed studies of government waste and inefficiency for the Grace Commission, said there is a "deliberate policy of the federal government to suppress the fiscal impact of immigration," and interest groups like big business should be responsible for the information stonewall.

And while arguing that business is the beneficiary of immigration, Mr. Rubenstein said native workers are hurt the most.

Boortz isn't a libertarian by the way. He's a full blown NeoCon who spouts of David Horowitz and John Podhoretz talking points. Ron Paul has enough sense to recognize along with Milton Friedman that open borders with a welfare state is nothing but corporate welfare at its worst.

|4.9.08 @ 2:19PM|#

However, you don't see any reports in the media of normal engineers getting paid bigger and bigger salaries to work in all of these jobs that are supposedly unable to be filled.

They are filling them overseas. It is for many positions less efficient than filling the positions in the US, and it of course allows foreign firms competitive advantages over US firms, and it will eventually result in higher and higher valued positions being filled overseas to be near the lower valued positions, but if the US government wants to hamstring US software firms, they have found a great way to do it.

A simple application of the law of supply and demand would show that the "IT labor shortage" is nothing more than a myth promulgated by companies unwilling to pay a living wage to American employees.

Just how high do you imagine the "living wage" to be?

rabid monkey|4.9.08 @ 2:20PM|#

...And, as President, I would strictly enforce our immigration laws...

Brandybuck|4.9.08 @ 2:22PM|#

Don't forget that Nader will be in the race as well, which will balance out by taking votes away from Obama.

Nonsense! That happened in 2000, and Bush got elected. That so frightened the Democrats, that in 2004 they gave orders to all liberals to vote Democrat. And guess what? They obeyed! Green Party members overwhelmingly voted for the Democrat candidates! In a county near me, 5% of voters are registered Green, yet Cobb only got half a percent of voters on election day. This was in a "safe" state.

MikeT|4.9.08 @ 2:22PM|#

Of course, let's not get into the fact that what we are facing today is a migration, not immigration. 12M and growing? That's enough to pave the way for changing demographics on language and values.

Ask yourself, would you like to live in Mexico and be under the authority of that government? If not, then why would you support a massive wave of migration from Mexico, which is more likely to make large chunks of the United States more culturally Mexican than have the foreigners become culturally American.

|4.9.08 @ 2:26PM|#

"nothing more than a myth promulgated by companies unwilling to pay a living wage to American employees."

There ya go again. If they are not getting paid a "living wage" - how are they LIVING?

And why is it Mexicans can live on this (non living) wage, but not Amuuurricans?

I see no reason to pay Americans more than anybody else. Are they charging ME less for being an American?

MikeT|4.9.08 @ 2:28PM|#

They are filling them overseas. It is for many positions less efficient than filling the positions in the US, and it of course allows foreign firms competitive advantages over US firms, and it will eventually result in higher and higher valued positions being filled overseas to be near the lower valued positions, but if the US government wants to hamstring US software firms, they have found a great way to do it.

And by "less efficient" you mean "entry level" in most cases. I've seen all sorts of nonsense from economists who argue for outsourcing such as calling it preposterous that sending the lower-end engineering jobs out of country will have any impact on the ability of America to train up experienced, native engineers.

You're right, the foreign firms will have an advantage. They'll end up facing American companies that are hallowed out administrative bodies that have exported production of their products to other countries, and they'll clobber them in the world economy.

Just how high do you imagine the "living wage" to be?

Enough to support a family on. They have no problem paying management, people who rarely add any value to the company, enough money to support a family on.

Episiarch|4.9.08 @ 2:28PM|#

If not, then why would you support a massive wave of migration from Mexico, which is more likely to make large chunks of the United States more culturally Mexican than have the foreigners become culturally American.

Yes, it's quite amazing how America is now Ireland...I mean Germany...I mean Italy...

MikeT|4.9.08 @ 2:29PM|#

And why is it Mexicans can live on this (non living) wage, but not Amuuurricans?

When you live 20 people to an apartment and put up bunk bed-capable shelving in walk in closets, it's amazing how little you need to live on.

Episiarch|4.9.08 @ 2:31PM|#

This ATHF exchange is for MikeT:


Frylock: We've got to get to that grill.

Master Shake: I know. You've said it like 93 times!

Meatwad: Hire somebody! Hurry!

Master Shake: Mex-Mexicans! They'll do it! They'll do anything! Who here knows Spanish?

Meatwad: Carl may. His hair is dark.

Master Shake: That's a good thought. I'm gonna ask him.

|4.9.08 @ 2:32PM|#

management, people who rarely add any value to the company,

You win the prize.

|4.9.08 @ 2:32PM|#

"Deny it all you want, but you have three options:

1) Comply.
2) Don't comply and face the consequences.
3) Leave the country."

Oh, I can think of a fourth one. Vote the morons out who support these stupid ass measures. Elect politicians who are for open borders. Then your options, Mike T, when you have to interact with the furrinners are:

1. Do business elsewhere
2. Leave the country
3. Grow up and deal with it.

|4.9.08 @ 2:32PM|#

Deny it all you want, but you have three options:

1) Comply.
2) Don't comply and face the consequences.
3) Leave the country.

You'll find that most other industrialized countries will be even less sympathetic to you on this issue than the federal government.

MikeT -
Are you any relation to Dan T?

Just because America is more free than other countries in this regard does not mean that we should not strive to make it more free by itelf.

MikeT|4.9.08 @ 2:33PM|#

Yes, it's quite amazing how America is now Ireland...I mean Germany...I mean Italy...

It's amazing how our demographics have changed too, like the size of the Roman Catholic Church in America, how there are still ethnic enclaves in parts of the North and Midwest, and how many of the traditional Anglo-Saxon ideas of our founding fathers have been replaced by statist ideas from Central Europe like the Prussian model of education.

But no, Episiarch, you can console yourself by telling yourself that immigrants just don't have any impact on the culture they come to, that they don't have just as much of a chance of changing it for the worse as the better, and that taking in a wave of immigrants is historically proven to remake the culture of the society that receives them. It's not like there are any precedents for that happening in the last 2,000 some years in Europe.

|4.9.08 @ 2:37PM|#

And by "less efficient" you mean "entry level" in most cases.

No. By "less efficient" I meant that outsourcing labor that could be hired in the US were there no immigration quotas makes communication between the US workforce and the foreign workforce more difficult than walking down the hall.

You're right, the foreign firms will have an advantage. They'll end up facing American companies that are hallowed out administrative bodies that have exported production of their products to other countries, and they'll clobber them in the world economy.

And yet you wish to hobble them further by reducing the number and range of people they can employ?

How odd.

Enough to support a family on.

Just what IT laborer do you know who is not paid enough to support a family on?

|4.9.08 @ 2:37PM|#

And why is it Mexicans can live on this (non living) wage, but not Amuuurricans?

When you live 20 people to an apartment and put up bunk bed-capable shelving in walk in closets, it's amazing how little you need to live on.

So what you're saying is...

|4.9.08 @ 2:40PM|#

"why would you support a massive wave of migration from Mexico, which is more likely to make large chunks of the United States more culturally Mexican than have the foreigners become culturally American."

What would be so wrong about that? Different cultures within different parts of America make our country more interesting. What is American culture anyway?

Episiarch|4.9.08 @ 2:41PM|#

and that taking in a wave of immigrants is historically proven to remake the culture of the society that receives them

Yes, we've done it time and time again, but this time it's a real problem, right Mike? I guess we all better get used to eating tostados and drinking cerveza called Tecate. Wait, I already do that! Oh noes, it's already too late!

short, fat bastard|4.9.08 @ 2:43PM|#

If more H1B workers were needed, then salaries would be rising accordingly . . .

We use short, skinny, brown code monkeys from overseas to do the grunt work that no self-respecting white-boy engineer is willing to do.

Not that much different, actually, from landscaping.

MikeT|4.9.08 @ 2:43PM|#

Just because America is more free than other countries in this regard does not mean that we should not strive to make it more free by itelf.

I agree, but Fluffy refuses to face the fact that he/she can "deny" something till the heat death of the universe, but that that has no relevance to what the federal government will do in retaliation for that denial. This is why arguments from the position of an ideal libertarian model are pure bullshit. No libertarian society has ever existed, and no libertarian society ever will exist because most people are motivated by more factors than just freedom, such as ensuring that their children are fed and taken care of.

This is why I scoff at the idealist positions that most of the readers here take. Human nature is almost never taken into account by libertarians. One of the fundamental lies of libertarian economics is that man is a rational animal. Man is a rationalizing animal, not a rational one, and people will often sacrifice freedom if freedom comes at the price of an unacceptable loss of their more fundamental needs.

If you want to balance this out on an immigration policy, you have to balance two needs of Americans, because after all, they are the ones who the federal government supposedly derives its reason for existence from:

1) The need to support themselves and their family.
2) The need to not have the productive forced to support the unproductive.

Immigration is a solution to #2, but a threat to #1, if it comes in too large of numbers and from the wrong type of people. Should foreign students in American universities get visas? Absolutely. Should every Indian or Chinese with an engineering degree get one? No. You bring in the best and brightest, and cut off after that, otherwise you end up with a flooded labor market.

Look at what caused the rise of the Soviet Union: a government that put the interests of the economic elite above the common Russian subject. That was an extreme case, but it is illustrative of how a government cannot ignore the well-being of its common citizens or subjects in the name of advancing the interests of business and established interests. Eventually, the people will have enough, and give their nod to a leader who will swing the pendulum harshly the other way out of anger for what they have been through. If libertarianism is to have any hope of succeeding, it is going to have to take into account human nature and work to create a government that balances the direct interests of as many of its citizens as possible, something that our immigration program does not do.

short, fat bastard|4.9.08 @ 2:48PM|#

Immigration is a solution to #2, but a threat to #1, if it comes in too large of numbers and from the wrong type of people.

Which is why we need to sink those fucking coffin ships and keep those sub-human irish from reaching our shores.

Episiarch|4.9.08 @ 2:49PM|#

MikeT's blog is called Code Monkey Ramblings. It all makes now. An Indian programmer took his JERB!

|4.9.08 @ 2:49PM|#

Yes, employers have to scrutinize everyone's ID and banks thoroughly make sure where all their customers money comes from so that MikeT can continue to eat McDonalds and listen to country music. Otherwise, morally, they should go to JAIL.

Orange Line Special|4.9.08 @ 2:49PM|#

Rimfax says: Cause making something illegal always fixes things.

Thankfully, I already have an answer.

Taktix® says: Why are there even any illegal immigrants here? I mean, it's against the law, right?

Yes, it's against the law. However, obviously, the law hasn't been enforced, and the reason for that is due to PoliticalCorruption. Those "libertarians" who support PoliticalCorruption in this case might want to consider that, in the extremely unlikely event that we ever have a "libertarian" regime, others might support PoliticalCorruption, and might want to set the precedent now of being steadfastly against PoliticalCorruption instead of supporting it.

Most of the other comments are so delusional that I don't want to bother.

Taktix®|4.9.08 @ 2:53PM|#

Lonewacko,

I don't recall giving you permission to address me. My legal department will be in contact with you in a timely manner...

|4.9.08 @ 2:54PM|#

MikeT -
You are sadly mistaken if you think you know anything about libertarianism.

You presume that it is beneficial to only allow immigrants who are the "best and brightest" in. So what do you think, genius, is going to happen when we all get filthy, stinkin rich off of this? Who is going to prepare our food? Who is going to fix our telecommunication lines? Who is going to care for our children while we work, aid our parents in their increasingly healthy old age, and start donut/sub/burger franchises?

You say that libertarians are morally bankrupt, but we actually want people to be able to take advantage of the opportunity that our country provides, and we see them taking advantage of that opportunity as being beneficial to the rest of us. Only elitists see common people making mutually-agreed-upon transactions to meet the needs of each other as a threat to our civilization. Those horrible unskilled bloodsuckers!

Taktix®|4.9.08 @ 2:56PM|#

I'm convinced these anti-immigration folk will not be happy until we're all sitting around a table sipping brandy, wearing leggings and powdered wigs.

Please, someone, explain to me how you have any more right to be than a Mexican working his ass off to feed his family.

And don't tell me that's not true, because I can walk out to my shop right now and bring in 10 guys who do just that.

|4.9.08 @ 2:58PM|#

"This is why I scoff at the idealist positions that most of the readers here take"

Oh, so deporting 12 million people is a PRACTICAL issue. Or is it you are just uncomfortable with people who eat enchiladas and listen to Los Tigres del Norte?

I repeat, I don't believe anyone is ENTITLED, simply by being born here, to being able to support a family. If you can't support a family with all the advantages you have growing up in the USA, then you are an idiot and shouldn't have a family. I certainly don't owe you more to deliver my pizza than I do a Mexican.

short, fat bastard|4.9.08 @ 2:58PM|#

So does THE LOOOOOOOOOOOONEWACKO travel with a native american sidekick rescuing damsels in distress?

|4.9.08 @ 3:01PM|#

Wow, MikeT is against 19th Century Catholic immigration too.

Samuel F.B. Morse would be proud.

|4.9.08 @ 3:01PM|#

Question # 1 - How many of you actually know a Mexican immigrant?
Question # 2 - Do you see Spanish becoming the predominate national language sometime in the next 200 years, and if so, do you think that's a bad thing?

|4.9.08 @ 3:03PM|#

Question # 1 - How many of you actually know a Mexican immigrant?

Oh oh! I do! I DO!!

Question # 2 - Do you see Spanish becoming the predominate national language sometime in the next 200 years, and if so, do you think that's a bad thing?

No, because of mass media. Disney, Nickelodeon, MTV, and the Cartoon Network are VERY effective at teaching the children of immigrants. Much more effective than any government program, btw. Children of illegals know who Hannah Montana is, too.

|4.9.08 @ 3:03PM|#

Should read, "VERY effective at teaching english".

Charles|4.9.08 @ 3:06PM|#

MikeP and MikeT, so alike and yet so different.

Episiarch|4.9.08 @ 3:06PM|#

I know Mexican immigrants, I even took one to Wal-mart (he didn't have a license) to buy gifts for the children he hadn't seen for two years, because he was returning to Mexico after working here for those 2 years to build up some money. What a leech, huh?

There is no fucking way Spanish will overtake English. English is too flexible, and is the language used by the largest science community, entertainment community, and most others. It's just not even a possibility.

|4.9.08 @ 3:08PM|#

BTW, its worth nothing in Mexico theres constant bitching by Mexicans about how American culture is going to overrun their traditional culture.

|4.9.08 @ 3:09PM|#

Question 1. Yes.

Question 2. No. Actually English is going to be more common throughout the world. It is already making more inroads in Latin America than Spanish is in the USA. American movies, cable TV and music, in a nutshell.

Fluffy|4.9.08 @ 3:09PM|#

I agree, but Fluffy refuses to face the fact that he/she can "deny" something till the heat death of the universe, but that that has no relevance to what the federal government will do in retaliation for that denial.

Tough luck, Mike. How's that illegal immigration enforcement working out so far?

I don't employ any illegal immigrants, but it turns out I don't have to, because there are LEGIONS of people willing to subvert the immigration laws. All I have to do is laugh at you about it, and I can do that without exerting myself much.

We're having a normative discussion here, Mike. That means when I deny a premise, I'm arguing with its soundness or justness. If you think that replying, "Nyah nyah nyah nah nah, you have to obey, tough luck," is an answer, then I guess I'll answer you by laughing in your face and pointing to both the current state of enforcement and the likelihood that if H1B visas don't allow engineers to come to the US to work, it's likely that the work will just be outsourced to wherever those engineers actually are, anyway.

Immigration is a solution to #2, but a threat to #1, if it comes in too large of numbers and from the wrong type of people.

There's little evidence of this. I'm sure many economists would take issue with your argument here, and assert that immigration is a net benefit to the economy and therefore to the overall wage level.

But it's not necessary to argue the point. I actually have some sympathy for the anti-immigration position, although my reasons are different than yours. But we aren't actually arguing about immigration right now. We're arguing about whether an employer should be required to document an employee's citizenship before employing that employee. And that has nothing to do with immigration policy, really. It's a question of whether the purchase of labor is a unique economic transaction that requires a higher burden from the purchaser than any other economic transaction, and it simply is not. It should be no more incumbent on an employer to document the citizenship status of his employees than it is incumbent upon you to produce documentation of the tax status or import status of every product you buy. When you are required to produce documentation of the source country of every orange that made up the orange juice you bought this morning, I will acknowledge the justness of your demand that I document the citizenship status of my employees.

If you don't cooperate when you are shown good evidence to support the claim that it is stolen, you are morally responsible, as the banker, for any of that money that is spent.

Hey, I said I might cooperate in that case. The conditions of my cooperation would be: the money is demonstrated to be stolen by due process of law, and a valid court order presented for the funds.

What I would NOT cooperate with is the legal regime that says that all cash is automatically evidence of suspicious activity, and that if anyone brings cash to my bank [or uses cash to buy goods or services from me] that I have to inform on them. You will get no information from me that ordinarily would require a warrant by doing an end run around the 4th Amendment by forcing me to surrender the information as a condition of a banking or business license. You might consider this "morally bankrupt", but I consider the attempt of a state to circumvent the rights of its citizens by creating legal and economic privileges that one must surrender one's rights to obtain to be about 100,000 times as immoral as a banker engaging in wilful blindness regarding the source of large cash deposits.

|4.9.08 @ 3:09PM|#

"most people are motivated by more factors than just freedom, such as ensuring that their children are fed and taken care of."

Freedom allows for feeding your children and taking care of them. We have freedom to educate ourselves and gain skills that will enable us to feed and take care of our children.

"Should every Indian or Chinese with an engineering degree get one? No. You bring in the best and brightest, and cut off after that, otherwise you end up with a flooded labor market."

Mike T. has a common problem of only seeing part of the picture. He sees the hands that the immigrants have with which to work with, but he doesn't see the mouths with which the immigrants have to consume with. When immigrants come over, they not only take jobs, they create jobs as people are needed to provide for their needs. Also, immigrants will only come as there are jobs to be filled here. If there are no jobs to be filled here, they'll stop coming.

|4.9.08 @ 3:10PM|#

I think part of the issue here is that Americans have a different standard of "hard" and "provide for a family" and "work."

|4.9.08 @ 3:14PM|#

The reason I ask both questions ... so few people who comment on these issues actually know a Mexican immigrant. That is not to say that you must know one to have an opinion - it's only to say that many people feed into media-driven assumptions and sound-bytes without knowing the human beings that exist behind the caricature.

|4.9.08 @ 3:15PM|#

Actually English is going to be more common throughout the world. It is already making more inroads in Latin America than Spanish is in the USA. American movies, cable TV and music, in a nutshell.

You'll also notice that most of the big European bands sing in English.

|4.9.08 @ 3:17PM|#

MikeT -
Could you explain to me why flooding the engineering labor market is a bad thing. It would drive salaries down in that sector, sure. Is that, in itself, a bad thing?

|4.9.08 @ 3:19PM|#

Why don't you want poor people to be able to afford computers, Mike T?

|4.9.08 @ 3:32PM|#

bookworm... great point about immigrants as consumers and the jobs they create. Another point: the global labor market presents several inexorable trends, one of which is the gradual elimination of borders as a viable political tool to keep people out of or in a country. This drives the border-freaks out of their minds, of course... but they are punching the wind.

|4.9.08 @ 3:35PM|#

To pile on, English is far, far and away the most popular language on the internet as well. This is not only because of the influence of the US, but also because its one of the main languages of India (1 billion people).

Thanks to the British Empire, English isn't going anywhere.

Taktix®|4.9.08 @ 3:52PM|#

I know, have known, and have worked with many Mexican immigrants and Cuban immigrants.

Now granted, every "community" has their share of shitheads that do bad things, but the vast majority of the guys I met work their ass off to feed their families back home. I knew one kid that was 19 and already had three children of his own.

Oh, and the myth about immigrants making next to nothing is bogus. These guys start out, with no experience, at $14 an hour here in South Florida. They have extensive communities they live in, and know what the going wage is. If one offered them minimum wage (or less, according to some Wackonians), they'd laugh in my face.

And laughing, folks, is a universal expression...

|4.9.08 @ 3:56PM|#

The irrational fear that Spanish will soon be the language of America is made all the more laughable by the fact cited above about India ... the British Empire may be dead as a political entity, but it's culture persists, and even grows ... English indeed may soon become the global language, if it hasn't already.

|4.9.08 @ 3:58PM|#

It's amazing how our demographics have changed too, like the size of the Roman Catholic Church in America, how there are still ethnic enclaves in parts of the North and Midwest, and how many of the traditional Anglo-Saxon ideas of our founding fathers have been replaced by statist ideas from Central Europe like the Prussian model of education.

Just think, if your ancestors had kept all of those papists, you wouldn't have to read me calling you an intolerant dumbshit.

Fucking protestent heretics. ;-)

|4.9.08 @ 4:02PM|#

Question for LoneWacko (or Orange Line Special or whatever)-
Let's assume we can dramatically decrease the amount of illegals in this country. Would you then be in favor of a less restrictive legal immigration process?

|4.9.08 @ 4:02PM|#

Question # 1 - How many of you actually know a Mexican immigrant?

I don't know any, but I do know Peruvian, Salvadoran, Honduran, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Indian, Iranian and Korean immigrants.

Question # 2 - Do you see Spanish becoming the predominate national language sometime in the next 200 years, and if so, do you think that's a bad thing?

I don't think so, but it will continue to be a language that we will hear quite often. I have no problem with this whatsoever.

|4.9.08 @ 4:04PM|#

Come to think of it, add Russia, Turkmenistan, Jamaica, Romania, Hungary, Dominican Republic, Trinidad and the Philippines to that list. Still, no Mexicans though. It must be due to the area.

Happy Jack|4.9.08 @ 4:05PM|#

I am trying to wrap my mind around this open border concept being discused here, are you guys advocating a truly open border where anyone or anything can move across freely with no more consequence that crossing a street, or are we talking more of a anybody who wants to immigrate here can do as long as they go thru some basic citizenship process.

|4.9.08 @ 4:12PM|#

Open borders usually means that anyone can cross the border so long as there is no compelling public interest reason to exclude them, such as their being terrorists, felons, or carriers of contagion.

The effective result is that visas can not be restricted by quota or duration. Otherwise, it's not too different from today.

|4.9.08 @ 4:16PM|#

The effective result is that visas can not be restricted by quota or duration...

...or by type of job allowed.

|4.9.08 @ 4:17PM|#

I like all the illegal immigrants I've met. They have done good work for me. They are humans living hard lives, trying to feed their families. I don't want deportation or walls built.

However, I do get the feeling that this issue is used as a political football. A lot of the people that do want closed borders actually believe the propaganda that 30,000 Al Qaeda, extremist, radical facists are trying to blow us up. So some of these closed border guys are saying hey x million people cross the border illegally every year it does seem possible that one of the a group of 100 islamofacists might sneak in with those x million construction workers. And they could do some terrorism?.....this seems pretty rational given that all three candidates concur with the propaganda that islamofacist may blow us up at any minute.

Now since I beleive the government is more likely to nuke a american city( or assist a patsy) than a random guy crossing the border I'm not too scared of mexican illegals....but I don't undersand how all you people who believe the government would never kill it's own people...and think we have to have bases in Germany, South Korea, Japan, Irag etc...how can you then call people xenophobes for wanting a well protected US border?

|4.9.08 @ 4:19PM|#

happy jack ... given the present geopolitical reality, I think it is best to adhere to the latter scenario, with a thorough process of citizenship and caution. However, your first scenario, with totally open and free passage is perhaps inevitable ... several hundred years or perhaps a thousand years from now. It is a kind of getting-back-to-Babel concept ... I do foresee a world that where borders are an anachronism.

|4.9.08 @ 4:24PM|#

I am 100% against a wall or barb wired border. However, if you don't have a heavily fortified border tehn anyone who is in good shape can hike across at anytime they want.

The mexicans I know just walk across. I'm happy about that personally. I know that others aren't. But as a matter of human reality, it doesn't matter what rule or law you have, as long as that border is not heavily fortified.....people are just going to walk across whenever they want.

I just want to end the fabian socialist welfare state programs. That is our common enemy...not mexicans.

|4.9.08 @ 4:26PM|#

TOTALLY subject ... apropos of a conversation I was in with some folks here yesterday about conspiracy theories ... here is my mea culpa, something that even I can laugh at. Please enjoy this link : http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/09/mccain-and-conspirac.html#comments

|4.9.08 @ 4:27PM|#

Ahem ... I meant TOTALLY off subject. Thanks.

Orange Line Special|4.9.08 @ 4:32PM|#

R. Totale: Yes, I am. I just want all future immigrants to come from Yemen, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. What's that you say?

Happy Jack: I'm pretty sure that Nick Gillespie has idiotically supported a completely open border, i.e., anyone can physically travel across it at any time. The Libertarian platform apparently mentions the threat of such an open border, but they probably support MassiveImmigration without realizing that a major part of the threat of MassiveImmigration is political. That's similiar to "economists" who promote MassiveImmigration without acknowledging all its non-financial and other costs.

IOW, they're living in a fantastic dream world, just as CommieSymps and the "PeaceMovement" were and are. In their magical world, countries like Mexico, China, Indonesia, and India wouldn't try to take advantage of the situation by sending us people in order to obtain secrets (see the recent ChineseMole who was discovered) or to obtain PoliticalPower. And, in their magical land of the mind, homegrown racial demagogues wouldn't join in acting as de facto or de jure agents of those foreign governments.

Arguing here is pretty pointless, so this will be the penultimate comment on this thread.

Taktix®|4.9.08 @ 4:34PM|#

jackal,

I, for one, welcome our giant malevolent dachshund overlords.

Episiarch|4.9.08 @ 4:37PM|#

this will be the penultimate comment on this thread

So it will be your second to last post? What will the last one be, a recipe for nopalitos?

|4.9.08 @ 4:40PM|#

The 12 million people here are Saudis? What?

Happy Jack|4.9.08 @ 4:42PM|#

Carlos and Mike, thanks. So the issue really isnt open vs close borders, but controlled vs uncontrolled/illegal immigration. Wouldnt physically secure border with a streamlined entrance process present a satisfactory solution?

|4.9.08 @ 4:45PM|#

And now, Cesar brings you more, "Fun with Comments on Lonewacko's site!"

Join FriendFinder for Free

Gravatar this is normal in any third world system the problem is not this non government and its murder gangs called homeland security which is being ran by some drug dealer but the people not understand what freedom is and is not, freedom is duty and duty can make you free, the system of non government is our enemy not some third world monkey.

Read the bill of right and get your face out of other people's butt's.

BE Americans once more and pick up a weapon of freedom and march on our enemies inside the Former USA Who now own you and who will use you like some little bitch.

Its the only way back to the bill of right and it is the way of Blood and death.


Freedom and Duty or total Enslavement by the third world rulers who now own your government, what do you want.?
Fred Dawes | Homepage | 04.08.08 - 8:33 pm | #

Oh, but theres more!

Gravatar No.3 go at night take the evil drug dealers flag down of mexico and put it in the bathroom and inside a toilet that is full, if you know what i mean?
both groups hate freedom and need to be put in a big toilet, or people like the La Raza or de la raza pig people will someday become muslims and behead you.

And finally:

Gravatar No. 2 is the desirable action but No. 1 is the only proper action, because, as mentioned, the pro-illegals are amoral, savage monstrosities who love to hunt down patriots and citizens like animals and burn them on the Progressive stake.

Very classy operation there Lone Wacko! Bravo!

|4.9.08 @ 4:47PM|#

Tax ... the giant malevolent dachshund overlords that appear to take great interest in the Satanic phalluses that ring D.C.

|4.9.08 @ 4:50PM|#

Oh no, I found my "favorite" comment on LoneWackos site:

Juan McCain and all the other anti-American traitors want to turn this Anglo-Saxon nation into a race of degraded mestizos.
Fed Up! | 04.08.08 - 3:54 pm | #

|4.9.08 @ 4:54PM|#

degraded mestizos ... lol. Wow, that is a real chuckle-worthy winner ...

|4.9.08 @ 5:04PM|#

Wouldnt physically secure border with a streamlined entrance process present a satisfactory solution?

It is egregiously unpleasant to have a fortified border with a peaceful neighbor. But if it's the political price for the vast increases in liberty and wealth that quota-free immigration would bring, I would think it worth it.

Would I think a fortified border worth it in exchange for the piece of crap comprehensive welfare reform that was being debated in the Senate last year? Absolutely not.

Yet somehow we got a border fence anyway -- without any immigration improvements at all.

Wonderful.

Happy Jack|4.9.08 @ 5:16PM|#

I have peacefull neighbors, yet I still lock my doors at night, and not for fear of them, and to my knowlege they take no offence. How does a country prevent the entry of "terrorists, felons, or carriers
of contagion" without some some of barrier or control. I ask in all sincerity.

|4.9.08 @ 5:19PM|#

I have peacefull neighbors, yet I still lock my doors at night, and not for fear of them, and to my knowlege they take no offence. How does a country prevent the entry of "terrorists, felons, or carriers
of contagion" without some some of barrier or control. I ask in all sincerity.

Thats why I hate the term open borders. I'm not for open borders. I'm for a (metaphorically) high wall and a wide gate.

|4.9.08 @ 5:25PM|#

How does a country prevent the entry of "terrorists, felons, or carriers of contagion" without some some of barrier or control.

It is not at all obvious to me that a country can prevent the entry of undesirables with some form of barrier or control.

But the biggest help will come from the fact that border security will no longer be trying to stop 495,000 harmless people from entering per year and will instead be able to focus on the 5,000 who willfully evade the open gate.

Happy Jack|4.9.08 @ 5:41PM|#

Carlos - "(metaphorically) high wall and a wide gate." Emminently reasonable to my mind.
I cant see how to get there though.

Mike, I see no obvious soutions. I do see a problem with unregulated movenent of 496,000 souls across our borders. How do you cull out those 5000 bad apples?

|4.9.08 @ 5:52PM|#

I do see a problem with unregulated movenent of 496,000 souls across our borders. How do you cull out those 5000 bad apples?

Perhaps I was not clear. Those 495,000 would not be "unregulated". They would come in through the ports of entry with valid visas. Those who fail to qualify for a visa at the port of entry, or those who willfully evade the ports of entry in favor of crossing the (fortified or unfortified) border elsewhere, are who the border patrol will be targeting.

|4.9.08 @ 5:54PM|#

To go back to MikeT's first comment...

If more H1B workers were needed, then salaries would be rising accordingly. However, you don't see any reports in the media of normal engineers getting paid bigger and bigger salaries to work in all of these jobs that are supposedly unable to be filled.

...this morning's Wall Street Journal has a graphic showing starting salaries for new college graduates.

The highest salary is for engineering at $49,707, and the second highest is for computer programming at $46,775.

O, woe! O, H-1B disaster!

Actually, maybe more H-1Bs are being given to artists and philosophers, driving salaries for those majors below $30,000.

shecky|4.9.08 @ 6:17PM|#

How do you cull out those 5000 bad apples?

It's not clear that we're doing it now, with a increasingly policed border. After all, we've had some very notorious terrorists simply walk into the country legally.

Since border enforcement is going after everyone rather than being selective, more bad apples can successfully chance entry illegally. If official border crossings allow open migration, there is little incentive to cross th border unoficially, allowing border patrol to dedicate their resources to pursuing such suspicious acts.

shminky|4.9.08 @ 6:48PM|#

Re: Spanish and English. At one of the Democratic debates some guy from Univision asked the candidates whether there was any disadvantage to this country becoming a "bilingual nation". Apparently, he didn't think the idea was far-fetched. My answer would be Yes, there are disadvantages. I don't want to see this country become like Canada, where Anglophones and Francophones live side by side but separated by language and culture and can't stand each other.

|4.9.08 @ 6:58PM|#

Barr was too busy beating up on homosexuals to spend time joining the vigilantes on immigrants.

DAve|4.9.08 @ 7:21PM|#

Barr gave some really lousy answers on Hannity last week when he was asked if he understands that he might tilt the election to the Democrat and why Republicans and conservatives should be pleased he's running.

Lots of blather, but no actual response that justifies his taking votes from McCain and giving the election to the Dem candidate. Which will certainly happen, if there is even a chance to begin with that McCain can win.

Nobody can convince me, even though McCain is a lousy Repub candidate, that he would be just as bad as Hillary or Obama. Barr is out of line and needs to go away.

|4.9.08 @ 7:53PM|#

I have never ever ever voted democrat(have voted occasionally for a Republican in the past but usually libertarian. I prefer that McCain loses.

I don't want another Republican to ever win again unless they are really in favor of small government, against bases in Korea, Germany and Japan and against the department of education and against New Deal programs.

If we are gonna have communism then bring it on. I want the real thing not some phonied up facist dictator dropping nuclear bombs all over the world.

The imaginary two party staged crap has got to end. If mainstream republicans can't see how badly the individualist are losing in this collectivist-individualist battle then fuck em.

|4.9.08 @ 7:58PM|#

Republicans that honestly believe we are spreading freedom abroad and we need to give up a little more to help the Iraqi's. Have far far too much confidence that we have secure and growing freedom at home.

More importantly they are incredibly stupid because the war has nothing to do with spreading freedom. It is about killing people and making as much money as possible while doing it.

|4.9.08 @ 8:13PM|#

Vote the morons out who support these stupid ass measures. Elect politicians who are for open borders.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Really? Who are you gonna be voting for - the Communist Party? Because to the best of my recollection, it's been years since even a politician publicly identified as a L(l)ibertarian has supported an open borders position.

Keep dreamin', buddy!

|4.9.08 @ 8:30PM|#

Because to the best of my recollection, it's been years since even a politician publicly identified as a L(l)ibertarian has supported an open borders position.

You are, of course, joking.

The two leading vote-getters in California's LP presidential primary (Smith and Kubby) are strongly open borders Libertarians. Hess also passed my quick single-issue glance.

Whether such people in such races have a chance of moving actual government positions is another question, but to claim that there are no open borders libertarians or Libertarians is laughable.

|4.9.08 @ 10:31PM|#

"Restrictionists are now facing an election choice between their most hated Republican figure and a Democrat who'll be just as "bad" on immigration. Their votes are no longer being sought by a scrum of candidates."


And this is good for libertarianism .... why? Even the folks at Reason can't imagine that the people of Latin America will be magically transformed into small government types simply by (illegally) crossing the border. Can they?


Never mind, sorry to bother you with reality. Go back to your pleasant fantasy world.

James|4.9.08 @ 10:35PM|#

"The two leading vote-getters in California's LP presidential primary (Smith and Kubby) are strongly open borders Libertarians."



Open borders Libertarian is a contradiction in terms. The world is not a libertarian place. Inviting the world here makes America a (less) libertarian place. Somehow the self-described "open borders libertarians", who look a lot like plain ole liberals, never manage to notice this.

James|4.9.08 @ 10:42PM|#

"It is egregiously unpleasant to have a fortified border with a peaceful neighbor. But if it's the political price for the vast increases in liberty and wealth that quota-free immigration would bring ..."


Quota-free immigration will not and does not bring "vast increases in liberty and wealth". Geez, you'd think that self-described libertarians would have some clue about how wealth is created. Somehow, the world has gotten a lot wealthier over the last few hundred years. And it's done it without mass immigration.

I don't suppose the people at Reason ever read Hayek or Friedman?

Orange Line Special|4.9.08 @ 11:45PM|#

Congrats to Reason on the Instalanche!

For those who missed it up above, what BobBarr says above about "rounding up millions" was just as misleading when Obama said the same thing.

I wonder, did Barr get his policy in some big box marked only with the stenciled sign "Democratic and/or Republic Policies"?

|4.10.08 @ 12:14AM|#

Quota-free immigration will not and does not bring "vast increases in liberty and wealth". Geez, you'd think that self-described libertarians would have some clue about how wealth is created. Somehow, the world has gotten a lot wealthier over the last few hundred years. And it's done it without mass immigration.

I don't suppose the people at Reason ever read Hayek or Friedman?

In my opinion, the restriction on immigration is a mistake: we should abolish it tomorrow and reopen the most successful attack on poverty the world has ever seen.

-- David Friedman, "Open the Gates", The Machinery of Freedom

economist|4.10.08 @ 1:22PM|#

"They must check a box saying that they first tried to hire an American worker for the position before they can hire a temporary immigrant worker"
"First confirm that you tried to hire an Aryan before you can hire a Jew"

economist|4.10.08 @ 1:23PM|#

James,
Are you the old leftist butthole james or a new conservative butthole james?

economist|4.10.08 @ 1:25PM|#

I'm learning towards new conservative. Unless the old James underwent a conversion experience or something.

economist|4.10.08 @ 1:27PM|#

Sorry, have to post it.
"They took our jebs!"

James|4.10.08 @ 4:42PM|#

In my opinion, the restriction on immigration is a mistake: we should abolish it tomorrow and reopen the most successful attack on poverty the world has ever seen.


I meant the real Friedman, not this David person. And his words are simply demented. Immigration is NOT "the most successful attack on poverty the world has ever seen". China's economy is growing like crazy with zero immigration. (And with zero free market economics, for that matter.) You'd be hard pressed to find a single booming economy in the last hundred years in a country with open borders.




I get the distinct impression that "libertarians" of a certain stripe actuallly think that if we merely cloned another six billion people tomorrow, we'd all be filthy rich the day after tomorrow.

Religious fundamentalists are models of Vulcan logic by comparision. This is ideology of an exceptionally silly sort.

|4.10.08 @ 5:13PM|#

I meant the real Friedman, not this David person.

This "David person" is Milton Friedman's son.

Immigration is NOT "the most successful attack on poverty the world has ever seen". China's economy is growing like crazy with zero immigration.

If China were divided into two nations -- separating the inland areas from the coast -- with free migration between the two, then, yes, Coastal China would be growing like crazy with massive, massive immigration. Inland China would be growing somewhat more slowly -- mostly due to liberalization of the agricultural economy -- and would be experiencing immense out-migration.

In other words, migration is the most successful anti-poverty measure ever seen, as people move from poor places to places that are better capitalized to use their labor. When there is a national border in the way, migration becomes immigration. But its economic effect is the same. Stopping people at that border staunches wealth creation and staunches liberty.

You'd be hard pressed to find a single booming economy in the last hundred years in a country with open borders.

Um... The US prior to 1924?

|4.10.08 @ 7:47PM|#

Perhaps I was being presumptuous to think that your "real Friedman" is Milton Friedman. After all, it doesn't sound like you would agree with Milton Friedman's sentiments on immigration as expressed at length...

"If you have free immigration, in the way we had it before 1914, everybody benefited. The people who were here benefited. The people who came benefited. Because nobody would come unless he, or his family, thought he would do better here than he would elsewhere. And, the new immigrants provided additional resources, provided additional possibilities for the people already here. So everybody can mutually benefit."

"But on the other hand, if you come under circumstances where each person is entitled to a pro-rata share of the pot, to take an extreme example, or even to a low level or the pie, than the effect of that situation is that free immigration, would mean a reduction of everybody to the same, uniform level. Of course, I'm exaggerating, it wouldn't go quite that far, but it would go in that direction. And it is that perception, that leads people to adopt what at first seems like inconsistent values."

"Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It's a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It's a good thing for the United States. It's a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it's only good so long as its illegal."

"That's an interesting paradox to think about. Make it legal and it's no good. Why? Because as long as it's illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don't qualify for social security, they don't qualify for the other myriad of benefits that we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket. So long as they don't qualify they migrate to jobs. They take jobs that most residents of this country are unwilling to take. They provide employers with the kind of workers that they cannot get. They're hard workers, they're good workers, and they are clearly better off."

|4.10.08 @ 8:00PM|#

I meant the real Friedman, not this David person. And his words are simply demented. Immigration is NOT "the most successful attack on poverty the world has ever seen".

By the way, this Milton person I just quoted also says...

"You had a flood of immigrants, millions of them, coming to this country. What brought them here? It was the hope for a better life for them and their children. And, in the main, they succeeded. It is hard to find any century in history, in which so large a number of people experience so great an improvement in the conditions of their life, in the opportunities open to them, as in the period of the 19th and early 20th century."